Blurred Lines and Equally Blurred Minds.

The selective pursuit of fascism at the LSE

The LSE is in dark times, fascism is swamping the campus, one can’t walk down Houghton Street without being barracked by agitators glorifying Mussolini. Cries that Franco-ism once again is ‘la moda’ are met with long and stormy applause. Work in the library is near impossible for the sound of jackboots and vigorous Sieg-Heil-ling. The courageous yet futile attempt of the proposers of the ‘No Platform’ to placate this tide have unsurprisingly been defeated in the Student Union and now surely it can’t be long before an enabling act is upon us. In the words of Albus Dumbledore, soon each one of us will have to choose between what is right and what is easy.

But to return to reality for a moment, and to fight the temptation to which some have seemingly conceded, to think that the LSE is somehow at the centre of a climatic struggle against the insidious march and return of fascism, the ‘No Platform’ motion and the limited debate on it which took place raises some important and interesting issues.  With no doubt the motion in its random, desperate and arbitrary composition of banning fascists, rape apologists and holocaust deniers all under the same banner was most definitely a sad and soiled caricature of how mind numbing student politics can be. Is anyone else left wondering why perhaps Satan worshipers or speakers endorsing cannibalism weren’t included in this unwieldy collection? However there are some serious points which should be excavated as diamonds from the dung hill.

Firstly the refusal of the proposers to accept the original or any variation of the amendment that proposed adding the crimes of communism to the list of ideologies that should be banished from campus. It must first be pointed out that this amendment came from the university’s small number of libertarians who certainly didn’t support the motion’s move to further corrupt the right to freedom of speech, which has come under repeated attack recently, but instead wanted to at least try to introduce a measure of intellectual consistency to the motion. The amendment would have benefited from not using the very broad term ‘Communism’ but instead ‘Marxist-Leninism’ or ‘Maoism’ but its thrust was still most certainly valid.  The proposers of the motion seemed shocked that their explanation for their refusal to accept the amendment was met by laughter and vocal disbelief. As they explained communism is an inclusive ideology a world away from fascism which is focused on exclusion. Surely this is reason enough to ignore the crimes of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky, their enslavement, execution and torture of millions. After all they did so with good intentions didn’t they?

This quite hideous piece of moral relativism and apology for sadism, which was hopeful y and most likely born out of ignorance, is congruent with a wider common laxity of popular indignation and condemnation with which the crimes of communist and socialist ideologues are met by society at large. Quite rightly we all spit on the image and memory of someone like Adolf Hitler but when it comes to a figure like Leon Trotsky, a nutcase equally committed to slaughtering, torturing and locking up thousands of his fellow human beings, the jury is still very much out. We correctly remember the massacre of innocents on the basis of race under the banner of the swastika but turn a comparatively blind eye to the greater number of victims that suffered under the banner of the hammer and sickle on the basis of social class. Very dangerously and repugnantly suffering is made exclusive and those who are often first to be written off are those who were persecuted for the crime of owning property or capital. The Bourgeois doesn’t deserve tears to be shed over them, they can quite simply be forgotten. This is certainly a message which finds an ally in ULU’s decision to boycott Remembrance Sunday on the historically vapid claim that the First World War was nothing but a capitalist conspiracy to slaughter the working classes of Europe.

Secondly, if this wasn’t already enough, very credible concerns were and should be raised as to how such a motion would be applied. Let’s put to one side for one moment the important arguments that were made in the union’s debate against the motion, centred on the need to defend the freedom of speech on campus and freedom of thought, as well as the insult the motion posed to the ability of students to defeat and dismiss far right ideologues on their own intellectual merits rather than being guided and vetted by our enlightened Student Union. This commentator for one has serious doubts that such a motion would have been anything but selectively applied. White middle class males such as David Irving would be immediately and firmly relegated from any hopes of ever being able to peddle his distortions of history in the service of holocaust denial at the LSE. But what about those other advocates and bed fellows of holocaust denial or anti-Semitism which might well have escaped censorship? The response to the question posed by this author at the union debate, inquiring if advocates of Hamas or other Islamist groups which have a less than enlightened attitude towards the European holocaust would be banned under the ‘No Platform’ was met by the proposers as being an unnecessary attack and offense to the university’s Muslims. After all we’re all multiculturalists aren’t we? So holding all groups to the same moral standards just isn’t cricket is it? God forbid, it might even commit the capital offence of offending someone.

It can only be presumed what the proposers of the ‘No Platform’ would have said in response to another inquiry that is worthy of being highlighted. This is, Hamas aside, if the proposes would be willing to condemn the students who quite rightly stand up for the rights and dignity of the people of Palestine for not at the same time being willing to condemn the Palestinian Authority for being led by a man, Dr Mahmoud Abbas, who’s doctoral thesis is a junk piece of history which presents the holocaust as a fantasy manufactured by Zionists. In the face of such an issue one can only imagine that the union would elect to do that which is easy and ignore the issue instead of doing that which is right or at least that which is intellectually consistent. As for the Iranian government’s flirtations with holocaust denial under Mr Ahmadinejad, it’s probably best not even to get started.  

When it comes to attacking the likes of David Irving, Anders Breivik, Nick Griffin or the EDL its no holds barred because we are such non-conformist and edgy moral crusaders here at the LSE. However speaking up against anyone or any group that it isn’t our archetypal image of fascism or anti-Semitism and the call to arms seems to falter. The case in point at the debate over motion was the proposers willingness to ban George Galloway on the charge of rape apology but to hesitate to do so similarly for his services in being the mouthpiece and shameless apologist and glorifier of Baath Party fascism in Iraq and Syria as well as his fundraising and support for anti-Semitic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Say something repugnant in regards to sleeping with someone whilst they are unconscious as being merely ‘bad sexual etiquette’ and you won’t eat in this town again but publically salute the bravery and indefatigability of Saddam Hussein then nobody seems to care if you’re at their dinner table.  Just as Ken Livingston can get away with embracing Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a cleric who believes homosexuality should be punished by death and that its reasonable for a husband to beat his wife as long as it’s done with restraint and moderation, doddering figures like Tony Benn can be lavished with praise even though he’s publically said that Mao Tse Tung has to be viewed as a great figure of Chinese history.

Being on the left and posing as a radical or an opponent of American imperialism is all too often a moral passport to spew whatever obscenities you should so desire. May it be said that if we are to have bans and curtailments of freedom of speech then there are just as worthy candidates as Tommy Robison who are being overlooked.   

 

      

   

Fact Checking ULU Vice President Daniel Cooper

It comes as little surprise to anyone who was witness to last year’s shameful show of glib and tasteless remarks made by the president and vice president of ULU as to why they would not be sending an official ULU representative to the University of London’s memorial service on remembrance Sunday that the same insult is to be repeated once again. The ULU senate, on which sits Vice President Cooper, member of a Trotskyist group which last described the 2 minutes silence as ‘an orgy of militarism’, have decided once again to spit in the face of all those members of their union who believe that it is in no way unreasonable to demand that they have an official ULU representative at the service which commemorates the millions who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of liberty and freedom. Could they perhaps be as gracious to acknowledge that without these great sacrifices their right to make such absurd remarks wouldn’t now exist? Or on a more pragmatic level could they tell us why they think it such a wise strategy if they are trying to defend ULU from closure why they think infuriating so many of its members is a wise course of action? Perhaps they should take heed of comrade Lenin’s remarks that you can’t build socialism on a dead corpse because similarly you can’t defend a union by first alienating its members and giving them a potent reminder of why they really could do without you as well as your Monty Python-esque socialist values.        

