I am in Tbilisi at the moment, where I spent this early morning drinking tea with some of the 2,000 strong Yazidi community. They see their religion as much more closely descended from Zoroastrianism than appears in most accounts I have read.
I very much enjoyed a visit to Tsinandali which was most useful for gaining a Russian perspective of the Great Game. I don’t have my books with me and am suffering a mental block as to whether it was Connoly, Abbott or Malcolm who visited Tsinandali. I had not realised that Griboyedov was married to a daughter of the house, Nina Chavchavadze. The murder of Griboyedov, Russian Ambassador in Tehran, by a mob rates little more than a footnote in British accounts of the Great Game, even though the British had bribed the religious authority to stir up the riots. What revisionist history there has been, has come from the Iranian side and falsely tried to obscure the fact that the refugees Griboyedov was sheltering were runaway slaves from harems.
This is a neglected recurring theme. When Shuja agreed the treaty already negotiated between Macnaghten and Ranjit Singh, the main stipulation he sought to add was that the British would return to him any runaway slave girls. The immediate motive for the ringleader of the attack on Alexander Burnes was that Burnes had refused to intervene to return a runaway slave girl who had sought the protection of another British officer. My fellow anti-imperialist historians have in general been guilty of emphasising rapaciousness by the British in these incidents and overlooking or excusing the slave status of the girls. Both aspects need to be faced squarely to write honestly the full facts of history. Tellingly, it is generally impossible to recover names of the girls involved.
Griboyedov deserves to be remembered for much more than his murder. An accomplished playwright and poet, he was a friend of Pushkin and had links to the dissident groups who attempted revolution in 1825. His murder left Nina a widow at either 17 or 19 by different accounts, and pregnant. She lost the child on hearing of her husband’s death, and never remarried. It is a tragic story which came alive to me in visiting the family home.
Griboyedov had fought Napoleon in the 1812 campaign, but had helped those Napoleonic adventurers Allard and Ventura evade a British blockade and go into service with Ranjit Singh. Griboyedov’s successor as Russian Ambassador to Tehran, Simonicz, had actually fought on the Napoleonic side against Russia, presumably in the Polish Legion. Nina’s sister was to marry a Murad nephew of Napoleon. The political elites of Europe melded quickly after the convulsion.
With which clumsy segue I shall note that the battle against the entrenched political elites of the UK appears to be going extremely well without me. I cannot express without a welling up of real emotion how happy I am that all I have been saying about the stultifying neo-liberal consensus and exclusion of dissent, and appalling burgeoning wealth gap between rich and poor, has found such massive traction between Jeremy Corbyn in England and the SNP in Scotland. I may have gone AWOL for a few days, but the cause of social justice appears in extremely safe hands.
Scottish Labour are considering two candidates for their leader, from what I can tell: http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/blog/entry/scottish-labour-leader-deputy-leader-elections.
I appreciate they might have to keep their options open, according to how the English party leadership goes, but it is nevertheless telling that neither nomination statement contains any concrete policy proposals – just lots of warm words that most politicians will agree with.
“Still wishing everyone ‘Happy Bomb Day’ Anon 1?”
___________________________
If he’s not, Mary, then I’m happy to take over from him and wish it myself.
Hope that helps.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BTW, Anon1, if you’re reading this : excellent posts, especially the ones at 13h18 and 13h29 on Mr Corbyn/SNP. Thank you for making an essential point so clearly and succinctly.
“according to how the English party leadership goes”
There is no English party.
13h39, sorry.
Ha ha, very good MJ! I pondered addressing that objection when I wrote it. However, saying that the matter has been decided is rather like saying we might as well leave the Conservatives in power until, well – forever? It was democratically decided, after all.
Of course, measuring opinions in a democracy is something that needs to be done continually, and opinions change. Scotland wished to remain in the Union by a slim majority of 55%, and if the English party consensus does not deliver on its big promise of much greater devolution, then I think Scots will change their mind.
