Going to see
the newly released Tony Benn documentary film seemed like a necessary outing
for anyone who like myself takes an interest in politics and even though already
holds strong opinions believes that it is the duty of any inquiring mind to
expose themselves as much as possible to material and arguments from all sides
of the political spectrum. In order to make your own case to the best of your
ability it is equally important that you should aim to be just as knowledgeable
of your opponent’s argument as you are your own, and even aspire to be able to
make that case for them if for whatever reason your positions in the debate where
exchanged. Too often the state of public discourse shows that such high minded
ideals has fallen by the wayside. Though what is perhaps an even more important
ideal has also disappeared, if indeed it ever existed, that is the ability to
as candidly as possible ask yourself why your opponent might find plausible the
arguments which they adopt. Ulterior and cynical motives do exist and some
human beings simply are stupid but jumping to such explanations before properly
considering any reasoning on offer is the first step on the road to zealotry
and close-mindedness. It should do us no harm to regularly re-read that imperishable
and haunting line of Oliver Cromwell ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be
mistaken’.
However by the standard of these aspirations the film which was decorated
by the Edinburgh film festival was an utterly disappointment of woeful proportions.
Admittedly this really shouldn’t come as a great surprise to anyone familiar
with the output of Tony Benn throughout his political career though this
production provides one final reminder if it was ever necessary of how vapid
and superficial a political mind Mr Benn really was. In summary it was extended
reflection on the many causes Benn lent himself to throughout his life all tide
together by the central theme of not being able to go beyond a very simplistic
understanding of the political and economic world around him and being driven
on by an unrelenting belief in the righteousness of nobody else’s cause but his
own, no matter how benevolent and well intentioned that belief was.
All of this was
initiated at the beginning of the film with the question of nuclear power both
military and civil. The images of the devastated cities of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima were presented as self-evident testaments to the incontestable evil
of nuclear weaponry. This was later combined with a statement by Benn in the
commons proclaiming nuclear deterrence to be a sham. So game set and match, the
great intellect of Benn speaking truth to power and who would dare disagree?
Surely no one, unless they happen to possess a elementary knowledge of 20th
century history. Problematic at best Benn’s stated position seems to be made in
utter ignorant defiance of the idea that there might exist credible arguments contrary
to his own which at least merit some form of tacit engagement. Considerations
as to the alternatives to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, such as a US
ground invasion or further blockade and starvation of the Japanese home
islands, are never mentioned. Much like any possible acknowledgement of the
role played by nuclear weaponry in maintaining the peace between both sides
during the cold war by making the idea of open conflict unimaginable. Instead Benn is presented as an edgy and courageous
politician and intellect because he can simply point to suffering and say this
is wrong but never accepting the moral responsibility of divulging what a
credible alternative might look like.
This style
of intellectual laziness then continues into the realm of domestic politics.
After striving to build socialism in Great Britain ever since the massive
impetus of the founding of the NHS under the Atlee Labour government and
continuing onto its successors of the Wilson governments, any intervening
Conservative governments that might have expanded social welfare provision
being edited out of the narrative, a great tragedy and betrayal was committed.
The IMF and then Mrs Thatcher gate crashed the party and turned the music off.
At the point of crisis Tony Benn’s alternative economic plan was callously rejected
as high finance and big business won the day. A victory of unrestrained greed the
consequences of which we still live with today.
Though as
usual certain important issues are missing from the film’s account. At no point
is it ever explained that the IMF were only able to interfere in British
eternal politics because the Callahan government had gone to the IMF to request
a £4 billion emergency loan. In building socialism and attempting to maintain
full employment and state ownership and management of large parts of the
economy the financial sums were not adding up. The film also neglects to
mention that inflation under the labour government had reached a startling 25%
as printing ever more money to maintain full employment was causing long term erosion
of the productive capacity of the increasingly outmoded and uncompetitive UK
economy. Added to this the power of trade unions had extended to being able to
veto decisions made at the ballot box and forestall much needed structural
economic change.
