At the half-way mark of the Twentieth Century, in 1950, the French Annales historian Fernand Braudel wrote, "what an endless century it has been, indeed, leaving its bloody mark on Europe and on the whole world". Eric Hobsbawm describes this murderous century now past into history as "The Short Twentieth Century", beginning when a secular peace in Europe was shattered by an assassin's bullet in Sarajevo and a declaration of war from the aged Emperor Franz Josef, and ending in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Marx, the theorist of commodification, perhaps, would not have been surprised that capitalism has turned the symbols of Leninist revolution into brand marketing. Marx also wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:
Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Andrew Norton at Catallaxy agreed with Louis Nowra writing in the SMH that Che Guevera t-shirts, for instance, are distasteful. This sparked off a lively debate at both Catallaxy and John Quiggin's place over the relative evils of fascism and communism, and on whether fascism is a political philosophy. John later put up a specific post on 'The Stalinist Delusion'.
I recently read Robert O. Paxton's new book The Anatomy of Fascism. Paxton argues that unlike conservatism, socialism and liberalism, fascism is not a political philosophy - it has no articulated body of thought and no coherent answer to political questions. He points to the contradictions and unacknowledged massive revisions in what passed for Mussolini and Hitler's political programmes. There was certainly a climate of ideas which gave rise to fascism, but this isn't quite the same thing. Paxton also contends that fascism's grounding in fear and hatred leads inevitably to genocide in the period of its 'radicalisation' under conditions of war.
To debate this question in a spirit of partisanship is unhelpful. Understanding the causes of genocide and mass death is necessary and urgent. But it's also important to be clear about history. David McKnight has it right in his reply to Nowra in the SMH:
The claim that Stalin and Hitler were equals is part of an argument which tries to prove that Marxism, as an intellectual framework, was akin to fascism. Marxism, now largely defunct, was very unlike fascism. Marxism was very much part of the Enlightenment heritage of the West. It was an ideology based on rationalism, science and progress. As such it influenced social science and the humanities. Its critique of economic power has become part of the common sense of our era. It was the militant wing of the Enlightenment. By contrast, fascism was a product of the counter-Enlightenment. Its call to blood, race and nation was utterly different to Marxism. Both produced dystopias but for different reasons. Marxism's fatal flaw was precisely its utopianism, based on a literal implementation of its Enlightenment values of equality and rationality. It took little account of the nature of human beings, and did not have a functional and elaborate moral sense. (A similar critique can be made of current ideologies of free-trade globalisation.)
Very well put.
Good reply from David McK. This topic has sparked an interesting series of posts, here and at JQ's and Catallaxy. I've only skimmed, but haven't noticed anyone pick up on Nowra's obvious silence, i.e. the underlying truth that there are a lot of Che t-shirts because manufacturers have identified a market. Dissent sells; ipso facto dissent is commodified and sold. The market responds to the sovereign taste of the consumer. The commercialisation of dissent is all around us, being perennially tut-tutted about by people like Nowra for being about as subversive as deoderant.
If Nowra was seriously upset and had a skerrick of follow-through on his supposed convictions, he would identify the clothing manufacturers and encourage protests, and perhaps even seek to have a boycott, and generally get active ... in the way that you do if it matters. But no, the split between attitudinising and taking action is all important on the loony right these days. So much better to keep the source of production (or destruction) completely out of the picture, and just strike a vacuous moral pose. The beauty of merely posing without being serious is that pugnacious posturing stirs debate but safely achieves nothing, and so you can do it again, and again, and again, and again ...
Chris,
are you suggesting that louis Nowra is part of the loony right? (cough, splutter)
Nowra's point had nothing to do with people making a dollar out of tacky T shirts, it was about people who enjoyed the benefits of living in a relatively free country while working to destroy those freedoms.
On the topic of the loony right, is that a reference to free traders and libertarians who are in favour of freedoms, or people who believe in the centralisation of power and the general restriction of freedoms?
As a matter of intellectual history McKnight has a point. But any good political scientist looks at institutions as well as ideologies, and at an institutional level the fascist and communist tyrannies had much in common with each other. The youthful McKnight, and many others, ought to have understood this and had nothing to do with the Communist Party.
As for CS's comments, surely the problem with us right-wingers is that we don't just sit around writing critiques, we actually have coherent policies we try to implement (I have never heard of Nowra as a right-winger; opposing communism merely requires decency, though right-wing ideology presumably helps highlight the problems). But since communism is no longer a threat, except to the hapless citizens of North Korea and Cuba, communist kitsch is distasteful rather than a huge issue.
I did not do anything about the hammer and sickle t-shirt I saw, because the lad wearing it probably did not even know what it meant, much less have plans to hurt anyone.
Surely it is time for David McKnight to reconsider views like this in the light of other developments in economics and the social sciences.
'Marxism was very much part of the Enlightenment heritage of the West. It was an ideology based on rationalism, science and progress. As such it influenced social science and the humanities. Its critique of economic power has become part of the common sense of our era. It was the militant wing of the Enlightenment.'
In particular, the Marxist critique of economic power was based on a serious false assumption, that the masses were being disadvantaged and exploited by laissez faire. That has indeed become part of the common sense of our era, in the same way that the belief that the earth was the centre of the solar system was the commonsense of the pre-Copernican era. Each of those views are false and the really interesting question is to work out how such ideas managed to persist for so long. I will be interested to see how many Marxists and admirers of Marxism are prepared to adopt the scientific and rational approach and subject their basic ideas to searching criticism.
"If Nowra was seriously upset and had a skerrick of follow-through on his supposed convictions, he would identify the clothing manufacturers and encourage protests, and perhaps even seek to have a boycott, and generally get active..."
Maybe Louis believes that the best way to oppose these things, in the long run, is not by forcing the manufacturers out of business, but by intelligent criticism and informed debate? Individuals like Nowra can make a difference without becoming part of the latest boycott/protest/rent-a-mob that comes along.
"Maybe Louis believes that the best way to oppose these things, in the long run, is not by forcing the manufacturers out of business, but by intelligent criticism and informed debate? Individuals like Nowra can make a difference without becoming part of the latest boycott/protest/rent-a-mob that comes along."
I love that TimT. Why not "intelligent criticism and informed debate" about the manufacturers? No? Hey! teacher, leave our markets alone. Far better to be part of the latest conspicuous indignation mob.
As for the 'long run', the commodification of 60s dissent is, like, already a couple of decades old. What's he aiming for? Victory by 3000?
Marx's grave is a communist plot!
homer - someone has to package all your bad puns and publish them in a book
James, thanks.
Chris - excellent point.
Andrew - "But any good political scientist looks at institutions as well as ideologies, and at an institutional level the fascist and communist tyrannies had much in common with each other."
The main difference was that fascism maintained much more of the state apparatus (judiciary, bureaucracy, military etc) - particularly in Italy where the role of the monarchy was central - and set up a number of parallel institutions (ie the SS) while Soviet Marxism subordinated the state to the party (hence the emptiness of institutions such as the Soviets themselves). Leninist parties also had some rationale for "democratic centralism" while fascist parties were true to the "leader principle".
Rafe - "I will be interested to see how many Marxists and admirers of Marxism are prepared to adopt the scientific and rational approach and subject their basic ideas to searching criticism."
Marxism always asserted that it was a scientific and rational approach, as a child of the Enlightenment. Problems like the immiseration of the proletariat and the labour theory of value were often elided or jettisoned from Marxist economics in the West. More recently, analytic Marxism in the UK and the US has harnessed Marxist thought to analytic philosophy and rational choice theory.
Marx' insights about distributive justice and economic power hold true regardless of whether his particular 'laws' such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall do. A number of writers have observed that Marx' critique of political economy and his analysis of capitalist economics have much analytical purchase.
McKnight's article is titled 'Socialism not Stalinism'. Is it therefore equally valid to argue for 'Fascism not Hitlerism'? Mussolini's brand of fascism was considerably more benign than Hitler's (not even notably anti-Semitic) and had a predeliction for the Futurist movement, some of the motifs of which still look pretty cool if you are ideologically detached about it. As I see it, however, the Communist movement and its fellow travellers in the West were ultimately every bit as enthusiastic for tyranny, autocracy and the physical destruction of their opponents as the fascists were and should stand equally condemned. An autocrat is an autocrat, a murderer is a murderer and Che was both.