However to try and use this space for other purposes than just repeating the words of the already numerous students who are quite rightly outraged at their union’s activities, I would like contest the particular point upon which this debate revolved around last year, which was the respective morality of Britain’s entry and participation in the First World War. Daniel Cooper’s infamous published explanation last year for his refusal to lay a reef, which can still be found on line and should be read by all, centres on the conflict and deserves a reply addressing several points about which Cooper flat out wrong .

Firstly the conflict is framed in his letter as one fought by the working classes of Europe on the command of their evil rulers who were little more than armchair spectators to the slaughter. Understandably this is an image one might pick up from watching Black Adder but going to historical facts this image can be quickly identified as the popularised nonsense which it is. Members of all of Britain’s social classes fought and died in the First World War in equal proportions and without any significant differentiation in the proportion of deaths sustained by each class grouping. This is historical fact. It might also be illuminating to note that one of the social groups which suffered the greatest proportionate casualty rate were Oxbridge alumni . The reality is that this was not class war but one fought and inflicted upon an entire nation. However even with this put to one side surely it is abhorrent to mourn or prioritise members of the war dead on the basis of class as it would be to do so by race or gender? But this wouldn’t be the first time that the far left has sought to disqualify suffering on its pseudo religious worship of class differences.

Secondly Cooper trots out the old and worn out argument that the war was fought for the interests of capitalism seeking colonies and markets around the world as the rich in Britain sent the poor to die to protect their interests and profit margins against the encroachment of the Kaiser’s Germany. If Mr Cooper or any of his Marxists-Leninist-Trotskyite-people’s-front-of-Judea-ist following would care to look at the academic opinion on the conflict from the last 50 years they would realise how thoroughly discredited this argument is, let alone the economics that underlies it, but then again ignorance is bliss. One doesn’t have to do too much reading to find out how horrified global capital was at the prospect of a war in Europe, even a limited one. Walter Cunliffe the then governor of the bank of England pleaded with the British government to stay out of the war along with big business which was horrified the destruction of capital and trade it would cause along with the taxes and inflation that would be required to pay for it. Big business, apart from the very small amount which is concerned with arms production, does not like war, as was manifestly shown by the forced closure of stock market exchanges all over Europe as the threat of war spread in 1914.

Equally the conflict was not caused by the scramble for Africa or a conflict for colonies. This is because despite Lenin’s theorising that new colonies were of the upmost importance to European imperialists and capitalists to exploit new sources of surplus labour, colonies were of no great importance whatsoever in the strategic decision making of 1914. In fact the economic insignificance of owning huge swathes of Africa owed to the decision that the British took to gift the Germans large African territories in the preceding decades before the war. This is because Marx was completely wrong about the tendency of profits to fall, meaning that only diminishing returns could be gained from investing in already industrialised economies, eventually leading to the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Economist Thomas Sowell has shown that despite the spurious and confused figures presented by Lenin in his book on imperialism, advanced capitalist economies invest in each other at a substantially greater rate than they do in developing ones. Because profits don’t irretrievably fall and capitalism is a fluid yet stable system, which creates great prosperity for all social classes, capitalist economics meant that in 1914 the maintenance of empires was not the cause of the war.  Such non-vital issues of national interest had always been resolved by peaceful diplomacy and had never been deemed worthy of risking a world war over.

Instead the British war effort in 1914 was one reluctantly conducted against the militarism of the German monarchy which had, despite the peaceful desires of the German people, launched an aggressive war against France and Belgium in order to gain military mastery over the continent. To not enter the conflict would have been to see the destruction of the French and Belgian democracies at the hands of such a reactionary force which in the words of one of its own commanders was prepared to risk the destruction of the whole of European civilisation to achieve its own dominance and ascendancy because even if Germany went down in flames it would still be a beautiful accomplishment. The Kaiser’s Germany might not have been as archetypally menacing as Hitler’s nor the political institutions of Britain and the other allied powers of 1914 as liberal and progressive as the ones we enjoy today but the success of the allies in this horrific and tragic conflict is something that we should be proud of. Although the peace was definitely bungled, it was fought to protect the core principles which have helped the long arch of history continue to progress towards justice instead of suffering a dramatic reverse and I see no shame in affirming that belief.

So in conclusion unless the leaders of ULU can provide credible historical arguments to back their objections then they should be silent about which they cannot speak and about which we are all too tired of hearing them do so. 

                

      

     

The road to serfdom along blurred lines

The recent decision to ban the song ‘blurred lines’ by the University of London Union and the debate surrounding the decision hinges on one important word, increasingly in vogue as the justification for such bans, namely ‘normalisation’. Seemingly unbeknown to those who wield the word to silence anything they consider undesirable or unpleasant, the word ‘normalisation’ makes those who have any knowledge of the history of totalitarian socialism in Eastern Europe shudder as they see the slogan branded by those who mercilessly crushed the Prague spring in 1968 being used by their own student union. Perhaps its not as bad as having a barbeque to burn copies of the song or calling the policy ‘musical re-education’ but none the less this should hopefully be a disturbing choice of words chosen to label an already worrying policy. Even if this the farce that follows the tragedy under the leadership of Michael Chessum and Daniel Cooper ULU has strived in its commitment to be part of the farcical afterglow which has followed the death of socialism the world over. Decisions like these are increasingly making more students look forward to the end of this year when the union that Chessum and his comrades run is finally closed down and their oh so noble insurgency and twilight resistance against the Clegg and Cameron coalition of doom is finally put out to pasture.

 

To return to the issue at hand, need the argument be restated again as to why some students find the idea of simply banning and outlawing not only a dangerous policy which is a slap in the face of the liberal educational values a university is supposed to uphold and embody  but also one that is exceptionally insulting. Call it radical but perhaps it should be questioned whether clumsily banning such songs is a more dangerous normalisation of a culture of censorship and suppression of freedom of speech than Robin Thicke’s atrocious song which supposedly normalises a culture of rape by simply including the words ‘I know you want it/ You’re a good girl’?

 

Call us old fashioned but some of the subjects of ULU, the author of this piece included, believe that we are grown up and adult enough to listen to such lyrics without them altering our views and beliefs on the gravity of the crime of rape. In the same way feel ourselves being perfectly capable of having a responsible and healthy relationship with the alcohol the union so generously allows us to drink in the ULU bar. An important point does here arise out of that which might seem trivial as to concede the principle that the student union, or any governmental authority, knows best and thus must limit our freedom in order to secure our safety and to act for our own good, is to place ourselves squarely on Mr Hayek’s road to serfdom. To concede that governing bodies are knowledgeable enough as to make such micro managements of society and thus hand themselves the responsibility as well as the authority to do so then there is no limit to the extent to which it can pass arbitrary ruling after arbitrary ruling. Such haphazard attempts to centrally engineer society gain their own momentum as their inevitable creation of more problems requires more disastrous and increasingly indiscriminate measures to salvage the last salvo of blunders. The only thing proved by such irresponsible policy making is the sheer ignorance of government which it was arrogant enough to first presume it possessed.

 

The only way to cover and deny such ignorance is to resort to the bazar and the mystical which brings us back to absurd terms such as ‘the normalisation of cultures of rape or misogyny’.  These terms have no definable or specific meanings and to look for one is to try to nail the proverbial jelly to a wall. However they are terms used to justify the very specific interventions under discussion, because not being able to justify these interventions on the basis of evidence, such as how many rapes are going to be prevented by removing the lyrics ‘I know you want it’ from the union bar, the only defence is to revert into the pseudo religious by indignantly employing such vacant terms, the penalty for challenging which is too often social crucifixion.