I am willing to hear the broader argument that if Scotland votes for full independence, realistically there’s no easy way back, and therefore that it isn’t fair to compare the referendum to an ordinary electoral cycle. Nevertheless, I don’t think that means the Scots should only get one attempt at it.
MJ, thanks for the correction – a slip of the brain I keep making 🙂
As I have said before, I sincerely hope that Mr Corbyn becomes the next leader of the Labour Party.
In that way – and assuming Mr Corbyn can take his party along with him and that he remains true to the policies he has espoused so far – the UK electorate will face a clear choice between Left and Right.
And whatever the outcome of that election, the moasning minnies and obsessive pessimists, anarchists and enemies of the UK state present on this and other blogs will not have the excuse of saying afterwards “oh, the people voted X or Y because all the parties are the same, aren’t they dear, innit”.
It is my belief that the Labour Party under Mr Corbyn would suffer a crushing defeat at any general election that probably explains
why I detect a barely concealed longing on here that Mr Corbyn should NOT win the leadership contest.
Habba – hardly barely concealed in my case, some of us can see choices other than X or Y, the social democratic model has been around for a long time and is unlikely to die that easily in the UK, much as the far left (who have always detested it) might want to see its demise.
@MJ
9 Aug, 2015 – 2:09 pm
I’ll take some lines from the piece of propaganda garbage that was published in the Mail today…
“Islamist preachers and warlords based in Raqqa, Syria, can easily speak to impressionable youths in London using internet phone applications such as Skype or text chat programs such as WhatsApp.”
(these lines are followed by a big photo of an ISIS headcase, then we get these lines…)
“These services are often encrypted, making it difficult for the intelligence services to crack them – hence the Government’s desperate desire to rush in more sweeping surveillance powers.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190706/Jihadis-VJ-plot-bomb-Queen-Police-MI5-race-against-time-foil-Boston-style-IED-spectacular-Saturday.html
(apparently the article ran to four pages in the print edition).
With the Lib Dems out of the way, the government are now going full steam ahead with the Communications Data Bill (aka the Snoopers’ Charter), and the Tories are planning to add even more controversial stuff to it…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jul/20/reaction-to-camerons-speech-on-tackling-extremism-politics-live#block-55acf3bce4b0571ff3515bdd
What Stalin and the Nazis, et al, had in common was a massive propaganda machine. Maybe the Daily Mail will run a story about it?
“What Stalin and the Nazis, et al, had in common was a massive propaganda machine”
And they didn’t even have TV! They would be drooling at the powers Cameron is cheerfully awarding himself.
“As I have pointed out frequently, renationalisation of rail and other natural monopolies enjoys high and constant public support. It is both popular and sensible.”
Yes there is also PR and the issue of rescuing an old cold war relic Trident, some 125 bn worth of a move south to Portsmouth most likely, or setting a sing to unilaterally scrap Trident, normalising relations with the US, rather than carrying on with an unreal ‘special relationship’ based on threats.
Corbyn’s remarks, offering a solution that includes the SNP, a refreshing move showing that he is not prepared to run a one man band political movement, but intends to listen to the public. it is a reaction to the voters who voted for his message of an end to austerity, less waffle, working to end tax evasion, a reaction to many common points in both of these parties.
I could argue that long term policies are needed to tackle climate issues, energy policies, democratic values within the EU and here, as well as defense matters in Europe.
I very much hope that a future coalition also includes the Green Party, who’s policies are mostly long term, aimed at working towards a sustainable society. To achieve this we must support a root and branch reform of our financial systems, globally, we must support simple shoots that work our solutions to today’s ills.
http://www.theactuary.com/features/2015/03/green-shoots-with-oliver-bettis/
“It is possible to believe in a mixed economy in which there is both private ownership and social control/ownership where collective provision provides the better result and mitigates the worst excesses of free markets…”
That would appear to be precisely what Corbyn wants-selective nationalisation of certain natural monopolies and services, such as care of the elderly, education and the NHS, which ought not to hived off to capitalists who prioritise profits over people.