The differences between Mussolini's regime and Hitler's regime can be overstated, spats. 1938 saw the introduction of anti-Semitic laws in Italy and the way that Ethiopia was governed under occupation was horrendous. What went on in the Republic of Salo right at the end wasn't pretty either.
As to Australian communists, the key date is probably 1956 when Kruschev's destalinisation speech became public. A lot of people left the party around that time. Paradoxically, it gave others an out - the Soviet Union had "changed its ways". The broader question as to why people could associate with a party linked to Stalin's crimes is very complex, and the psychology of Soviet Marxism is well discussed in two contemporary publications: Maurice Merleau-Ponty's 'Humanism and Terror' and Herbert Marcuse's 'Soviet Marxism'. As I said at Catallaxy and Quiggin, I'm unsatisfied with the Mark Lilla version of the attractions of fascism and communism in the West and I may have something to say about this at some point.
I'm not as sanguine about the CPA as McKnight. The CPA's role in the downfall of the Chifley government, as Chris would no doubt agree, was reprehensible.
"But no, the split between attitudinising and taking action is all important on the loony right these days. So much better to keep the source of production (or destruction) completely out of the picture, and just strike a vacuous moral pose. The beauty of merely posing without being serious is that pugnacious posturing stirs debate but safely achieves nothing, and so you can do it again, and again, and again, and again ..."
Holy Cow, Chris (and Happy New Year) you're not seriously suggesting that if this is true we didn't steal it from you guys!
It must be really amusing to the cynics to see how things turn and yet remain the same. We RWDBs are the new PC police, the new wankers claiming the moral high ground, the new poseurs. Frankly I don't mind a nice chardie. As for changing the ABC and the assorted Luvvies, victory by 3000 would be a big ask.
In the light of Jame's remarks about flip flopping, it would be interesting to see what the various positions are on "changing the ABC". Not now, because it is a diversion, but in a later post.
We would have to leave out the obvious abolitionist position because that level of debate leads to nothing new.
It would expose something which is badly missing from the blogosphere and irritates me a lot - the functionaries in the various institutions mounting some kind of defence.
spats, on Futurism - it was appropriated in both directions - also by some very interesting artists in the initial post-revolutionary phase in Russia before socialist realism was imposed on everyone.
just like Lenin ignored the politics of production and appropriated Taylorism from the Capitalist West - Stakhanovites all!
the cultural flowering in the early years of the Soviet Union is very interesting. not to mention feminists and advocates of free love like Alexandra Kollontai.
what would Soviet Russia have looked like if the forces for democracy and free expression within the revolution had triumphed? it's an interesting question!
Happy New Year James!
Yeah, conspicuous indignation has become a kind of right-wing performance art. Loved the flamboyant little gig your crowd played over the disco-anthem in the run-up to New Year! Gave me a good belly laugh every day. An empty-headed outrage that achieved the usual zilch and is now well forgotten of course, but that's not the point. Posturing as ordinary, patriotic, virtuous, down-trodden victims of traitorous, biased, hectoring, arrogant, sanctimonious, tree-hugging, big word-using, chards-guzzling, latte-mainlining, inner-city liberal elites is the whole performance art of the thing.
As you say, the ABC is the RWDB's most favoured source of getting all conspicuously indignant, although silly old Prof Bunners never runs short of fuel from the Fairfax press and Tim B will always be glad to have Margo to stoke his virtuous fire. Your lot have been fulminating over the ABC since the dawn of time, or however long it has been since Howard was first elected. But it gets nowhere of course, for that would close the theatre, and then you'd have to find something else to act powerless over and get all furious about being betrayed by. One of the tricks is to get indignant over a cause you can never win. Meanwhile, back in the shadows, your government moves to further concentrate the already concentrated ownership of commercial media, but no-one is allowed to worry about that in the new PC.
Perhaps Nowra's onto something. If you ever get sick of uselessly complaining about the ABC and academics and journos that don't toe your line, maybe the right could have a full-scale indignant re-run of the cold war now that its long over - a sort of post-modern McCarthyism. Can you imagine anything more pointless? Perfect! Might even further boost sales for the Che t-shirt, coffee mug, poster production line. That should keep the corporations happy while also safely maintaining the flow of fuel. Way to fulminate! Must be off - the chards will be cold by now.
Drink some more chards, Chris - that's my entry in best comment of 2005 by a long shot!
Hope the chard is going down well Chris! Make mine a 'two dogs' from the fresh cool waters of the Cascades in Hobart.
As you sip, think about a more helpful response than your previous contribution. Think about the challenge posed by Nowra and the moral and intellectual failure of communism. As the old saying goes, if we do not learn from history we may be doomed to repeat it.
The ex-communists of the 1950s apparently failed in their duty to warn young people of the disasters of communism. Consequently there was a fresh wave of recruitment to Marxism, Maoism and revolutionary socialism during the 1960s and 1970s. How did this happen? That is the question underlying Nowra's complaint.
This is not about conspicuous indignation, it is about learning the lessons of history and coming to grips with the classical liberal agenda of free trade under the rule of law in a scientific and rational manner. Maybe we can all learn something from the ensuing discussion.
Rafe: "In particular, the Marxist critique of economic power was based on a serious false assumption, that the masses were being disadvantaged and exploited by laissez faire."
I'm curious as to why you say this is a seriously false assumption.
Cascade eh Rafe? Prefer Boags myself, when I'm not busy with the femi-nazis and all my other fellow elites lording it over the persecuted common man by sanctimoniously guzzling chards and arrogantly slapping down the lattes, of course.
Speaking of RWDB-like concentration on particular columnists for sport, Chris founded the 'Shorter Hendo' which was then continued by Mark B. Robert C has flirted with it and it's now been reduced to the 'Really Really Shorter Hendo' by Tim D.
And I would have thought the obvious rejoinder to Chris would be to point out that every cause the right has taken on for the past quarter century has been won. The taking on of causes that can't possibly bear fruit just for the sanctimonious hell of it is actually a working definition of the modern left. See everything from Wapping and economic rationalism (opposed for twenty years) right through to Michael Moore, John Kerry and Medicare Gold.
Most recently, Tony Abbott raised the question of abortion and managed to change the whole nature of the debate. Critics started off calling him a loon, then began arguing abortion numbers in Australia were dropping - which, without realising it, they'd been paradigm-shifted into acknowledging as a social and medical good.
John Howard has done the same thing with respect to welfare and Aboriginal policy. And nobody on the left even bothers to challenge the application of his 'national interest first' foreign policy to tsunami relief in Indonesia. He marginalised the UN and still the left's congratulations have willingly been forthcoming.
For the right, winning is now bordering on ho-hum. As for Marx, no-one seriously interested in history or economics should ignore him. I think the big lion-headed Hun was one of the most impressive theorists ever. Sure, in its totality his vision can never work but nor could a purely libertarian political economy. (Which is why it's never been tried, thank God).
Che? He was a handsome man and that was a great snapshot. The wearing of t-shirts bearing his image is no more worrying than was the wearing of bobbie-sox back in Sinatra's salad days. Che didn't like his country being a brothel and roulette-haven run by the American mob so he did something about it. I think that's admirable. Tragedy is neither he nor his boss had a freaking clue about building a democratic, prosperous and modern society. They both deserve to be condemned for the deaths and misery they caused and for blowing a great opportunity for change.
PS: Rev Tim C's influence grows too - 'casin0' has just been adjudged 'questionable content' by Troppo's spam filter.
Have my vote for best comment of 2005 too, Chris.
"An empty-headed outrage that achieved the usual zilch and is now well forgotten of course, but that's not the point. Posturing as ordinary, patriotic, virtuous, down-trodden victims of traitorous, biased, hectoring, arrogant, sanctimonious, tree-hugging, big word-using, chards-guzzling, latte-mainlining, inner-city liberal elites is the whole performance art of the thing"
Sounds like I missed something special when i missed the disco-anthem thing but I reckon I miss Back Pages more.