 

Its easy to wonder if all this would be 100% clearer if the politically active students on campus spent less time attempting and pretending to read the 1000 stale and incoherent pages of Marx’s Das Kapital and instead diverted their attention to the remarkably slim and easy to read volume which is The Road to Serfdom, authored by that now sadly all too obscure Austrian economist Friedrich Von Hayek. Perhaps injecting a more liberal streak into the body politic of ULU would teach students that their university experience is an invaluable opportunity to realise that if they support or detest different points of view then open debate or learning the art of peaceful co-existence is superior in the long run to forging rods that might someday bind their backs by banning the opposition or creating ‘cultures of prohibition’.

Of Marx and Marxists, Why despite recent interest the old man has nothing to offer us

Every May first portraits of a German philosopher and political economist are paraded down the Kings way in London, followed close behind by those of Joseph Stalin. Levels adoration that the old man never received during his own life time are lavished upon him. There is general confidence and self-esteem amongst the crowd that of course ‘in the end he was right wasn’t he’. His works are of course despite their age still ultra-relevant, possibly more so now than ever and sales are spiking. Once written off his analysis is again making mincemeat of the superficiality and lies produced by the mainstream. He’s continually being vindicated, again and again. Even more moderate centre left figures will pay homage to his name, being correct in spirit if not necessarily on the details.

Though despite this received wisdom and public opinion, which is the art of thinking and repeating what everyone else is thinking and repeating, the white elephant which is haunting the discourse is the spectre of anyone interrupting the festival of smugness and nostalgia by asking the simple question; why? And beyond the buzz words, slogans and well-worn jingles, beyond the famous ‘exploitation of labour’, ‘the internal contradictions of capitalism’ and ‘class conflict’ no answer is readily available. The emperor doesn’t just have new clothes but a new ideology. Copies of Capital line book cases and of course everyone’s read the Manifesto haven’t they . . . haven’t they? But who actually understood what it all meant, why does one get the impression that not many self-proclaimed ‘Marxists’, ‘socialist revolutionaries’ or ‘crypto-Marxist-Trotskyists’ don’t know of the existence of volumes 2 and 3 of Capital, and would most likely be quite upset upon discovering them. Naturally anyone would be having another 1500 pages of cardboard to chew through slung on their plate, instead of spending their time focusing on being revolutionary.

So if one is brave enough to be quite the radical and to go and do some real field research and to climb in amongst the pages of the works of Marx, then what is it, if anything, that you might find that could equip you and benefit your powers of analysis so that you genuinely make the informed comment ‘Marx was right’?

To focus on Capital, which is the work that has been receiving the most revived interest, a set of books which are remarkably chaotic in their composition and organisation, the opening three chapters, dry and technical, though rather easy going compared to the Sahara of Volume 2, is where the flawed foundation is set for the rest of the work. Laying out the labour theory of value as the basis on which his analysis will be built Marx unknowingly places himself over the trap door of future obsolescence that would be flung open by the later advent of the economic revolution of marginal utility theory pioneered by Austrian economist Carl Menger. Indeed it is speculated by some that the halt and resultant non-publication of volumes 2 and 3 in Marx’s life time might have been due to his possible reading of Menger’s Principles of Economics. A remarkably clearer and easier read than Captial, published in 1871, which in a mere 300 pages demolishes and replaces the objective labour theory of value, used by Marx as well as the whole of the classical school of economics, with his new subjective theory of marginal utility.

This revolution in economic theory, which still sits at the centre of modern economic theory today, undermines Marx’s theory of the tendency of profits to fall, put forth in volume 3, causing capitalist economies inevitably be set  on a course to their own destruction. This is of particular relevance to the upsurge in Marxist hype which has been generated by the recent economic crisis. To feel intelligent pointing out the elementary fact that economic crisis do occur is not in any way to vindicate Marx’s analysis as other much more successful analysis of economic crisis exist and have existed before and after Marx conceived of his. It is indescribable how much fury can be felt when hearing these radicals, Tony Benn, David Harvey, Terry Eagleton, Eric Hobsbawm and co making the point that the crisis of 2008 has disrupted the end of history and put Marx back on map as if his theory of crisis is the only game in town. 

Menger’s revelation also despatches Marx’s scientific definition and demonstration of ‘exploitation’ and sends the word back into the wilderness of subjective and emotive meaning, which truthfully is how most socialists quite ignorantly seem happy to use the term anyhow. And ignorance, or even denial, is the appropriate term with regards to how the problems underlying Marxist economics are treated, or more accurately not treated, by writers such as Eagleton in his book Why Marx Was Right or the late Eric Hobsbawm in How to Change the World. It seems that even amongst many of the so called academics and intellectuals the aesthetic of Marx and his revolutionary persona seems more important than any technical substance of his work, as it certainly doesn’t make its way into their own.

Large parts of the rest of Capital, the more readable parts at least, are filled with descriptions of the conditions of the worker and the infamous industrial reserve army. Although horrifying, as has been pointed elsewhere, they are reliant on the very same factory reports which would be used by parliament to bring about the reforms which along with the increased productivity of the capitalist system would raise the living conditions of the working class to heights hither to unimaginable. And again this is another sizeable elephant in the room whose significance is largely ignored by the Marxist faithful. Time has shown us, as it never could Marx, that under capitalism the worker has got richer and richer in real terms and not poorer and poorer, producing not revolution but consumer abundance.   Like nearly all of the mistakes of Marx this one is made again because Marx was no less than an intellectuals product of his time, and even though wrote his analysis by his own will he could not do so under the historical conditions of his own choosing. And has thus perished as a relevant intellectual.

 

          

 

Hurray for the Hawks

Why Obama has so far got it right over Syria

If the Syrian and Russian offer is genuine and Assad is prepared to hand over his chemical weapons stockpiles then there is only one side in the recent argument over intervention that should be celebrating, not that there is much to celebrate about in Syria itself. The hawks and certainly not the doves deserve credit at this particular impasse and only more of the same can bring this prospective diplomatic solution to fruition.

If, and currently this is still a big if, Mr Assad is genuine then who would be obtuse enough to suppose it was anything other than the threat of western cruise missiles that has brought him to the negotiating table. Scared of a shallow grave delivered upon fellow dictators courtesy of the US armed forces, the results of what can only be imagined to have been a probe to test the ground for viability of the use of chemical weapons has come back negative. Unlike its sickening negligence and callous indifference during the Iran-Iraq war or the chemical annihilation of ethnic groups within Iraq itself the international community led by the only actor with the potential for credible and competent action is finally responding in the affirmative.  

The weasel objection that force itself has not yet been used thus far, therefore vindicating the  position of the non-interventionists, is just that. The sustained and continued indifference and disinterest that would have been the response of choice of many critics of the US offers nothing but an invitation for more proliferation. The style of EU foreign policy show cased in the 1990s over Bosnia which wins so many noble peace prizes is not a foreign policy but instead a decision to resign from the responsibility of having one and does nothing to bend the will of undesirable characters such as Mr Assad to our own.

Quite subtly and perhaps a paradox for some, the use of force in cases such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq to punish the crossing of such vaunted ‘Red Lines’ is done with the hope that no such force shall be necessary again and here in lies the real meaning of deterrence. Credible and predictable response to limited yet clear lines being broken is what is necessary to inspire the fear that we might now be witnessing in the Assad camp. Amazingly nothing is new in the realm of realpolitik, if man desires peace then he must prepare for war and those who wish to speak softly must insure that they also carry a big stick.