For my own part I regard the ‘mixed economy’ as a Utopian dream. As RH Tawney told the Fabians in 1951; “You cannot tame a tiger claw by claw.” As long as the capitalists are left in control of such organs as the media and are able, because they are not properly taxed, to buy political influence and private muscle, there will be a danger that they will destroy public services and expropriate the common wealth.
That is what has been happening since Callaghan and then Thatcher were governing.
I take it that you do not regard the neo-liberal puppets opposing Corbyn in the leadership race as Social Democrats who believe in mixed economies, do you? They are all clearly committed to Blairism and neo-liberal attacks on working people everywhere.
As to British Rail, despite being starved of capital it was not only much more efficient but much more affordable than the current system which actually consumes far more in public subsidies than the nationalised rail network ever did. The right has no objection at all to tax monies being handed out to profiteers but it is determined to starve any public services of the funds needed to discharge their functions.
Habbabkuk, your analysis about free choice is too simplistic. I agree about +having+ the choice – making distinct left and right policies available is a good step towards a healthy democracy. We’ve suffered in the past due to having a selection of parties that take broadly Right or centre-Right positions (Greens excepted), leaving a deficit of choice on the Left.
Whilst I’d count myself as a Corbyn supporter, I thought the Tory campaign to get him elected as leader was maliciously motivated. They believed that it would “throw the party into disarray” and “make them unelectable” – whatever one’s views are on those statements (and we probably disagree) – the campaign was designed to reduce the breadth of choice on the ballot paper.
Where we differ is whether a Tory win against a Left Labour candidate represents a convincing democratic dismissal of the social-democratic Left. The dilemma in measuring this scientifically is that the media are skewed firmly to the Right, and we’ve only seen a taste of it so far for Corbyn. The mass media are mostly corporations with corporate goals, and expecting their leader-writers and opinion-formers to go out on a limb and oppose the paper’s line sufficiently to create political balance is rather optimistic, to put it mildly.
Remember that Nicola Sturgeon was called “the most dangerous woman in Britain”? That analysis – admittedly from the Daily Mail – is the kind of stuff that is no longer too reactionary to put on the front page these days. That’s the level of opposition social democrats – never mind those farther to the left – have to put up with. And people-powered campaigns typical of the Left just don’t have the media reach, or wealth, to be heard quite as well.
Unfortunately, propaganda works, and it is mostly aimed in one direction. In the case of newspapers, propaganda is mostly in line with the goals of the paper’s owners or the corporate environment in which its advertisers do business. There is not much money to be had in supporting Leftists, and so we are left with the problem that some choices are freer than others.
Of course, there are two difficulties for the Left that flow from this: assuming the media behemoth is so powerful that it talks itself into failure, and using the existence of the elite consensus to excuse a campaign the public genuinely did not like. I am honestly not sure how to resolve this without putting unacceptable constraints on free reporting.
2.33 pm What evil.
Why are people corresponding with him?
It is certainly worth addressing the impact of a Corbyn victory on desire for Scottish independence, and I think I did, a few posts ago.
Certainly a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be more attractive in Scotland, I think there is no doubt about that – to the extent that if Corbyn loses the leadership election, that will be a strong nail in the coffin of Scottish Labour. If Corbyn wins, they key determinant on how that will affect support for independence – and any impact will be marginal – is whether it looks like he will become PM of the UK or not. Very hard to predict that from here.
But you have also to take into account that unlike MJ, Jeremy is not a died in the wool British nationalist. I have never directly discussed it with him, but anybody with his views on Ireland and Palestine is most unlikely to be fundamentally opposed to Scottish independence. I expect he is quite comfortable with the idea of sister nations, if that is what the Scottish people wish.
So we can’t tell from here. But like the vast majority of Scottish nationalists, I wish nothing but well to the people of England and therefore I hope Jeremy wins without a scintilla of reserve.
The leading candidate to lead Scottish Labour Kezia Dugdale, has joined in with the Blairite rubbishing of Corbyn. Never heard of the other chap.