C.L., you can say "Casin0" now in this time of dire emergency...
First CS and now we have CL wafting through the corridors of Troppo; an ether seance.
Rafe: "In particular, the Marxist critique of economic power was based on a serious false assumption, that the masses were being disadvantaged and exploited by laissez faire."
Michael:"I'm curious as to why you say this is a seriously false assumption."
I'm not Rafe but I've been to the January sales and it wasn't Chris Shiel and his femo -nazi back up singers walking out the door with trolley loads of plasma TVs and home theatre gizmos, Dyson vacuum cleaners, espresso makers, they looked like dare I say it like Howard's "battlers" to me and to quote Debbie & Tim "they looked pretty happy to me"
Strike one Chris (or out of bounds on the full).
Would you like to have another go at addressing the issues rather than evading them?
I wish I could revive Back Pages James - maybe in a few more months, or at least after a few more chapters.
How are you Currency? But you lost the disco-anthem war!
I'm with you Rafe. I reckon we should constitute the Committee on Kids Consuming UnAustralian Dissent, and have a trial for everyone of the wilfully consuming little bastards. If we don't fight them over the t-shirt, next thing you know Che will be on baseball caps, and who knows what else ... domino-like, he'll be on jackets, watches, and, heaven-forbid, even kids' underpants! Where will we be then, I ask you that? The mind boggles, for alas with heavy hearts we must face the possibility that it may already be too late. Perhaps Che is already out there being used to flog other products in the marketplace that we don't already know about! The world might have already gone all to hell in a t-shirt and we just don't know it yet. Hurry! Check under your bed! It's five minutes to midnight! Kids are buying those very t-shirts as we blog!
"Chris Shiel and his femo -nazi back up singers" - playing the Annandale next Saturday night - influences, Dylan, The Band, Stones...
This whole "what's on who's T-shirt" debate really is a low pressure system in a mug, stirred up by mugs. As far as I can see, all it does is give certain people an opportunity to strike self-righteous poses.
Speaking of which...
"And I would have thought the obvious rejoinder to Chris would be to point out that every cause the right has taken on for the past quarter century has been won."
Rafe:
"The ex-communists of the 1950s apparently failed in their duty to warn young people of the disasters of communism. Consequently there was a fresh wave of recruitment to Marxism, Maoism and revolutionary socialism during the 1960s and 1970s. How did this happen? That is the question underlying Nowra's complaint."
Che is only cool is because Dubya ain't -- even if his aspirational peons are selling shirts.
"scholl vaccinations" - which is a good idea too.
The thing is that communism and facism absolutely polarised by definition. Marx's communism, as I understand it, was focused on having everyone, no matter what their station, entirely equal and all working toward the greater good of mankind. A fanciful utopian desire if there ever was one, but good in theory.
The reason the communism has been equated with facism is that it leaves itself open the to "Animal Farm" complex, where one leader takes power and decides that yes, all men are equal, except me and everyone I like, we are better. Such as was the the Romanian dictator who had his marble staircase ripped up for being slightly off on his desired dimentions. It leaves itself open to such totalitarianism because it is so easy to exploit.
Human nature is inherently selfish, and in an environment where everyone is trying to think that they are equal to everyone else, it is easy for one person who refuses to fight their fundamental human nature, to rise to the top and exploit the rest before they can say "pigs".
That is why communism is thought of as akin to facism by many, because so many communist states succumed to the inevitable.
Marx would be turning in his grave.
I love the way you take these things seriously Nabby, and still win.
Also gotta love Currency's reference to abortion. Anti-abortion is the sine qua non of the performance art of conspicuous indignation. Both here and in the US, anti-abortion crusaders have been striking strikingly conspicuous moral indignation over abortion ever since it became legal. Guess what? It's still legal! This is the perfect losing cause; the ideal issue for this marvellous new form of right-wing art, which is of course why the hellishly ambitious Tone Abbott has recently taken it to the Australian political stage. Go Tone! You can't get more conspicuously indignant without ever achieving anything than on this act. Bravo! You'll show those femo-nazi, tree-hugging, inner city, aboriginal industry, grant sucking, latte-lapping, chardo-swilling, abortioning heathens yet - or not, which is the idea, really! Be conspicuously indignant, achieve nothing, become a right-wing moral martyr, get elected, make lots of money, give rich folks a tax cut on behalf of honest, decent, down-trodden Aussie plasma-purchasing battlers, die a happy conservative complaining about t-shirts! Way to go!
Nic, Marx argued that human nature was not inherently selfish but that our "species being" - that is to say our creative and intersubjective collective relation to each other and to nature was fundamentally deformed by class based social relations.
Nab instances "Abolition of slavery and child labour...etc"
I think you're right that these are victories of the left. The demolition of racism as an acceptable behaviour also belongs in the list. So, yes, I suppose we could say both sides of the spectrum have had their victories in the last, say, half century.
Granted.
On environmentalism, while I have problems with oppose-everythingism, NIMBYism and greenie extremism, I still regard myself as an environmentalist in the preservationist TR tradition. I don't want to live in an Australia where all the wonderful coastal villages and townships become pissant Gold Coasts and I believe the federal government should use its power to steamroller state governments if they don't do something about water management in this country.
We do agree on a lot Nab, despite your assumptions - we always end up arguing, though.
Occasionally, this is because I'm disagreeable.
Chris, this 'conspicuous indignation' theory of yours is interesting. I knew there was something deeply theoretically interesting going on last year vis-a-vis Abu Ghraib, Mike Scrafton, Fahrenheit 9/11 etc. Just couldn't put a label to all of that pathology. Now I can! Conspicuous indignation.
Yes.
Yo Currency. This is like an early '05 reunion! Good to see you're still wrong of course, and remember, you can't drive that concept without a licence!!
"I love the way you take these things seriously Nabby, "
Oh but I don't. I like to think of my comments as urbane remarks tossed off (yeah, I'm aware of the inherent innuendo) between very dry martinis.
But it if comes across as drunkenly earnest chest jabbing, then I plead the po-mo defence ( I'm quoting your intepretation of myself). Besides what other people think of me is none of my business.
But wait, I had a real point to make. Ah, here it is. Funny how all the conservative "self-interest drives everything", "you bleeding heart lefties" etc, keep pointing to private sector tsunami donations as an example of why we should get rid of Government and multilateral bodies.
Mmm, just picked up most of the Led Zep catalogue on CD at a post Xmas sale and am now listening to albums in their entirety that I haven't heard in 20 years. Right now it's "Four Sticks" which I'd completely forgotten about and which could be easily and interestingly lend itself to a good mashup now.
Hmm. time now I think for "Trampled Underfoot" and "Boogie With Stu".
Sorry Nabs, I really knew you knew you were joking by appearing to be serious. Gees I miss blogging, but that's enough discipline slippage. today's indulgence was Mark's fault, quoting from the magnificent Brumaire. Being one of the last of the great classical (as distinct from neoclassical) economists, old Fatty may have blundered a little here and there on his economics, as all the classicists did, but he was one hellofahistorian. Cheers Mark!
Mark, I know Marx did not argue that - I am the one who is arguing it. Im arguing that the reason communism is accused of being closely linked to facism is that it is easy for facists to take advantage of - Marx never intended this.
"The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past. Earlier revolutions required recollections of past history in order to drug themselves concerning their own content. In order to arrive at its own content, the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead. There the phrase went beyond the content; here the content goes beyond the phrase."
A pleasure, Chris! And may I add Marx is a fabulous writer and a joy to read.
Discipline is a good thing but we're missing BackPages - I'd love to read a full length cs post on conspicuous indignation. But in the meantime, it's a hell of a lot of fun having you on this thread.