However, those who don’t quite feel that it is within them to bow down to the logic of the hawk could perhaps appreciate events as the triumph of the owl which we famously saw over Cuba in October 1962 (sincerest apologies if this is becoming too ornithological). The combination of the ready deployment of military assets and tough posturing to impart a belief and confidence in the overwhelming superiority of US arms, especially over Russian onlookers, with a sufficient enough pause to gage reactions is a relative master stroke on the part of president Obama who is not always a deserving recipient of praise in this arena, much like Kennedy before him. Again the word that must be stressed is ‘if’ as it is still early days to know if the Syrians are bluffing or not but if all is as it seems on the surface then congratulations might well be in order.

Triumph however is not yet secured and success in the next stage of securing a credible disarmament deal will require more of the same hard posturing and most importantly perseverance with the threat of force which might well have to be actualised at some point in the future. The ‘lessons from Iraq’ have not been far from the lips of most commentators however for most this means affirming and reaffirming the principle that all intervention is bad intervention especially if it is conducted under the banner of the stars and stripes. The cack handed logic at work in this unconditionally anti-American sentiment, rather resembles the idiotic black and white George Bush-esque hubris which it so strongly despises. Shamefully however we have found that such crude analysis is the opinion of the majority of the British parliament. Surely one of the real and pertinent lessons from Iraq is that if conducted through the UN without any accompanying enforcement of military might, then disarmament processes can wind on without results for over a decade, as was the case with Saddam’s Iraq. If the Russians block or hinder the processes at the UN as they continually did over Iraq then the US must pursue a deal outside of the UN with Assad using the threat of military action to present and cement such an ultimatum.

It of course should be remembered that it was such a bilateral agreement that was used to disarm Colonel Gadhafi of his chemical weapons stock pile. Interestingly this took place after the US, once backed by the UK, showed that it was willing and capable to use military force to remove its enemies if they continually violated key tenants of international law. Gadhafi strangely enough did not go to Kofi Annan or Banki Moon to hand over his WMD but instead went to George Bush and Tony Blair, those so much maligned figures. Boringly for some Mr Blair’s question as to who gains if Western resolve to use military force crumbles is once again  the prescient question that should be at the forefront of the discussion of this subject.

The central argument of this article might well be stalked by the spectre of the word ‘if’ but it is the first time in two years of war that a clear and tangible policy response can be pursued with regards to the conflict and perhaps a small positive can be redeemed from the immense suffering which shows little sign of stopping anytime soon.

 

Syria, The case for Intervantion

Since the alleged chemical weapons massacre perpetrated by the government of Syria upon its own people two forces have been in motion. The first, heads of government, namely Mr Obama, Cameron and Hollande who have now decided after two years of civil war the west has to finally intervene militarily due to the use of chemical weaponry. The second being the sceptical and seemingly much more popular group of critics, backed up by public opinion, who believe that any intervention in a conflict of the severe complexity of that which has been raging in Syria is unwise, potentially endless carrying the likelihood of any number of unforeseen repercussions and coming with no guarantee that the situation left on the ground, after western air forces have disappeared from the skies overhead, will be any better than it was beforehand. Looking at the relevant media coverage it is hard not to conclude that so far the anti-interventionists are winning the argument and presenting a much more convincing case on the side of scepticism and caution. Those in favour of military action seem to be putting across a rather incoherent case centred on humanitarian concerns over the use of chemical weapons against civilians yet apparently ignoring the Syrian government’s far more extensive and utterly devastating use of conventional weapons whose death toll makes the figures of the latest chemical attack pale into insignificance. The apparent message being, kill as many as you want but please use AKs instead of gas in order to cut out the hassle.

Clearly it’s not hard to dismiss such logic as simply absurd and its main support comes from graphic images of chemical weapon produced carnage to tug selectively on our heart strings. But does this mean that there is no sensible foreign policy objective that can be feasibly pursued through military action against the Syrian government? This certainly isn’t the case as long as broad based humanitarian concerns are pushed aside as well as regime change and crucially British national self-interests in upholding the non-proliferation treaty are placed at the centre of any argument made in favour of military action. This is the case that should and must be made in favour of intervention and it’s probably more importantly the case that must be answered by those who disagree with western military intervention. Needless to say the case to be made is not a perfect one as choosing from any and all of the potential policy options regarding the Syrian civil war strongly resembles an ugly baby competition of the highest calibre. Yet it is important to bear in mind that all decision in the realm of foreign policy come with risks as well as necessary pay offs, there is no such thing as a safe bet. 

As stated the premise of any attack must be in service and reinforcement of the chemical and biological non-proliferation treaty because any violation of the treaty by the Syrian government that goes unpunished only increases the incentives for other potentially unstable regimes in the region and around the world to acquire such weapons as proven insurance policies against any possible uprising. Assad must not be allowed to follow in the footsteps of Saddam by being able to use such weapons as a devastating last resort to stay in power, however viewed through the spectrum of British foreign policy, as coldly as it might sound, this is not in primarily in order to prevent loss of life as noted earlier if this were so then the prevention of the use and proliferation of conventional weaponry would also have to be of equal or even greater priority. From a stand point of self-interest the further proliferation of chemical weaponry as well as biological and nuclear only increases future vulnerabilities of them falling into the hands of terrorist groups or unstable state actors. Succinctly put allowing such weapons to fall on Damascus with no repercussions only increases the likelihood of them one day falling on London. Although much unfairly shunned this is what Mr Blair means when he says the prospective consequences of non-intervention are ‘unimaginably awful’.

Setting a strong president on showing the willingness of America, Britain and their NATO allies to uphold the non-proliferation treaty is made even more pressing by the previous statements made by president Obama about the existence of ‘red lines’ which could not be crossed without a military response. If the alleged chemical attack has happened then those red lines have indeed been crossed. Make no mistake the credibility of our resolve to meet our international responsibilities and to deliver on the threats that underlie them is in the balance. To hesitate and to retreat to new red lines, which would be as good as scrapping them altogether, is to give yet another victory to those who wish to do away with international law in everything but name, to do otherwise is to create a brave new reality in which would be offenders know that there is more than a strong possibility that repeating such crimes carry consequences. We do not need to be the world’s policeman; however we do need to police our own interests which rely more than ever on credibility of certain non-negotiable principles, one of which is the use of chemical weapons. To strike Assad is also to send a direct message to Tehran that, much like with Libya, the West is prepared to use military force when it’s most basic of demands are not met. And perhaps more importantly it would also show the Russians as well as the Chinese, to whom we are still their militarily superiors, that even when they exercise their counter-influence, we are prepared to defend our interests which as explained are bound up with our commitments to non-proliferation, entering into their own strategic calculation just how highly we prioritise these very basic requirements of nations.                 

The important accompanying point to this central argument is emphasizing that there is no necessary link between strikes to deter further chemical weapon usage and regime change. Notably, even though it hasn’t entered into many of the recent discussions about the crisis, we will not be the first outside power to conduct airstrikes into Syria with these same motives, as it should not be forgotten that Israel has already conducted several strikes so far, linked to fears of unconventional weaponry falling into the hands of Hezbollah. Airstrikes need not alter the balance of power in a war in which we have no clear ally or interest. All they need to do is to send a staunch message of warning to the Assad regime that its chemical weapons are out of reach and effectively useless unless it wishes to go the way of Gaddafi by fruitlessly opposing western military might. To do this it is not necessary to destroy all of Assad’s conventional military assets, only prove that we could if we wanted to and with ease. The message that needs to be conveyed to Russia and China is that we have no vital interest in regime change, which in the post-Iraq world is a political and increasingly financial impossibility anyhow. They can keep their ally intact for now as long as he abandons chemical warfare and there is no immediate reason why this should not be a palatable compromise.