“unlike MJ, Jeremy is not a died in the wool British nationalist”
You don’t have to be a Scottish nationalist to misunderstand how the British political system works, but it certainly helps.
“I have never directly discussed it with him, but anybody with his views on Ireland and Palestine is most unlikely to be fundamentally opposed to Scottish independence”
Perhaps you’d better check first. A lot of old-fashioned leftists believe the struggle between labour and capital transcends national borders and they are at best luke-warm about nationalism. He might want the Labour Movement to encompass the whole of Britain.
I feel obliged to say something about the naive hope being focused on Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for the Labour leadership.
Ever since the Tories won the 1951 election (and then grouped ministries together, with each group of cabinet ministers directed by a hereditary peer as “overlord” – and yes, I am talking about the nineteen 50s), the Labour party has never, in practice, been more nationalisy and less privatisy than the Tories.
Please don’t look back with nostalgia to the 1980s. Their only role then was as a safety-valve. If you want proof, look at how they failed to support the miners or really fight the Tories in any other way, when large numbers of people were rioting, going on strike and protesting against the hated Thatcher governments. It’s not surprising that when they eventually got into government in 1997 they were completely Torified.
I am not saying that they were always a bunch of forelock tuggers and backhander-taking crooks of the Blair and Mandelson type. Only a fool would put someone like Aneurin Bevan, the best PM we never had, in that category. Even privately-educated Clement Attlee doesn’t deserve to go in that category. There were some decent people in the party even as late as the 1970s and indeed, among ordinary members, until the 1980s. It’s not as if an ordinary Labour party member in 1980 would have said yeah, Lord Weinstock was a wonderful chap.
Between 1951 and the 1970s there were TWO main political differences between the Labour Party and their Tory “social superiors”, and both got watered down until in effect they disappeared and were forgotten about. I am not talking about fluff, the singing of the “Red Flag” etc. I am talking about policies which really could have stuck it to the traditional elite in this country, had they been implemented.
That’s what we want, right?
Here they are:
1) SCHOOLS – doing something about the private schools
2) LAND – imposing a large tax on land development
Everything Labour governments tried to do on either of these points between 1945 and the 1970s got scuppered by the traditional elite, including using its control over the civil service.
The traditional elite is the problem.
Corbyn won’t win. It’s all bullshit to give decent but naive people something to get their hopes up, then they’ll be dashed, and then they’ll get something else in a few years time, blah blah.
I will be happy to revise my view if Corbyn very clearly stands on a platform of
– 1) renationalising rail, British Telecom, the postal service and the high street banks (they’re crooks; nobody in their right mind could oppose this)
(this is a far more concrete policy than reintroducing Clause 4, much as I would like to see Clause 4 reintroduced)
– 2) withdrawing from NATO and ending the military alliance with the US (require all US military, naval, airforce, communications and intelligence facilities in Britain to be shut down; do not allow the use of port facilities or overflights; stop giving them intelligence; make them leave territories such as Diego Garcia too; end all military cooperation with the US anywhere in the world)
– 3) unilateral nuclear disarmament
– 4) a massive crackdown on the rich until the pips squeak –
a) tax beneficial interests at a high rate (if you are leftwing and don’t know what a beneficial interest is, bloody well find out!);
b) make income tax highly progressive, with very high top rates;
c) incorporate the Isle of Man and Channel Islands into England with immediate effect and restrict the export of capital from Britain including from those territories
– 5) abolish the monarchy
– 6) crack down on land developers (what about a 100% land development tax, as used to be Labour policy?), loansharks, and other named categories of rich crooks
– 7) smash the shit out of the private schools (about fucking time – this is an absolute necessity if you want to stick it to the elite in this country) – nationalise their assets, end boarding, preferably just close the schools down
– 8) end the “face control” system by which universities appraise applicants for undergraduate places
– 9) no longer allow universities, local authorities etc. to borrow money on the private market
– 10) control rents
– 11) how about having an “ethical foreign policy”?
a) End diplomatic relations with the Zionist entity.
b) Pay reparations to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Where to get the resources? Start by seizing the assets of private military companies, aka mercenaries.