Nic, thanks for clarifying that - I'm sorry if I misread your comment. I disagree with your contention. The anthropological evidence points otherwise. It's an old work now but it has the merit of being clearly written and freely available on the web - I'd recommend you have a look at Kropotkin's 'Mutual Aid' - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html
On conspicuous indignation - Chris is dead right. Reagan made it an art form with his stories of "welfare mothers on crack" etc. And the odd wink to the Christian right about school prayer without ever doing anything. The right needs cultural targets to keep their disparate constituencies on side. It's far better if the target doesn't really exist (eg militant secular humanists spoiling Christmas or latte-sipping elites despising battlers), or is a beat-up (PC Police) or is something that they have no intention of actually changing (eg abortion law). Thus the crusade can go on and on and on. The lack of action, as well as exhalting symbol over substance, helps preserve the illusion of powerful elites who stop these crusaders from implementing their battler-friendly and divinely inspired plans. And that nasty all dominant liberal media, of course.
Nice to pop in today for a few laughs Mark, but I gotta be off. A conspicuous manuscript on the corner of my desk beckons, bloody indignantly! See you in a chapter or so.
Cheers, Chris - all the best!
"Marx is a fabulous writer and a joy to read."
Well he was a freelance journalist, living off his wits for many years. That really sharpens yer prose style and teaches you to punch the story in from the first para, so as to first get the commissioning editor's attention.
If he was around now, he'd have taken to blogging like it was historical determinism or something.
I'm with you Rafe. I reckon we should constitute the Committee on Kids Consuming UnAustralian Dissent, and have a trial for everyone of the wilfully consuming little bastards....etc
Strike two Chris!
Try having a swing at the question instead of evading it. If you keep this up people will begin to suspect that you don't have an answer.
Nabakov listed a number of things that are supposed to represent a rejoinder to free traders in favour of socialism.
"Abolition of slavery and child labour, universal suffrage, food and drug regulations, the right to organized labour, the eight hour day, publicly supported healthcare and education, occupational health and safety, banking and building codes, legal abortion, civil rights, scholl vaccinations, consumer power, pollution control measures, etc, etc, etc."
The list is a mix of non sequitors and falsehoods.
Slavery was virtually eliminated by the dreaded supporters of laissez faire (and others), child labour was a beat-up, labour always had the right to organise but not to engage in restrictive trade practices, etc etc.
OK, one more comment Rafe, seeing you apparently fail to grasp my answers and have gravely threatened me with perpetual reminders. The question, I take it, is here somewhere:
"The ex-communists of the 1950s apparently failed in their duty to warn young people of the disasters of communism. Consequently there was a fresh wave of recruitment to Marxism, Maoism and revolutionary socialism during the 1960s and 1970s. How did this happen? That is the question underlying Nowra's complaint."
So is the question your question, or Nowra's question, or what the hell are you talking about? Bit hard to follow, but fwiw, as I've said, I reckon Nowra is really on the money here, and I'm with you ol' son. I have no doubts that his conspicuous 500 or so words of tighteous indignation in the SMH is sure to achieve what the collapse of the Soviet Union and - say, 200 billion - anticommunist books around the world haven't. It's green fields!! Take a bow Nowra, you're saving the world single-handedly. Today it's t-shirt consumers, tomorrow the world! Go forth and fulminate my brave warrior! Your time has arrived.
Rafe, two points.
First, the "laissez-faire" Liberals were themselves the Left in the early 19th century.
Secondly, "child labour was a beat-up, labour always had the right to organise but not to engage in restrictive trade practices, etc etc."
This is incredible. You might like to contemplate child labour today in Pakistan and India. As to labour having the right to organise, you might like to study the Combination Acts introduced in the late 18th and early 19th century. Not to mention the solution to labour organisation of shooting people which is still quite popular in some parts of the world.
- "Abolition of slavery" - Nabakov
Ummm...
Republican Party + American Civil War = Abolishement of Slavery...
Seems to me that some folks on this thread are redefining right-wing/left-wing to suit themselves...
labour always had the right to organise but not to engage in restrictive trade practices
Earth to Planet Rafe. The right to organise what? Picnics on holidays? The point is that the workers were denied power, and the only power they could get was through strikes, which you call "restrictive trade practices".
How many hours a day do you work? Oh, its climbing is it? What are you going to do about it?
Which all serves to show us that the concept that there is no such thing as exploitation any more is bizarre.
TimT, left and right aren't positions frozen in time. As I said to Rafe, the original Left (the terms come from the post-Revolution seating arrangements in the French National Assembly) were bourgeois liberals. There's a good historical argument that the Republicans were the Left in Lincoln's time (identified with the progressive forces - abolitionism, free labour, free settlement movements) and the Democrats were the right (nativist sentiment, Southern reaction). The parties swapped sides, or began to, in the 20s and this was consolidated under FDR. As late as 1924, the Demos ran an incredibly conservative Presidential candidate, and large numbers of delegates to the Demo convention were KKK members.
"So is the question your question, or Nowra's question, or what the hell are you talking about? Bit hard to follow, but fwiw, as I've said, I reckon Nowra is really on the money here, and I'm with you ol' son. I have no doubts that his conspicuous 500 or so words of tighteous indignation in the SMH is sure to achieve what the collapse of the Soviet Union and - say, 200 billion - anticommunist books around the world haven't. It's green fields!! Take a bow Nowra, you're saving the world single-handedly. Today it's t-shirt consumers, tomorrow the world! Go forth and fulminate my brave warrior! Your time has arrived."
Chris, that looks awfully like three strikes. I guess you just don't want to play in this particular game.
The question is, when are all the people who wittingly or unwittingly supported the most devastating totalitarian movement of the twentieth century, the communist movement, going to admit they made a mistake, perhaps say sorry and pay tribute to folk like the Quadrant crowd who were carrying the ball in the appropriate direction while the communists were running it the other way?
Rafe, according to Patrick West, aren't historical apologies a baleful form of "conspicuous compassion"?
I think conspicuous indignation is a concept that has a lot of merit but I really don't think one side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on it (though I did until just recently). Chris's examples from the Right are legitimate. An arguement that the Right are enthusiastically taking this practice up (especially in the blogosphere) in the comfort of the current conservative ascendency is plausible. I am having a lot of trouble plausing the idea that Mark & Chris actually think that the Left have not been enjoying a monopoly on it for at least the past 15 years.
When people of the right use terms like "femo-nazi, tree-hugging, inner city, aboriginal industry, grant sucking, latte-lapping, chardo-swilling, abortioning heathens" (which they are) they are lodging a protest against conspicuous indignation/compassion ideal of the Left. So welcome aboard the alienation wagon; it's looking very much like it's where I get off.
Point taken Mark, I will eliminate the rather half-hearted suggestion of an apology:)
The question is, when are all the people who wittingly or unwittingly supported the most devastating totalitarian movement of the twentieth century, the communist movement, going to admit they made a mistake and pay tribute to folk like the Quadrant crowd who were carrying the ball in the appropriate direction while the communists were running it the other way?
Charming Rafe! Struck out three times for not answering a question that was only asked after I had been struck out three times! I could think of some names for the sort of interrogatory regime you appear to be enforcing on this thread ...
As to the question, you appear to be asking me to forecast the behaviour of individuals on a rather controversial set of specialist assumptions and relations. How would I know? Why don't you ask them?
Sorry if you feel hard done by Chris, lets just start over. What if I reformulate the question along these lines, do you think that people who wittingly or unwittingly supported the most devastating totalitarian movement of the twentieth century should admit they made a mistake and congratulate people like the Quadrant crowd who were carrying the ball in the appropriate direction while the communists were running it the other way?
I think Chris is off writing his book, Rafe. I think his last point was that none of us here (as far as I am aware) are former members of the CPA and thus not in a position to answer your question.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate that you want Chris to be able to get on with his book, otherwise he would still be blogging on his own site. Still, I think the matter raised by Nowra is important and Chris has tried to trivialise it by brushing aside the moral issues and spraying other people. He was not too busy writing his book to dash off a lot of words that said nothing about the issue at stake.