Understandably there will still be those who believe non-intervention and splendid isolationism is a better bet than entering the unpredictable arena of armed conflict. However as already requested it is against the real politic logic outlined above and not emotive humanitarian knee jerk reactions or gloriously ignorant neo-conservative regime change plans that arguments in favour of non-intervention should test themselves. An answer is needed as to how non-proliferation can coexist with inaction? If this can be done then fair enough, but until then is it too much to ask for an end to the long line of smug commentators pretending to be radically counter consensus making Cassandra moans which equate all western intervention with the Iraq war? These Edmund Burke wannabes are as bad as the Noam Chomskyites who unconditionally reject any suggestion that western military force could ever be used in a productive fashion. To end by borrowing from Karl Marx it is the constant insistence of man to interpret the present through his experience of the past that clouds his judgement of reality, Syria is not Iraq and neither need it be so. Until we can get this into our heads then the ghosts of our past will continue to paralyse us upon every decision we make instead of informing or educating our judgement.      

How to change the world, Tales of Marx and Marxism. Or, a lot of waffle and tired nostalgia . . .

(A review of Eric Hobsbawm’s, How to change the world, Tales of Marx and Marxism)

Never before in field of historical literature has a title of a book been so misleading and unconnected to the body of words on top of which it stands. This is not to say that upon purchasing Eric Hobsbawm’s book, ‘How to change to world’, I was expecting a detailed blue print for doing just that, however I was expecting something a tad bit more dynamic than the regurgitation of the old and well-worn material about Marxism which the book sadly contains. Going by the title one could have reasonably have hoped for at least an engagement with or an analysis of some sort of Marxist thought possibly building on Hobsbawm’s unrivalled experience, at least in duration, of being one of its foremost English scholars. Instead we get a series of essays which provide a disjointed and rather bland chronological narrative of its development, which is acutely uninspiring to any reader already slightly familiar with the subject area at hand.  

The one essay perhaps of any note is the third of the sixteen, ‘Marx Engels and politics’. Here Hobsbawm, much like Terry Eagleton in his recent ‘Why Marx was right’, presents Marxism as something in reality which is distinct from the reputation that it has acquired both through its critics as well as its practitioners. Rather than being a manual from which the iron laws of history can be understood and then identified within the contemporary situation of the reader, thus providing a clear cut illumination of the direct and narrow road to socialism, Marxism is instead presented as a much more loose and non-specific elucidation of economic and historical tendencies. No longer inevitable, but instead increasingly likely, the end of capitalism and its replacement by another economic system, not specified in any detail by either Marx or Hobsbawm, though one that should be recognisable as being somewhat socialist is still forecast.

However this unoriginal apology begs as many questions as it answers. By reducing the explanatory powers of Marxism, by abandoning certain untenable frontiers, characteristic of Bolshevik and other popular hard line ultra-materialist interpretations, an explanatory vacuum is left gaping. What uses are there left for Marxism? Even though triumphantly Hobsbawm reassures us that it still has its uses, subject the modifications that need to be made, which again he doesn’t discuss in any detail, if at all, the critical reader is left wondering and awaiting answers.

An important problem being that most of what is left is not necessarily uniquely or originally Marxist. It is needless to say socialism precedes Marx and that Marx himself had very little to say on the subject. Viewing history as a progressive process towards human self emancipation also has traction elsewhere both pre and post Marx and the same goes for analysing human society through examination of its economic foundations. It is only in this last point concerning the realm of economics that Marx made any original contributions and the relevance of these contributions are not covered at all in Hobsbawm’s work, much like Eagleton’s. The all-important question of the relevance and validity of Marxist economics is that which underlies the ability of Marxism to make any of its pronouncements about capitalism its crises and contradictions and the future spectre of socialism which hangs over it. However by not even attempting to defend or even rejuvenate or modernise Marxist economics, which along with all classical economic theory, was overthrown by the revolution of ‘marginalist’ or subjectivist economics at the end of the 19^th century, Hobsbawm leaves the key stone of Marxism to sink into the abyss of theoretical obsolescent dragging much of the superstructure down with it. How he can do this and then say Marxism is still alive and well is surely the height of intellectual incredulity. Whether Hobsbawm avoids this subject knowingly or not it seems a fit tribute to a theory and an ideology which has always depended much more on its revolutionary and subversive aesthetic appeal than any thorough understanding of Das Kapital.  

We are all Ron now!

(This is a student politics pieces for the University of London Union, quite esoteric)

It was a bright cold day in June, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Student X slipped quickly through the glass doors of ULU. Passing through the corridor that smells of boiled cabbage and entering the gallery bar. Sipping on a Victory gin student X decided to ask fellow alumni, dressed in blue overalls, if they knew anything about the student elections. The fact that the results of the previous election had been annulled bemused Student X but didn’t worry him. It had been done by higher authorities than himself, who naturally must have had his best interests in mind, no need to inquire what those were, after all ignorance is strength, isn’t it? Those in the bar, prudently not wanting to be caught expressing an opinion in the open, produced a small sheet of paper which was slid along the bar for student X’s inspection.

The slenderness of this morsel of paper was immediately apparent, but all concerns were quickly relieved when it could be seen that boldly printed stood the name of the single candidate running in the election. Others had wanted to run for the position, but again the wisdom of higher authorities had ruled against it, and who was student X to question this decree. Under the name of the single candidate approved by the Union leadership stood another box though remarkably unimpressive and almost wilting by comparison. The anaemic characters accompanying the box spelt out the despicable name of the union’s most contemptuous enemy. The subject of innumerable official denouncements and minutes of hate, the presence of this name on the ballot paper was to irrefutably prove how ultra-democratic the student union really was, dare it ever be challenged. But perhaps more importantly the name was there to remind those doubters within the union that dark forces were still amongst them, that fifth columnists were still at large, making the need for unconditional loyalty to the union leadership as vital now as it had ever been. This in mind student X drunk up and left the bar with equal haste and purpose to immediately cast his vote for the Union’s candidate. Any possible advent of the thermidor had to be stopped! But unbeknown to student X the thermidor had already arrived and RON, that despicable Re-Open Nominations, was the only name that could ever have halted it.

The above might be subject to a tiny bit of over dramatization but when one considers how exceptionally apathetic the student body can be in response to the unsettling prospect of spending all of five minutes registering a vote in the ULU elections, such hyperbole might be more than justified. Even though President Chessum, fortunately limited by the duration he can spend in office, can’t hope to quite recreate these scenes, it seems to many onlookers that he’s taken a fair whack at it none the less. It would be incredulous to think that it has been lost on anybody watching that the solution posed for the election of the editor of the London Student, stinks of a catch of the twenty second variety.

After annulling the original vote, on the basis of one line’s worth of comment made in the London Student regarding a candidate, on whose campaign webpage Chessum appears as an official supporter (any implication that this had anything to do with Chessum’s decision is made expressly by the choice of the reader and not this author). Agreement is unanimous that this singular line of print must certainly have defiantly and indisputably skewed the voting process to a point at which any decent person in Chessum’s shoes would have to have annulled the vote and not release the results at risk of popular disillusionment and outrage, which thankfully has been completely avoided.

