Showing posts with label hobsbawm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hobsbawm. Show all posts

Tuesday, 16 July 2019

Blessed Be the Bigots!

How Northern Voices gives space to opposing views

by Brian Bamford (Joint Editor)

IN a recent critical comment on this Blogg Tony Greenstein, a blogger who is a descendant of Jewish immigrants, proclaims that 'it is a pity that the Northern Voices Blog does not have an anti-racist or anti-fascist politics.'

Let's be clear, Northern Voices doesn't have a party-line or what might be called a politically correct platform

Let me offer some personal history; in February 1963, I met with members of the FIJL (Iberian Federation of Young Libertarians) in the Belleville working-class area of Paris: the refugees from the Spanish Civil War had begun arriving there in 1938.  In 1963, we were keen to involve ourselves in the struggle against the dictatorship of General Franco and were about to be dispatched for the shanty towns of Barcelona.  So if we consider Franco to be a 'Fascist', I suppose I was an anti-Fsscist over 50-years ago.  But what does Mr. Greenstein really mean when he accuses Northern Voices not having 'anti-racist or anti-fascist politics'?

It is not so easy to answer this question because even in 1944, in the journal Tribune, George Orwell struggled to tackle this puzzle in an essay 'What is Fascism' thus:
"Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’
One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology."

Finally Orwell concluded that:
 "Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.  That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.  ....All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."

Mr. Greenstein makes free use of the word 'fascist' describing Greenswiper thus:  "The little fascist Greenswipe tells us that Robinson or Yaxley-Lennon is ‘a beacon of light.'  And goes on to tell us:
'Here you see the bigot and racist in all his glory. It may be gloomy for this poundshop bigot but not for most people.  Whether it is food or music multi culturalism has triumphed over British marching bands!  Or maybe what he means is that he doesn’t like mixing with Black people but doesn’t like to put it in those words."

But perhaps Greenstein forgets that we had our own 'Bigotgate' in Rochdale in the General Election campaign in 2010.  The then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, on the election campaign trail, was faced with a disastrous turn of events after a Labour supporter, Gillian Duffy, confronted him about his party’s plans to cut the deficit and its stance on immigration as he was interviewed live on TV in Rochdale. 

Later Gordon Brown went on to regret calling Mrs. Gillian Duffy a 'bigoted woman' when he was recorded calling her in such disparaging tones.  To a Northerner this language all comes over as being a bit snobbish about people who take a different view like Tommy Robinson and Greenswiper himself.  Greenswiper is clearly wrong when he claims 'Tommy Robinson represents about 90% of people', but the instincts of Greenswiper and Mrs. Duffy can't be ignored because they do represent a certain tendency, call it an impatience, among white working people.  Some are arguing that the phenomena of political correctness and identity politics is fueling the rise of people like Trump, Tommy Robinson and the Brexit Party.

No amount of smug sneers about 'racism' and 'fascism' from Tony Greenstein will change what is the deeply embeded xenophobia in our culture.  Nor will implying that because English people like to eat Indian food or aren't still fond of brass bands must therefore mean that they have accepted the triumph of multi-culturalism as a political entity.

One can still enjoy a jitterbug dance, and the same person could delight in 'traditions' on a local scale, like the annual Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols at the chapel of King's College, Cambridge on Christmas eve.    

Fascism is often identified with nationalism and tradition, but this is not always the case.  In the book 'The Inventon of Tradition',  edited by the Marxist Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger, HUGH TREVOR-ROPER wrote:

"It is ironical that if the Highland dress had been banned after 'the Fifteen' instead of after 'the Forty Five', the kilt, which is now regarded as one of the ancient traditions of Scotland, would probably never have come into existence. It came into existence a few years after Burt wrote, and very close to the area in which he wrote. Unknown in 1726, it suddenly appeared a few years later; and by 1746 it was sufficiently well established to be explicitly named in the act of parliament which then forbade the Highland dress. The actual inventor, I understand was an English Quaker from Lancashire, Thomas Rawlinson. The Rawlinsons were a long-established family of Quaker iron-masters in Furness."