I am prepared to keep asking him the question as long as it takes to get a reasonable answer. It does not have to be an answer that I personally like, it just needs to be an answer that indicates that he is prepared to consider the way that communists have been given an armchair ride by the left, unlike anyone who can be accused (rightly or wrongly - in the case of economic rationalists) of being a fascist or fascist sympathiser. Witness the explosion of outrage over young Harry Windsor's outfit, as if on cue to prove Nowra's point.
It is a bit of a worry that you regard his response as clever. Would you like to offer your answer to the question that I addressed to Chris?
Do you think that people who wittingly or unwittingly supported the most devastating totalitarian movement of the twentieth century should admit they made a mistake and congratulate people like the Quadrant crowd who were carrying the ball in the appropriate direction while the communists were running it the other way?
Rafe, as a general rule, I think everyone should admit their mistakes when they become aware of them, including those who misplaced their hopes for a better world in communism.
As for whether the Quadrant crowd deserve any congratulations, I don't know enough about the history of the joint or its supporters, although the magazine frequently gives me the shits these days. I'm no expert, but anti-communism, I sense, is still working its way through its exhultation phase, and it will be some time before a sober evaluation of its contribution to history arrives on the radar screen. I hope it suffices to say that my guess is that the operatives within what I understand was a US-subsidised Cold War propaganda outfit shadowing a tiny communist outpost on the margins of international communism won't figure largely in the lasting accounts. As I say, I'm not pretending to have seriously focused on these questions, but my reading suggests that Gorbachev is the biggest hero in the story.
Even if they were members of the CPA, as far as I know the CPA broke with Moscow in 1968.
Thanks Chris, I really appreciate that response, and I am prepared to agree to disagree about a few things at this stage. Maybe when your book is put to bed we can pick up the threads and go a bit further into the history of recent times and the contribution of the Association for Cultural Freedom and Quadrant.
There is a recent post on Catallaxy with a link to Peter Coleman and Quadrant including the preface of his book on the ACF which will give you a thumbnail sketch of their activities.
Hello Mark, I was going to suggest that the spectre haunting the internet is the awkward person who asks interesting questions and persists in the face of attempts by other people to talk about something else.
Since Chris finally came to the party (to coin a phrase) what is your answer to the question:
Do you think that people who wittingly or unwittingly supported the most devastating totalitarian movement of the twentieth century should admit they made a mistake and give some credit to others like the Quadrant crowd who were carrying the ball in the appropriate direction while the communists were running it the other way?
Rafe, my answer is not too dissimilar to Chris's. I think it's a judgement individuals have to make given their own history, political and personal ethics. As I was never a Communist, I can't speak for people who were.
gosh, Rafe, are you running round the blogosphere demanding people condemn communism? seems to me that Chris might be right in thinking that the Right are missing the good old days of evil empires and loyalty oaths.
That is half an answer Mark, what about the bit about giving credit to the people associated with Quadrant who were blowing the whistle on communism when there still was an active Party?
I also have another question for Yellowvinyl, would you like to define what you mean by the Right? Bearing in mind that there are several non-left groups and some of them have serious disagreements with others.
Rafe, I just don't know enough about the history of Quadrant. I read it for a short space of time while Manne was editor. While I'm generally familiar with the role it played, I'd really need to read some of the material myself before I could comment on what credit appertains to the journal and its contributors. I just don't have time to do this at the moment so I don't want to do your question and injustice by making an uninformed answer off the top of my head.
Thanks Mark. Be prepared for a surprise when you do read Quadrant from the beginning. After hearing so much about Quadrant as a rabid rightwing rag, a vehicle for Cold War propaganda, I was completely unprepared for the mild, reasonable, non-polemic, and ideologically broad church nature of the contents. Too much is made out of one fire-eating editorial by James McAuley, in fact his very strong opinions did not colour the contents of the magazine in general, and were not even apparent in most of his own reviews and comments.
I'll have a look when I get a chance. I must confess the current direction under P.P.McGuiness fails to motivate me to read it.
Hello Yellowvinyl, are you going to come up with a definition of the Right to indicate that you are up to date with the nuances of different non-left groupings and ideologies? Or do you prefer to stick with the blanket term that conveys no information?
Rafe, I saw on yellowvinyl's blog that she's gone away to the mountains for a few days and doesn't have internet access while she's out of town.
Hello Rafe, are you going to come up with a definition of the Left to indicate that you are up to date with the nuances of different non-right groupings and ideologies? Or do you prefer to stick with the blanket term that conveys no information?
Funniest. Thread. Ever.
Nabakov, Tiley, Bahnisch, Sheil -- take a bow!
Good point Nabakov! The start of my answer runs along these lines - that some of the groupings on the so-called right have positions that are just as unacceptable to my liberal/libertarian stance as the groupings on the left. I mean the push for big government, more regulation and the resistance to critical rationalism (on-going critical scrutiny of our own basic assumptions).
sorry for the much delayed answer to yr question, Rafe, I've been away.
yes, I'm aware that there are diverse groups on the right (as on the left). it seems to me though that one thing that united the right prior to 1989 was anti-communism and yr repeated interest in exhuming Marx from his grave might imply some sort of nostalgia for this unifying influence.
Hello yellow, sorry for my late reply, I forgot about this thread.
I take your point about the unifying influence of communism however even before 1989 I wrote a piece called uniting the right (now called uniting the non-left:) which addressed the serious and quite fundamental differences in our various groupings. It was very hard to publish, Robert Manne did not want it in Quadrant and eventually some Liberal student magazine printed it years later.
The point is that for classical or minimum state liberals communism is only one of the many forms of tyranny and erosion of freedoms that need to be resisted.
Nostalgia can be a powerful motivating force but I like to think that I have no interest in exhuming Marx, in this debate I have two aims (1) to search for institutions and traditions that will promote peace, freedom and prosperity (in no particular order) and (2) to point out the double standard that is employed on the left to gloss over the treason of the communists and fellow-travellers in a way that would never be allowed for fascists and their colleagues.
You can access 'uniting the non-left' by clicking on my signature.
One more thing yellowvinyl, in view of the very real danger to peace and freedom that was posed by the worldwide influence of the Soviet Union, do you think that we should honour the efforts of the people associated with Quadrant and cognate agencies who were alert to this danger and did their best to resist the efforts of communists and fellow travellers in intellectual and culural affairs?
Rafe,
The USSR was a brutal hegemon in its backyard of E.Europe and Central Asia, but you're stretching things to say that it was a "real danger to [worldwide] peace and freedom". The USSR and USA were locked in a Cold War, fought via proxies throughout the world. It's blinkered bias on your part to declare that only one side was belligerent.
It was also not treason for communists in Australia to support a socialist/communist form of government. Economically incompetent, sure, but not treasonous. It only became treasonous when they supported a foreign power against their own government.
The Cold War's over and socialism/communism failed. Your anti-communist obsession reads more and more like intellectual necrophilia.
i have to agree with fyodor here, rafe. you're beginning to sound like a constantly rewound spool of tape, trying to extract expressions of allegiance to anti-communism! the fact is that communism fell apart at the first 'boo!', so fragile were the economies of the USSR and the rest of the iron curtain. it was never a threat to our lifestyles and freedoms the way that the US-backed mujahideen infrastructure (set up to combat communism) which evolved into the HQ of Islamo-fascist terrorism is today.
Jason, 1917 to 1989 seems an inordinately long time to wait for the first boot's impact. For the last 40 odd years of that time the world was enmeshed in a global struggle between two power blocs and the inherent fragility of Marxist totalitariansim wasn't all that self-evident at the time. I agree that one of the wellsprings of Islamofascism was the Cold War utilisation of religious zealotry as a tool against "atheistic communism" but I'm sure you'd agree that it was a bit more complicated than your summation might suggest.
To some extent I share Rafe's concern that 20th century geopolitical reality has been - to some extent - subsumed by a revisionist meme aimed at downplaying the implicit threat of non-Fascist totalitarianism and upscaling the demonic motivation and intent of American global policy. Reality is more complex there as well.
thanks for the response, Rafe, but I don't feel obliged to answer every question about communism you put to me. it seems to me that a much more important question than condemning people for their past behaviour or lauding them for it is understanding the circumstances which led to the rise of tyrannies, both left and right wing. I very much doubt the latter day sectarian Trotskyist left or a few academic Marxists pose any real threat to freedom. it seems to me, rather, that threats to freedom are posed today by groups on the right.