After the annulment Chessum then threatened to resolve the result of the election by passing it to the body that democratically transcends any mere hum drum student election process, known as the ULU senate, upon which no less than a shameless 5 more names which also appear on a certain list of official supporters campaign webpage also sit. But thankfully the union leadership is going back to basics by re-running the election. Except without re-opening nominations after the Katie Latham dropped out of the running, meaning that it is now one man, one vote, for one man. Such railroading tactics have led many to liken ULU to an authoritarian regime that fashions tin pots and a republic whose main agricultural export is Bananas.

This insidious manoeuvre only adds to the gleaming reputation that the Chessum-Cooper partnership has already managed to make for itself. Notably this is not the first time president Chessum has stood in the way of democratic procedure. Casting our memories back to the dark days of November 2012, the simple request by the over 1500 strong student group calling for a No-Confidence vote to be held against the Vice President of ULU after his public rejection to lay a poppy wreath on behalf of the students of ULU, was continually and persistently blocked by president Chessum. Using the excuse that the signatures collected by the group were not secure because even though the corresponding student ID numbers and college email addresses were also collected with the signatures, there was apparently no way of knowing that those who had signed the petition were not coerced into doing so, or perhaps were in fact aliens. Even those who were not supporters of the poppy campaign can surely recognise that events appear to be repeating themselves as tragedy turns to farce. Add to this the suspiciously timed attempt to No-Confidence the editor of the London Student, Jen Izaakson, who was elected after bravely running against other candidates, on no less than trumped up charges and one finds that there is a latent contempt amongst the top brass at ULU for democratic procedure. Especially as its never been explained how the votes that were made for and against Jen Izaakson were conclusively proved to have been secure, beyond all possible doubt.

This is why voting RON in the sham of an election being held on 5th -7th of June is so important for all those who care about democracy. It’s also for those who wish to truly annoy the self-important fat cats of ULU, elected by a tiny percentage of the student body who then claim to represent over 100,000 students. President Chessum in his scurrilous behaviour is a man who caught short has relieved himself in his own hat and it is now the golden opportunity of the student body to force him to have to clamp that brimming chapeau back onto his own head by making sure RON is triumphant. And with that as your inspiration students of ULU go forth, spread the word and begin the festival of Ron Paul, Ron Burgundy, Ronald Reagan, Ronald MacDonald, Ron Weasly and Popping Ron based memes and jokes upon which this campaign is so crucially staked.

Ben Rogers, LSE

Thatcher on Ice, a sober reflection on the Iron Lady

As divisive in death as she was in life the subsequent outpouring of hatred and praise following her departure leaves one left wondering who the iron lady really was and whether she destroyed the country or saved it from the abyss. It seems clear with such diametrically opposed positions both sides can’t be right at the same time, somebody can’t be both a saint and a devil and one side must be somewhat closer to the truth than the other. However as much as this author sides firmly on the side of saviour, it is important to recognise that both sides have indulged in a healthy measure of myth making as many have attempted the impossible task  of summing up the life and legacy of such a figure in only a few phrases and brief remarks. Indeed as Orwell warns in his essay on Ghandi we should be instinctively suspicious whenever the terms hero and villain are used to describe any fellow mammal or primate and seek to go beyond mere anecdote as much of the coverage of the last few days has been heavily centred around. After taking the time to analyse Thatcher’s life and legacy with one’s brain on ice the story of a remarkable, yet not mythic character emerges and perhaps one more remarkable for not being mythic. A politician whose success can be put down to chance and circumstance as much as her own personal qualities or strengths, as stern and impressive as they might have been. And a visionary who’s impact and legacy was constrained as much as any other politician who participates in the art of government which is the one of recognising the possible, although she certainly revealed the boundaries of the possible to be much wider than anyone had so far presumed.                  

To start with the economy, which has certainly been the mainstay topic of anecdotal assessments of the women who transformed the British economy, the raw stats in isolation might not be as overwhelmingly impressive as many on the right might perhaps hope or presume. Going by the figures produced by The Economist magazine post war growth in Britain had averaged 2.5% being much slower than its continental contemporaries and under Thatcher this was raised only to an average of 2.7%. Although this should be appreciated as being an increase in growth in a period in which most of Europe was slowing down as the Economist comments this was ‘an improvement but no renaissance’. Similarly productivity growth rose from 1% to 2% as large state own industries were privatised and inflation although brought under control and much reduced from previous unstable and rampant double figures was only truly tamed by the Major government. And even though a balanced budget was reached, this was only done by 1989.  And just as with inflation Thatcher’s most impressive accomplishment of reducing government spending as a percentage of GDP from nearing 50% to 35% was an achievement delivered just as much by the Major government as well as by the first term of Tony Blair’s New Labour, as little acknowledged as this may be and as shocking as the latter part might sound.

As deflating as they might seem these are the hard stats and are the real indicators of the success of an economy rather than indexes of rubbish collection or dead people buried against those who are not as the focus on 1979 winter of discontent would seem to suggest. However to quote Victor Serge the problem with economic stats is that they give precise data mirroring that of a coroner’s report, yet like the coroner’s report they don’t on their own always give sufficient appreciation to the fact that the body was once an alive and moving organism and not always the now passive object of examination. In this regard Thatcher’s economic stats can’t be accurately appraised without putting them into their correct context of a country transitioning out of a worn out and obsolete model of big government and social democracy to one of free markets and individualism. This was by no means a small task politically as well as economically. However and the greater and perhaps the most un-recognised aspect of the importance of Margret Thatcher’s premiership is the counter factual of what would have happened to the British economy and nation if such drastic reforms were not put in place at this particular cross road. What if instead the status quo was stuck to or the lunacy embodied in the socialist policies of Michael Foot’s Labour party had triumphed. This might now seem like a distant concern but against an exceptionally unpopular Conservative government it was only by the unwitting hand of circumstance and fortune that such a fate was evaded and Thatcher was not resigned to the dust bin of history alongside Edward Heath the previous unsuccessful reformer. If the Conservatives had been ousted from power quite plausibly like governments before them in an industrial dispute, like the one they backed down from in 1981, then the moribund patient of inefficient and loss making state industries such as steel and mining could have been kept on the life support of tax payer subsidies and their inevitable decline only made worse. Another decade of continued stagflation can be more than plausibly identified as the fate that Thatcher delivered us from and as much as disasters avoided never fair well against the force of popular amnesia hopefully this will be the success, although negative in its nature that will be recognised in annuals of history as Britain reversed its progress down the road to serfdom.

The first of these chance occurrences was by no doubt the splitting of the Labour party under Michael Foot by the forming of the social democratic party. Although one has to wonder how much this was a product of the excesses and eccentricity of Foot, which to an opposition who much like the government realised that the old order could no longer continue, recognising that a further increase in state control of the economy was not a plausible solution. But its occurrence at the vital time at which it did was fortune to say the least.