So even the iconic Highland kilt so central to the Scottish nationalists was originally made in Lancashire by an English Quaker?
 
Meanwhile, Mr. Greenstein rages on about Greenswiper's complaints of an England in the 21st century shrouded in an ‘Alien multicultural gloom’; to whichTony Greenstein is nothing if not pompous:   'Here you see the bigot and racist in all his glory. It may be gloomy for this poundshop bigot but not for most people. Whether it is food or music multi culturalism has triumphed over British marching bands! Or maybe what he means is that he doesn’t like mixing with Black people but doesn’t like to put it in those words.'

Here we may be experiencing bigotry from both Greenstein and Greenswiper, yet in some ways it  is the canary in the coal mine that warns us of approaching disaster. 


*************

Friday, 3 May 2013

Eric Hobsbawm- An Exemplar in Tergiversation!

Eric Hobsbawm - 'Neil Kinnock's favourite marxist' divided opinion like  no other historian.    Buckets of praise and criticism were heaped on him in equal measure.   In 1994 the newspaper journalist Neil Ascheson said of Hobsbawm 'No historian writing in English can match his overwhelming command of fact and source'.    In 2002 he was described by the Spectator magazine a quintessential Conservative publication  as 'arguably our greatest living historian'.   The historian Nial Ferguson wrote 'that Hobsbawm is one of the great historians of his generation is undeniable'.

Conversely critics such as the British historian David Pryce Jones charged that Hobsbawm was a professional historian 'who has steadily corrupted knowledge into propaganda and scorned the concept of objective truth' and 'He was neither an historian nor a professional'.   A lacerating criticism to say the least.   Brad Delong criticised Hobsbawms Magnum Opus 'Age of Extremes' thus:  'The remains of Hobsbawms commitment to world communism got in the way of his judgment and twisted his vision.'    Therein lies the nub of the matter.

The Yale historian Timothy Snyder cites Orwell's analysis and dismay at the role and actions of the communists during the Spanish Civil War.    In regard to the Communists in this war Hobsbawm merely says 'its pros and cons continue to be discussed in the political and historical literature.'   He is  clearly engaged here in an exercise in fence sitting!    He refers to George Orwell not by his literary name but disparagingly as 'An upper class Englishman called Eric Blair'.   An attempted put down of a distinguished libertarian writer.

Unlike the principled communist E P Thompson and indeed many others Hobsbawm didn't leave the Communist Party in 1956 after the bloody suppression of the Hungarian workers revolution by Soviet tanks.   In a letter to the Daily Worker on November 9th, 1956 he defended the Soviet crushing of the Hungarian uprising although with "a heavy heart".   Although paradoxically he signed an historians letter of protest.

In reviewing Hobsbawms memoirs and his albeit equivocal support for Stalinist Russia at times David Caute wrote:  'Didnt you know what Deutscher and Orwell knew.....the induced famine, the false confessions, the terror within the party, the massive forced labour of the Gulag?  As Orwell himself  documented a great deal of evidence was already  reliably knowable.'   Hobsbawm feebly claimed ignorance until Khrushchevs denunciation of Stalin at the 20th Party Congress in 1956.
 
In conclusion, Hobsbawm was undoubtedly preeminent amongst contemporary Marxist historians
although his erudition was tempered by evasion, avoidance and tergiversation.    the epithet 'Tergiversator'  seems appropriate.   His claim that the demise of the Soviet Union was 'traumatic not only for Communists but Socialists everywhere' received short shrift form the journalist Francis Wheen who commented:
'Speak for yourself comrade, I like many other socialists greeted the fall of the Soviet model with unqualified rejoicing.   Marxs favourite motto "de omnibus disputandum" (everything  should be questioned)  was not one which had any currency in the realm of "actually existing socialism"- a hideous hybrid of mendacity, thuggery and incompetence.'  

A coruscating critique which cannot be gainsaid.