Thanks yellowvinyl, just for the moment I will pass on your sidestep from the question that I asked. Just be clear that I am not in the business of condemning people, rather it is a matter of learning from mistakes and I would really like to know what you and your colleagues on the left have learned from the failure of communism. Have you learned that free trade under the rule of law is the way to peace, freedom and prosperity? That is a question that I would really like you to answer. Also this one: what are the groups on the right that you see as the real threats to freedom today?
I can't speak for "my colleagues on the left", Rafe. since I was 16 when the Berlin Wall came down, nor do I have much personal knowledge of what Australian Communists or their adversaries were doing, only from my knowledge of history.
"Have you learned that free trade under the rule of law is the way to peace, freedom and prosperity?"
that assumes that this is a "fact" that I should have learned. actually, it's an opinion - yours.
"what are the groups on the right that you see as the real threats to freedom today?"
statist conservatives and neo-conservatives.
Next question, what label would you attach to my position?
"Next question, what label would you attach to my position?"
Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor?
easy, Rafe, yr a Popperian Hayekian :)
I don't know, yr in a much better position to define yr own position than I am just as I'm in a better position to define mine.
everytime you post, Rafe, I get the impression there's a bell that's going to go off if I don't give the correct answer within 10 seconds. why not try to engage with the arguments instead of writing as if everyone's under an obligation to answer every question you put to them. that's friendly advice, really, I don't mind chatting to you but it's a bit offputting to have these questions constantly thrown at me :)
"Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor?"
thanks Jason, I'm off to read the Brothers Karamazov in bed now!
Rafe, if yr out there, James Farrell set down his thoughts on Hayek and Popper at length in response to you on another thread:
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/008387.html
Thanks for the steer on James, yellow, I lost track of my threads!
On the questions, people are allowed to be too busy to answer, and I have taken the hint, may take this part of my research off line, still do have a serious interst in the different standards applied to communists and fascists.
Enjoy Dostoyevsky, amazing how readable most of the classics turn out to be, despite expectations that they will be heavy and dense. Joseph Conrad has some good ones, one on the terrorist mentality "The Secret Agent"? which is probably highly topical and another on revolutions in South America. Not to mention Moby Dick.
There's a slight whiff of auto da fe around these parts, isn't there?
Although Jason's suggestion was a good one, I think Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition might have been closer to the mark. It might also be lighter entertainment late at night!
Hey Rafe, if it'll help take your research off line:
I'm sorry about communism, I don't know what came over me and it won't happen again.
Satisfied?
"what are the groups on the right that you see as the real threats to freedom today?"
'statist conservatives and neo-conservatives'
An excellent answer, we can agree on the danger of statism and that kind of Platonic, statist neo-conservatism that is attributed to Leo Strauss. That is why I describe myself as a minimum state, market, non-socialist or classical liberal. So far as I can make out, this is a robust position that is not vulnerable to a great many criticisms that have been launched from the left.
My other point is that there is a totalitarian tradition that has immense appeal to many people under certain circumstances. We need to learn whatever we can from history to avoid repeating past errors. One of those errors was communism, that much is no longer controversial, so why are people bending and twisting in all directions to avoid giving credit where it is due to the original Quadrant people?
yes, I like Conrad as well, Rafe - I wonder if anyone's written anything on 'The Secret Agent' in light of recent events... and we agree about Straussian neo-cons and big government conservatives, but I'm afraid that I don't see it as my business to give credit to Quadrant. I certainly think we do need - now, in 2005 - to be vigilant about all illiberal and proto-totalitarian trends.
Well as long as we have some common ground. Differences can be explored at leisure and I predict that when you learn more about the history of the Cold War you will give credit to the people who established Quadrant:) I will also be interested to see how your thinking evolves as you learn more about economics and classical liberalism.
Aah, GrassPopper, you have so much learn!
Getting back to rafe's obsessions, which seem in danger of never going away, there are, arguably, deep flaws in the way our dogged friend keeps framing the issues. And I speak as a die-hard Conrad tragic, and a fan of some of James McAuley's poetry.
Before you can begin to understand why fascism and communism have different reputations, you must do some analysis of the different characters of the movements. It won't do to simply throw about body counts, as if that makes them the same. They were not.
By identifying the attributes and examining the relations between the two phenomenons, understanding can begin to peep through the mist. An obvious reputation determinant, for example, is the fact that many, almost certainly most, people who became communists in the west, did so in the 30s and 40s explicitly in opposition to fascism. This automatically allocates a consensus against fascism, a defeated movement for whom no presentable representation is possible in today's democracies.
Communism, on the other hand, was not so much defeated, as imploded, at least in its USSR form, and the world just watched in amazement. Meanwhile, many of the ideas embodied within the theories of communism were, and remain, noble, (with variants of parts still alive in, for example, the opening words of the US declaration of independence); many of most honourable and interesting people I know were communists at some stage; the world's largest nation remains nominally communist, as do a few other nations and oppositions around the world ...
If rafe would do some thinking, instead of inquisiting, at every point of analysis he would find radiating complexities that impinge on communism's reputation. On one practical side, socialism remains the nice cousin to communism, and can be downright attractive in combination with liberal democracy. At another level, communism's wild child, trotskyism, continues to spark a curious attraction for a tiny stream of youth. On another side, communism's marxist parent not only constitutes large parts of the infrastructure of the social sciences, it continues to inspire contemporary research. In the wake of the Cold War, Marx's economics has probably become the most untravelled road, yet it is impossible to try to understand the history of economic thought without taking Marx's contribution into account - the neoclassical or marginalist theory of value was basically invented in response to Marx, the last of the great classical economists in my book. It my own field of history, marxism's influence has been largely internalised cross the ideological board. This is inescapable, since several of the most accomplished works of social history from the last century were produced by marxist scholars, and the stream bled into the famous Annals school with enormous benefit and lasting, nay irreversible, influence. The outcome of the cold war will never change the fact that Marx's 18th Brumaire is among the greatest pieces of literature I've ever read. Indeed, so much a part of the world's intellectual furniture remains old Fatty that the call - 'Marx was Right' - recently went through a popular phase with Wall Street globalisers.
We have barely scratched the surface of the question, but you see rafe, fascism's different reputation is undestandable when you think about it. Fascism shares none of these attributes and relations with communism. Fascism has no nice cousins, has no noble ideas, has no honourable spokespersons, has no reputable and influential intellectual parent, has no astonishing literature ... and I'll leave the relationship between Wall Street globalisers and the f-word for you to consider.
As for bloody Quadrant, it gets no free-ticket for merely exisiting. If there is a case to be made, and I think it does have a significant position in the great and glorious annals of the nation's right-wing literature - it is a tract of its times - by all means, try to make it. My opening research hypothesis is that, if you could somehow magically subtract the entire existence of the rag from history, you would look back on a world entirely unchanged, i.e. I think it's impact was basically zip. Yet that's a case for its standard bearers to try to make, not a tpic for politically correct quiz questions.
"Getting back to rafe's obsessions, which seem in danger of never going away ..."
If they went away, they wouldn't be obsessions, would they? It would be ex-obsessions, ceased to be, bereft of life etc ...
Just thought I'd lower the intellectual tone for a moment. As you were.
... run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile.
Chris, I am willing to challenge just about every proposition in your post above, but not at this time of night.
Just one question, if people joined the communist movement with good intentions in the 1930s, when do you think they should have baled out?
I give up. Under which year lies the prize? I'll settle for a mixmaster.
Let me make it easier.
People who joined the communist movement with good intentions to fight fascism should have walked:
a) when the Moscow show trials demonstrated that the leadership was demented.
b) when the mass murder of the small farmers showed that the regime was psychopathic.
c) when Hitler and Stalin signed a pact.
d) when the Australian wharfies were sabotaging the war effort at the start of WW2.
e) when Stuart MacIntyre joined in the 1960s.