The second and by far the most important of these critical strokes of luck was the decision of a South American military junta to invade a set of miserable wind and rain swept islands in the South Atlantic. Even though Margret Thatcher’s judgement and determination in seizing the initiative in making the fateful and immensely difficult decision to risk sending a task force 8,000 miles across the globe to recapture the islands, certainly can’t be knocked, it equally cannot be pretended that such conflicts are regular occurrences by which we can test governments in a uniform fashion as we will never know how another leader would have fared in her shoes. Going by the absurd and irresponsible comments made by Neil Kinnock and others in the opposition about the decision to sink the Belgrano maybe the islands would in fact still be called las Malvinas if the Labour party had been in power. The political outcome of the success of the Falklands war was without doubt the single greatest factor in Thatcher’s re-election and the rebound in her government’s approval ratings and the legend could not have been born without this opening presented by chance. However temptations to regard the Falkland’s conflict as purely a cynical grab or manoeuvre in service of spin and public relations should be tempered. At the heart of the conflict and no doubt at the centre of Thatcher’s resolve to retrieve the islands were the more noble values of sovereignty and self-determination in the face of a group of fascist thugs, who if it were not for Mrs Thatcher, might well have continued their reign of terror in Argentina for many more years to come claiming many more thousands of victims. And as much as we should never forget the sacrifice and the memory of the men who died and were wounded in the conflict, the families of each and every one to whom Thatcher wrote to personally, like any just and successfully fought war it has added to the collective experience and narrative of the nation in an elusive yet definite fashion. It might be easy to kick or mock the value of such memories which become legends, but it is examples of courage and valour like those of 1982 which indelibly shape the character of a nation.

It is on this very point of the importance of symbols that the role Thatcher played in the ending of the cold war, and as a champion of both economic and political freedom on the international stage should be understood. It must be recognised if only begrudgingly that there is definitely truth in the criticism made by some that Mrs Thatcher played less than a superficial role in the defeat of the evil empire and that Michael Gorbachev was overwhelmingly the real and most decisive figure behind the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ending of the cold war. Even though Reagan and Thatcher through military posturing put pressure on the Soviet Union in demonstrating without a shadow of a doubt that NATO was the military as well as the economic superior of the Warsaw Pact, the USSR was unquestionably already a crumbling edifice by the 1980s due primarily to internal and not external pressures. Consequently statements banded around along the lines of ‘Thatcher defeated communism’ are hard not to wince at for those with even a tiny bit of knowledge of the history of the cold war, and it would certainly be a wish come truth if those who proudly recycle such sound bites could only hear how they sound. However that which should not go overlooked is that Thatcher as well as Reagan, supported by the intellectual influence of figures such as Milton Freidman and Friedrich von Hayek, became the indisputable figures and symbols of the free market movement which had finally and unashamedly triumphed over its totalitarian enemies. Thatcher was one of the central figureheads of a change in the zeitgeist that occurred in 1989 which had truly global implications.                     

Like any great leader criticisms can most definitely be made of Mrs Thatcher and her government. As has already been said politics in practice is the art of the possible and those who try to present themselves as all things to all men are imposters who should be regarded as such. Even Tony Blair has publically recognised that ‘when you decided you divide’. However many of the criticisms which are popularly made of Thatcher and Thatcherism when analysed don’t really have as much power to them as might be presumed. Ken Livingstone unsurprisingly has been the major go to man for such criticisms during the last few days for major media broadcasters and the criticisms repeatedly listed by him are the following. First of all he claims, like many, that Thatcher destroyed the industrial output of the UK. This claim is simply untrue. The UK is still the world 7^th largest manufacturer and despite unfounded criticism and popular misconception has a manufacturing output in line with the OECD average. Myths surrounding de-industrialisation are explored and exploded in Evan Davis’s great book and documentary on the subject called ‘Made in Britain’ which explains how even though less workers are employed in the UK’s manufacturing sector the value of its output has continued to grow as the economy moves to more high end and technical areas of industry. The argument that suggests that unprofitable steel mills and coal mines should be re-opened at the tax payer’s expense is not only archaic but makes equally as much economic sense as a campaign to put the majority of the population back to pre-industrial state of farming the land. Those who berate Thatcher in this tone of having somehow destroyed the nation’s economy through shifting more people into service industries, seldom take the time to appreciate their higher standards of living which are the result of such measures. If only the woman interviewed on sky news standing on the high street clasping her carrier bags brimming with cheap and imported consumer goods only knew what she looked like before she started criticising Thatcher’s free market policies which have led Britain to integrate into and reap the full befits of the globalised economy.    

The accusation that Thatcher is somehow to blame for the financial crisis that occurred 17 years after she left office is then usually the second and more bemusing critique made of the former prime minister. Not only are the 13 years of New Labour simply removed from history to perform this calculation but Mrs Thatcher is then accused of being the source of all human greed and material desire. Not only is this a perpetuation of the now old and tired myth that an unexplained and excessive pollution of greed suddenly infected the banking system in 2007 thus somehow completely discrediting the dogma of free markets, but it also an argument that fails to understand that it was exactly the detraction from Mrs Thatcher’s beloved free markets through government manipulations of the money supply and the guaranteeing of subprime mortgages by the tax payer that produced the crisis we now find ourselves in. And unless this is understood then we have little hope of getting out of our current economic predicament.

However it is true to say that Thatcher is partly to blame for our current short fall in housing, although this is not true for the reasons that Mr Livingstone espouses. Not only was Thatcher’s decision to allow council house tenants the right to buy their own homes, instead of resigning them to remain rent payers for the rest of their lives without the opportunity to develop any real savings or assets the right one, but her realisation that it was also not the governments job to take control of the housing supply by building new council housing was also correct. However as Professor Mark Pennington has pointed out this move towards the free market was unwittingly sabotaged by the Thatcher government under whom green belt land quadrupled in size meaning that the supply of land for new housing was severely curtailed meaning as the Institute for Economic Affairs has similarly pointed out that illiberal planning laws are instead at the root of the current crisis. Not only does this argument put forward by Livingston and others overlook this burgeoning reality as well as once again omitting the subsequent 13 years of Labour governance, but it also stinks of the poor and backward understanding of economics that Thatcher spent her life fighting against. All too often one can hear Livingston as well as Owen Jones and others in the media blaming current housing prices and rents on greedy landlords, at no point ever entertaining the idea that there might be an underlying economic reality to house prices, as with any other good in a free market economy. A fact that even Karl Marx readily understood.

So it turns out that the real concerns that can be levelled at Thatcher on the point of land policy as well as not curbing the expansion of the welfare state especially in not addressing the ever expanding and unsustainable bill for state pensions or the need for privatisation in the NHS, as was successfully introduced to nearly every other state owned industry are not ones that the left would ever dream of associating themselves with.

However instead of efforts to make or discuss possible constructive criticisms of Mrs Thatcher and her legacy it seems a lot more effort has gone into glib and quite sickening displays of hatred and vitriol which have met the death of the former prime minister.  Even though it must be freely admitted that Mr Livingstone as well as the current Labour leadership have been respectful in their response to the news of Mrs Thatcher’s passing, as should be expect at the death of any human being, there have been those like Mr Galloway who have responded to the news quite shamelessly, though no less shamelessly then one has come to expect. Being the pious and morally righteous man he is Galloway has undoubtedly echoed others in tweeting ‘May she burn in the hellfires’, which only makes this author upset that he doesn’t believe that there is such a hell fire for Mr Galloway to go to. What's more is that these outburst of public celebration are coming from the same people who riled at the scenes of crowds gathering outside the White House to celbraite the death of Osama Bin Laden, a double standard is at work that isn't just lazy but boardering on the obscene. As much as the non-too serious drinks that everyone knew and expected would be had in celebration by Mrs Thatcher’s enemies on the day of her death the utter visceral and neurotic public outpourings have been disgusting to say the least. Though best not engaged with, the thought that does come to mind however is the un-served sentence and guilt, not of those like Margret Thatcher and her government, who had the less than glorious task of dismantling a bankrupt and failing set of state industries dominated by militant unions in order to secure the long term economic health of the nation but of those names and faces who have disappeared from history unnoticed. Namely those who set up and maintained well beyond their sell by date such industries and state concerns which Thatcher now carries the can in many people’s minds for calling to an end. Those who lied and made promises that they could never keep to industrial workers and their families, thus making it more painful for all those concerned by putting off the inevitable dismantling of those industries. Those really at fault will never be put on trial in the court of public opinion or their deaths celebrated. Why? Because they never had the courage to take unpopular decisions. And it is this ignorance and injustice that lies at the heart of the bankruptcy of so many of Thatcher’s fair weather critics.