Though seemingly
painful for figures like Benn to admit a major crisis was at hand produced by
the post war consensus and his solution to the problem was simply more of the
same, greater state control, rationing and shortages. With his head firmly buried
in the sand he was incapable of perceiving arguments that promoted the idea of greater
control of market forces being the way out of state produced stagnation as
anything but morally reprehensible. Neither in the film or in any of Benn’s
other output does he show any real understanding of why such stagnation and
inefficiency had occurred in the first place. The mantra of greater democratic control
of the economy was always on his lips but he never answered arguments that
demonstrated why democratic control being highly impractical in its ideal form
leads almost inevitably to bureaucracy as the demands of complex organisation necessitate
the formation of hierarchies and the subsequent entrenching of inefficiencies
and conservative and reactionary interests. Though reminiscent of Trotsky,
another idealist pushed into the wilderness, Tony Benn to his last breath
operated on the logic that as long as you say the words democracy and socialism
enough times the facts of reality might disappear or conform to your morally
righteous ideas of how they should behave.
The 1984
miners’ strike is yet another scene in this same story of the denial of
reality. The miners’ union being unnecessarily and mercilessly crushed by the
police commanded by the Thatcher government, the demonic representatives of
international capitalism. Who couldn’t shed a tear for such brazen an act of
brutal exploitation of the working class?
Airbrushed from
the interpretation of events of course was any mention of the massive costs of
keeping an outdated and unprofitable industry on the life support of state tax
payer subsidy. No mention of how Arthur Scargill led his members out on strike
without a ballot and how throughout the campaign dissenters from this party
line were physically harassed and intimidated for the crime of exercising their
right to work. Instead we are presented with Tony Benn looking at scenes from
the battle of Orgreave shaking his head and muttering the words ‘class warfare’,
whatever those words are actually supposed to mean coming out of the mouth of
the man who was part of labour governments who made more miners redundant than
Mrs Thatcher could ever have dreamed of.
Skipping then
to the figure of Tony Benn out of power and bereft of any political influence but
instead recast as a lovable and doddering elder statesman turned political activist.
Never so popular or as loved then than before, as now out of office none of his
idealist emotive moralism need ever have been checked by seriously considering
the reality of the consequences that his ideas might entail. Benn could
criticise New Labour renouncing its socialist heritage or put the words blood
and oil into a sentence to criticise the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions, receive
thunderous applause. Even flying to Baghdad to give Saddam Hussein an Indian
head massage of an interview and spending as much time talking to the genocidal
dictator about the multiculturalism of his grandchildren as he did confronting
Saddam about his continual evasion of UN weapons inspectors, affording the
tyrant the benefit of the doubt when he pleaded innocence. Free to indulge himself in the two dimensional
thinking that had stopped him from ever achieving anything in political office
Benn was probably never more in his element and in receipt of so much popular
respect and never more ludicrous or intellectually stifling as a consequence. It
was popularist but in any way radical or revolutionary most certainly not.
As hard as
it might be to imagine there were some endearing and heartening moments in the
production and it would be dishonest not give them mention. The first being probably
Benn’s only honourable political campaign in renouncing his peerage in order to
continue serving in the house of commons and to continue representing his
constituency of Bristol which had stuck by him throughout his campaign against the
British establishment. The other cause for admiration is notably non-political
and that is the undeniable warmness and charm of Benn’s character which were
most definitely enhanced when it came to wearing the cloves of an older man.
The most touching moment of the whole film was his description of his
relationship with his wife Caroline who in Benn’s words taught him both how to
live and how to die, and there is little more that a fellow human being can
give you than that.
With this
reflection in mind it is important at all times to distinguish between a person’s
human characteristics and their political or intellectual values and opinions. It
is all too easy to let one colour the other. In the case of Tony Benn his greatness
as a personality and his intimacy as a human being has bought him the licence
to spout endless nonsense as a politician which surely people on both the left
and right of politics should by now find exhausting to listen to. Though
problematically this confusion was aided by Benn himself his political methodology
as stated in the film was to treat all political questions as moral questions.
Technical considerations became a secondary priority, if of any importance, as
all questions and issues became emotive ones in which opponents could only be
understood as acting in a malicious cold hearted or immoral fashion with which
there could be no compromise. As well intentioned as this method of operation
might have been it stopped Benn from ever achieving anything substantial in the
world of politics or from utilising his immense experience as a politician for anything
but pitiful and asinine demagoguery. This uncompromising stance won him much
respect as a man who stuck to his ideals but does history tell us that uncompromising idealism
in human beings is necessarily always a force for good?
With all
this being said and as many warnings given it is at least comforting to think
that its hard to imagine what political legacy Tony Benn will have if any.
There was no need to picket his funeral as the once described most dangerous man
in Britain departed a harmless geriatric. We can now turn the page on his life and
say good night sweet prince.
No comments:
Post a Comment