Comments (for an extra five marks) ..........................................................................................
Who says anyone "should" do anything Rafey? I thought you were a libertarian. By all means, fussy yourself up pondering which judgement you wish to pass next. The drums beat in anticipation. No doubt the clouds will part at the right moment.
Others, I've heard, are more interested in understanding the history, and will form their own judgements, regardless of the Rafe Inquiry.
Chris wrote:
"By identifying the attributes and examining the relations between the two phenomenons, understanding can begin to peep through the mist. An obvious reputation determinant, for example, is the fact that many, almost certainly most, people who became communists in the west, did so in the 30s and 40s explicitly in opposition to fascism".
With your knowledge of history, when would you have given up on the communist movement if you had joined with the original intention of fighting fascism? Bearing in mind how communism was shaping up through the thirties, culminating in the Hitler/Stalin pact.
Rafe, you appear to aspire to some sort of retrospective moral audit of communism, a post-modern McCarthyism, if you will. I'm sorry if nobody, or at least me, gives a shit.
I have given you some assistance with your original question about the different reputations enjoyed by communism and fascism, and the significance of Quadrant. I'm afraid there are no more free lessons available until you have demonstrated some aptitude for the topic.
One of numerous problems with Rafe's Inquisition is that, although I'm sure cs is right that many/most western fellow travellers/adherents were initially attracted in opposition to fascism/nazism, the aspects of communism that attracted them no doubt differed radically between individuals (the same is true for liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy etc), and the extent of knowledge and understanding of actual events in the USSR and elsewhere no doubt also differed radically between individuals. So Rafe's quiz is inherently meaningless.
Another factor, influenced by the above ones, is the extent to which adherents were prepared to "cut a bit of slack" for communism for some manifestly appalling actions, given its undeniably noble ultimate goals and the fact that it was under concerted attack from capitalist forces not all of whom were terribly admirable chaps.
I can illustrate the point by my own attitude to US actions during the Cold War. I'm prepared to cut America a bit of slack in the fact that it saw it as necessary to ally itself with some fairly odious (and often corrupt) anti-communist dictators as part of the war against the spread of communism, and also in relation to its fostering of the mujahideen forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, notwithstanding that it eventually led fairly directly to Al Qaeda.
If global capitalism were to suddenly fail, I imagine it would be possible for some smug, self-satisfied inquisitor for whatever ideology that replaced it to compile a similar set of questions to Rafe's, and regard the answers as equally self-evident and unarguable. History, at least the establishment brand thereof, is made by the winners.
Both Ken and Chris have made some excellent points, Rafe. If you desire is to understand why Australian communists (or British communists) stayed in the Party, I'd suggest you start doing some serious reading in the relevant literature rather than popping up constantly on comments thread in the Australian blogosphere asking people who have never been communists to denounce those who were as traitors and praise Quadrant.
Incidentally, I picked up a 1958 number of Quadrant at the Lifeline bookfest and was underwhelmed.
I had a discussion about why people stay in parties at Catallaxy ages ago with Andrew Norton. My view is that this is an interesting question that's amenable to a sociological answer rather than one couched in ethico-moral terms. From my own experience, friendship networks, career prospects, and all that goes along with socialisation into what's often a fairly self-contained social world is a very important factor. When I left the Labor Party, it meant that I had to find a whole new group of friends, and a lot of my residual links with ALP people continued to influence my sense of loyalty and feeling for the Party, despite my disillusionment at the time with its political direction. I'd suggest that something similar but more powerful went on with the CPA - as the "social distance" between party adherents and the broader society was greater than with mainstream parties. You could apply something like the Weber/Troeltsch church/sect theory to this question with some validity, I feel. It seems to me that Hobsbawm's stated reasons have a lot to do with friendship and loyalty.
I've previously suggested, Rafe, that you read his autobiography "Interesting Times". You'll get a lot more insight from that than from firing questions and setting quizzes on blogs.
It's also intellectually sloppy in my view to ignore Hobsbawm's arguments because of his political affiliations.
I went out with a CPA member in 1988, and knew quite a few young CPA folks in the late 80s and all were fine people, many of whom had a well developed ethical sense and a lot of political commitment.
I wouldn't want the job, but if Rafe wished to make a case for Quadrant, i'd suggest trying to pick a few winners - some issues where it has plausibly made a difference. A careful scholar may be able to come up with some. Wasn't the Hendo i/r club thing published in Quadrant? Mind you, Paddy McG disputes Hendo's authorship, or 'coinship', and anyhow it's just public choice theory. Oft quoted, but no big idea. I guess you'd also have to look for counterfactuals, for the thing to stand up. What sort of measures could you emply? Readership? Citations? Bringing a government down? Forcing changes to arcane foootnotes?
I suspect a better focus, in terms of public interest, would be a literary appreciation of Quadrant. It has contained some gems over the years, and has a substantial poetry. Perhaps it has some credits in helping writers along their way. There is probably quite a good store of secondary material on Quadrant, given its longevity, which could assist to recreate the context for a serious evaluation ... if anyone could possibly be interested in such an exercise.
I suspect I'd go with the literary angle, and junk the rest, but you never know till you look.
By the same token, of course, Chris, one could also look at leftie "little magazines" like Overland for their literary contribution. I suspect on both sides this has been a longer lasting thing than the political impact, which I suspect just contributed generally to a climate of opinion. I don't have the book anymore but a balanced and authoritative history of the CIA indicated that they thought that the money they were spraying around various cultural freedom institutes and their publications when they came to review it after controversy erupted in several countries. But this stuff is difficult to quantify. I hardly think that anything written in Australia contributed in large part to broad foreign policy debates in that era - various US rags would have been much more influential.
In any case, as you quite rightly say, the causal relationship to the end of Soviet Marxism is probably nil. It's much more likely that the difficulties of running an autarchic economy and the availability of petrodollars plus the marketability of Soviet oil reserves in the 70s kicked the economic decline off. (nb - Rafe - this has nothing to do with free trade.) In terms of political reform, Gorbachev arguably missed the boat by several years to preserve the Soviet Union as a viable entity - but that wasn't his fault. I'd give Reagan scarcely more credit than I'd give the Quadrant mob.
Thanks for the assorted comments which are interesting and revealing in various ways. This project has some way to run yet, but for a change of pace it may be helpful to pursue some of the deeper theoretical issues broached by Chris in his defence of Marxism as a methodology and a body of theory. I would be interested in a comment from Chris, or indeed anyone else, on the challenge offered by the so-called Austrian school of economics and social thought, as spelled out in the piece that can be accessed via my signature.
I know the Austrian school well Rafe. I file their stuff under cult studies, over near my store of tin foil.
Where do you keep your copy of Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies"? Do your students read it?
With the rise of neo-Platonism among the neo-conservatives it seems that volume 1 (on Plato) has become even more topical than the second volume (on Marx).
For an overview of Popper's contribution to some of these matters, clic sig.
I haven't read "The Open Society", but do have "The Poverty of Historicism" sitting between "Leiviathan and "A Nietzche Reader" in the bookcase to my left - quite handy for arguing against economic rationalists, I sometimes find.
Incidentally, I notice you credit PPMcG for the public choice criticism of the 'IR club', not Hendo. So, is Paddy in the right here, in claiming prior coinage?
No I just happened to have the Paddy piece at hand.
No Paddy's not right, or 'no' as in you don't know? Hendo's article was published in Q in Sept 83, but I'm told Paddy first employed the 'club' epithet in the AFR, where he was editor at the time.
Chris, I have no idea about the priority issue, I did not read the Fin Review but I had a CIS publication that Paddy wrote on the club.
On using Popper's "Poverty of Historicism" against economic rationalists, I suppose you refer to his argument that anti-interventionism is self-contradictory. Just as well he had his chair in Logic and Scientific Method before that came out.
Economic rationalists object to interventions that favour vested interests, put up prices, interfere wiith the voluntary exchange of goods and services etc. They do not object to state activities by way of police, courts etc to control the use of force and fraud, or even to provide many services.