Not that it should be forgotten however that it was such political confrontation that was the life blood of Mrs Thatcher’s existence, a woman who relished such political dispute and somebody who people loved disagreeing with, though only when she wasn’t in the room. It was this impermeable conviction that allowed Mrs Thatcher to do more for feminism in British politics than any woman before or since. As Christopher Hitchens put it, she one by one outmanoeuvred and put back into the box each one of her male adversaries in her own party in the most inimitable fashion before then going onto those in the opposition. Perhaps the hatred of her by her political opponents is the only too natural response to the reality that there is no other comparable figure in British political history on the left who could seek to claim such adoration or such abhorrence or who’s funeral anyone would care to picket.

Hopefully this is, although another of many positive appraisals of Mrs Thatcher’s legacy, one that is a measure more sober in its analysis. May she rest in peace and may the day be not too distant when we see another Iron Lady on the right of British politics. God knows we need one.    

 

 

                                 

Born to scribble, the attempted journalism of Laurie Penny

After publishing her atrocious article in the Guardian newspaper about why ‘suppression of student protest by the British state’ is at the root of the lack of popular protests against the government’s program of economic austerity, Laurie Penny has shown herself to be even in a free society a strong case for censorship on the charge of crimes against journalism and man slaughter of both reason and prose. Starting her article by comparing herself and fellow anti-cuts campaigners to the victims of European fascism, with the line ‘First they came for the students.’, an act of remarkable bad taste, Penny managed to surpass the tactlessness of Ed Millerand who compared the same group to the civil rights movement of the USA by going one further by flatly trivializing some of the greatest horrors of the 20^th century. Such statements about Penny and her comrades who bare many scars from their twilight existence under the jack boot of the Clegg-Cameron coalition of doom vindicate David Starkey’s spot on description of her as little more than a ’jumped up public schoolgirl’. Penny by becoming such a caricature is a perfect manifestation of Nick Cohen’s criticism of the modern left, in that having their central ideal of socialism so thoroughly trashed, by their own actions it should be noted as much as by anyone else’s, the homeless disco that is modern socialism begins to take on ever more peculiar and often sinister guises as tragedy truly transitions to farce.

Laurie Penny’s scrawling about the anti-cuts protestors isn’t perhaps as insidious in its content and nature, and is a measure more mundane, than Mr. Galloway’s befriending of  genocidal dictators or Tony Benn’s appraisal of Mao Tse Tung, in their Faustian crusade of unconditional, bordering on neurotic, anti-Americanism, who were more accurately the targets of Cohen’s evaluation. However Laurie Penny, along with Owen Jones, represents the more domestically concerned face of this bankrupt community which is furiously attempting to invent new radical causes, searching for supposed injustices to cover their current short fall and in doing so preparing their sails so laxly that they are ballooned and born aloft by whatever gust of bullshit that comes over the horizon. As much as Miss Penny’s attempted journalism probably on its own virtues does not merit the cost of a call to Arthur Koestler’s ‘society for the prevention of the flogging of dead horses’ when one considers that it was published in what is a major newspaper which considered by some to be a serious publication known as the Guardian, one can’t help sparring a thought for the state of left wing journalism. As the voices of any consequence have somewhat jumped ship such as Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovitch they have been succeed by a younger cohort, led by Penny and Jones, who’s only notable virtue is their youth, which is for some peculiar reason incessantly praised in public by voices from all sides of the political spectrum. Which at 26 years old Penny’s is fast loosing without yet having penned anything that one could remotely mark out under the label of ‘for posterity’, not that it has ever been satisfactorily elucidated why this quality in and of itself is such a remarkable and praiseworthy one, but then again when you are scrapping the barrel for compliments it’s not unforgivable that such desperation might have a tendency to take hold.

The most important and major mistake to be made in her article is assuming that it is state oppression, whatever that’s meant to mean, that has stopped students turning out on mass to protest against tuition fees and economic austerity instead of the true culprits of apathy and indifference. Combined with these might also be the wicked thought that some students might actually think austerity is the necessary course of action and that the alteration to university tuition fees wasn’t that bad an idea. These students might not mobilize themselves onto the streets to criminally vandalize property or violently clash with police officers, as might be Laurie Penny’s preferred medium of political expression, but they certainly do exist. This author saw quite a few of them not too long ago at Senate House Library of the University of London who were more than pleased when police finally broke up a long running demonstration at neighboring SOAS which had made doing any studying in the library or any of the surrounding university buildings a somewhat harder task than it otherwise should be. There are those who don’t believe that conveying your opinion over whether university services should be run by private companies entitles you to occupy university property on a self-appointed mandate whilst disrupting other students who might want to use such facilities for the purpose of education. Call them old fashioned but these students believe in the ballot box and the rule of law. Some students have from in front of their own eyes seen that higher education hasn’t collapsed as protestors said it would with the alteration in tuition fees. Some have also acquainted themselves with the figures that prove that students from the most financially worst off backgrounds haven’t been adversely affected under the new system where they find themselves in the atrocious situation of having to nothing at all. We haven’t heard Miss Penny or any of her comrades admit that they were wrong on this point but it’s true to say that it isn’t just Mr. Clegg who should be giving out apologies.

If the youth of this movement which no longer has any credible ideology wishes to find a new cause to fight instead of inventing fatuous substitutes for them, then perhaps they would be wise to listen to the words of Niall Ferguson who is one of the growing number of voices who have been pointing out recently that the great domestic issue of our time is not class conflict but inter-generational conflict. In the mounting up gigantic debts as the results of ever increasing welfare and social security expenditure the baby boomer generation who are set to retire in the coming decades have sold short and mortgaged the future of their children. The Tax Payer’s Alliance as well as the Institute of Economic Affairs have published the grim statistics which explain and reveal just how great these excesses are, which if not counting just the official national debt, which is growing by over £100 billion a year, and instead off balance sheet liabilities such as PFI and the mammoth un-funded liabilities of state pensions are included then the trillions of pounds that youth of today are expected to hand over to be consumed by their elders is nothing but criminal. This certainly seems like an issue that young people should be getting angry over and the reality present in the unforgiving arithmetic mentioned above makes it inevitable that such concerns will have to be addressed sometime in the near future. Perhaps Laurie Penny could reallocate the journalistic resources that she has at her disposal to rally young people and students into the much needed campaign against such financial and fiscal irresponsibility instead of complaining about cuts in government expenditure which are so far non-existent. Or if she doesn’t have the courage to bring herself to turn away from her religious commitments to revolutionary socialism then she perhaps should be good enough to step aside and make room for those who will.

But no matter what happens is it too much to ask for a moratorium on her output of such atrocious articles that give this author the urge to throw up things that he’s forgotten having ever eaten.