Popper used an all-encompassing definition of state intervention to cover anything that the state might do, including the establishment of agencies to control force, fraud and other kinds of interference with voluntary exchanges. Then he implied that anti-interventionism (that is, not having those agencies) would leave people exposed to force, fraud and victimisation by the intervention of badhats, criminals, bullies and frauds. So you have to have intervention by the state to control bad kinds of intervention by other people. Therefore anti-interventionism is self-contradictory. QED Actually his argument is briefer than that.
But free traders, apart from the most robust anarchists and libertarians have no problem with market-protecting forms of state activity, they just prefer not to call them "intervention" which is usually limited to market-frustrating activities.
Actually Popper's advice was to test out the impact of interventions to see what actually happens, advice that opponents of free trade could usefully observe.
He became increasingly concerned about social democracy and the welfare state but he never got around to thoroughly revising some misleading and unhelpful views that he propagated in parts of The Poverty and OSE.
I thought you were making claims on behalf of Quadrant? Hendo's essay is one of the most well known articles ever published in Quadrant, and you don't even know if he ripped his idea of the editor of the AFR, who, as it happens, with continuing relevance for your topic, is now the editor of Quadrant. My confidence in your aptitude, or even substantive interest, in this topic continues to slide, alas.
Popper's piece is fun to quote back at right-wingers supposing to know the direction of history, of whom, as it also happens, there are a good many around and about the place these days.
"Popper's piece is fun to quote back at right-wingers supposing to know the direction of history..."
Oh Chris, yer such a party popper sometimes.
... sends 'em apopperlectic
".. sends 'em apopperlectic"
...when they're trying to weasel out of being popped with their own poptart.
Must bone up on "The Poverty of Historicism". Sound relevant to my philosophy of history kinda thing. I've read Leo Strauss' reply to it.
ps - This thread, which will have its first month's anniversary on Saturday, really should be renamed "occasional discussion between Rafe and others on Quadrant, Dostoevski, Conrad, Popper and others".
If James F and Rob want to bring their baroque opera discussion here, I'm sure someone will point out the obvious link with the concerns of this thread, which like the spectres of Marx, is eternal and multiple.
*cough "thesis" cough*
You've already got one parental figure commenting here. Don't make the rest of us feel the same way.
Mark, if you want a take on Popper's views on history you might do better to check out chapter 25 of The Open Society "Has History any Meaning".
Can you give me the reference for Strauss on the poverty.
Thanks, Rafe. Strauss discusses Popper in two essays collected in 'What is Political Philosophy?' - the eponymous one and 'Political Philosophy and History'. In true Straussian fashion, he doesn't refer to Popper by name but exegesis of these essays by other scholars suggests he had Popper in mind.
'If James F and Rob want to bring their baroque opera discussion here, I'm sure someone will point out the obvious link with the concerns of this thread...'
Easy peasy. As it happens I've been waiting for the right moment to confess something to Rafe, namely that I've been a closet fan of Austrian economics ever since he revealed (over at Marlinspike) that von Mises advocated subsidies for opera. For someone who loves both subsidies and opera, this is ideological catnip.
Alright, then, being lamentedly ignorant of Von Mises' views on the subsidy of opera, I will nevertheless make two observations:
(a) When it comes to Baroque opera, I really like 'Julius Caesar';
(b) Geoff Dow once correctly observed to me that proponents of the Austrian School and assorted other members of the non-left (to adopt Rafe's terminology) never give their heroes the dignity of the aristocratic particule. Ie Von Hayek and Von Mises. Is this because they support the legislation introduced in the post-war Austrian Republic which saw even the former Emporer's son and Archduke of Austria referring to himself as Dr Otto Hapsburg rather than 'von' Hapsburg (if anyone deserves an appellation of nobility surely it's the family of the Holy Roman Emperors). And the fact that this legislation was designed to erase class distinctions and the historical influence of feudalism?
Any ideas?
being a Hayek but less of a Mises fan, the answer is I never thought of it. Most of the books I read don't use Hayek's aristocratic title so I don't either. I'm indifferent to it. And incidentally I should note that it is to the credit of the Austro-Hungarian empire and Mises himself that Mises has a Von - he was, as you would know, of Jewish descent
I assume you mean you mean Handel's Julius Caesar. Well, that demonstrates extraordinarily good tase. My favourite bit is Sesto's aria is 'L'aure che spira' at the end of Act II. Of those I'm familiar with, I think Handel's best is Semele, but I have a soft spot for Arminio, which seems terribly underrated.
My favourite Handel is 'Solomon'. Not so much an opera as a dramatic oratorio. Listen the the arias of the First Harlot - well, that what he calls them; absolutely riveting, especially as sung by Joan Rodgers on the Gardiner recording.
'Words are weak to paint my fears
Heartfelt anguish, starting tears
Best shall plead a mother's cause.
To thy throne, O king, I bend
My cause is just, be thou my friend.'
Solomon sings: 'Justice holds the lifted scale'.
And the choruses: matchless!
Racing determinedly off at a tangent here, has anyone else read Gerard de Nerval's account of a story he allegedly heard in Egypt about the meeting of Solomion and Belkis (Queen of Sheba)? He recounted it in the stangely named 'Women of Cairo' (mid-1800's). On this account Solomon was not Handel's seer at all, but a boastful pedant, and Belkis fell in love with his chief architect Adonirum. Wonderful story that would make a great opera.
Edward Said made some of his more silly remarks about de Nerval, as I recall, in Orientialism.
(Well, Mark said we could post any old stuff here.)
I don't know Solomon, but it's now on my shortlist. It couldn't be as good as Israel in Egypt, surely. Not really possible.
I'm ashamed to say I don't know Israel in Egypt, although a friend of mine heard Gardiner performing it in Mebourne some years back and said it was the best choral music he had ever heard. And he's a chorister himself and a very tough critic.
Solomon dates from the early days of digital recording and Rodgers - singing beautifully in absolute anguish at the thought of losing her child (this is the 'cut the baby in half' scene) - sometimes saturates the mikes, on my system at least. But it's just marvellous, especially the 2nd and 3rd acts.
Mind you, Gerard de Nerval had a few odd remarks of his own.
When asked why he was walking a lobster on a leash, he replied "Because it does not sing and knows the secrets of the sea."
I'm savin' that one up for the next time someone catches in me a comprising position with a crustacean.
Nabokov, I know Gerard was a bit of a nutter who eventually hanged himself under one the bridges over the Seine. Like his book, though.
Gentleman, before you proceed any further with this discussion, please summarise and expound the salient opinions of Rudolf Carnap.
I always thought of Rudy as Wittgenstein lite, easily refutable by kicking his Berk of an arse.
I remember him well. He was one who never understood less than he pretended to. One who insistently claimed more than his lack of entitlement, and suffered for it; never sought less than what he was never destined to claim. His central thesis (controversial in Prague) was that nothingness was the product of the ultimate unknownableness of not-being. That un-nothingness, on the contrary, sprang from its obverse, the essential knowableness of not-nothing. These views made him unpopular in Paris, where nothingness was regarded as knowable, but only by virtue of its not-beingness.
No, I've never heard of him, sorry.
Of course I would say that wouldn't I? 'specially as I'm now seriously chewing on a very tasty Laphroaig while listening to the Spencer Davis Group play "Waltz For Lumumba", after a very productive day in the heart of Aus's military-industrial complex.
Parse that, Carnap boy.
"please summarise and expound the salient opinions of Rudolf Carnap"
EX 1 ...EX m TC(O 1 ,...,O n ,X 1 ,...,X m )
(x)[Ax
Jason, you crossed a Q and dropped a P there.
On the topic of Gerard de Nerval and his lobster (thanks Nabakov) there is a great little essay on Dadaism at the end of Edmund Wilson's book "Axel's Castle" which I have scanned to put on line. More editing required at this stage.
Carnap wrote three of the most useless books in the twentieth century. But he did support the publication of Popper's Logik der Forschung.
Trackback:
http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/07/23/leftie-poll-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-responses-invited/