3.41 pm What intolerance.
Why are people still fawning on her?
Declare those wars criminal and seize all profits made from those crimes.
N_
4:12pm
You haven’t mentioned ending private health and private health insurance.
Kind regards,
John
N_
What exactly was the thrust of that lengthy (but interesting) post of yours – other, perhaps, than being a statement of your personal political position?
Please clarify how it relates to the question of Mr Corbyn and his electability (both by the Labour Party and the electorate).
+++++++++++++++++++++
By the way, did you know that ” Aneurin Bevan, the best PM we never had” did not agree with your ” 3) unilateral nuclear disarmament”?
@John. That too! 🙂 Nationalise all British-based assets of the pharmaceutical and equipment companies. Most people would faint if they had a clue about the domination of the entire health-service structure by those interests.
N_,
I agree with most of your policy proposals, but would advocate three restraining principles:
* Making substantial changes to any economic system (capitalism, socialism, etc) is wrought with unintended knock-on effects. Noam Chomsky, who is an anarchist as well as a socialist, advocates for any financial changes to made gently, so as to allow the effects to bed in.
* The law of unintended consequences often kicks in when it is least invited. We probably agree on issues to do with the Middle East peace process, but let me use this for devil’s advocacy: would ending diplomatic relations with Israel increase, or decrease, the oppression of the Palestinians? For example, might this encourage the media to promote the most pro-Israel Republican presidential candidate?
* All of this needs to be done with the consent of the governed. I think a graduated taxation system and some nationalisation would be very popular, but – at present – the British people wish to keep the monarchy. I’d like to see the monarchy end peacefully, to be sure, but I think we need to adhere strongly to the principle that democracy should rarely be overridden.
I personally don’t think that a tax rate of over 50-60% is necessary. If we crack down on non-domiciled residents and tax avoidance, we’d have hundreds of billions of pounds every year to inject into public services. Again, something else that is often subject to unintended effects.
“There seems to be collective amnesia over just how bad British Rail was.”
Yes, it had many shortcomings. But they are outweighed by the problems post privatization which has resulted in fragmentation of the network and its unregulated private monopolization. Ultimately public transport is about getting people from A to B safely, cheaply and on time. A nationalized service focused on functionality and cost effectiveness as opposed to offering “thrills”. Public transport in the UK has become a misnomer.
Yes of course Habby I knew about “naked into the conference chamber”. Just because I think Bevan was the best PM we never had doesn’t mean I think he was the messiah.
You can feel the hate dripping off of the bold, flem-flecked offerings from N_. Real, bitter, class hatred and chip-on-shoulder scorn for anyone richer than him. Pure detestation of Jews and Israel*, expressed many times. One of life’s losers I’m afraid.
*I’ve been meaning to comment on this for some time. N_’s posts on Israel really are full of hate. You get the impression he spits on his computer screen at the mere mention of a Jew.
@Daniel – Privatisation of rail was a huge scam, not a mistake. Huge advice fees were paid to City interests, and then the “leasing companies” which they had recommended the creation of were sold on for triple (?) the price within months (Someone here will know the details.) Railtrack went bust. How on earth can a company go bust that has a monopoly over the railway tracks in a country? At one point (and this may still be the case) five times as much governent money was getting paid out to keep the trains running when they were private than when they were state-owned! We shouldn’t use a tone of reasonable debate when we have in mind the supposed justifications for this enormous act of looting.
Spencer-Davis
“You haven’t mentioned ending private health and private health insurance.”
_______________________
That was an interesting addition to N-‘s list.
I wonder if you would be kind enough to tell readers if you would also endorse the following:
– ending private pensions and private pension provision provision
– ending the GBP 325000 per person exemption from inheritance tax as between parentds and children
– obliging those who sell their house to sell it not at market rates but at the price they paid for it with adjustment for any rise in the RPI/CPI indices subsequently.
Thank you for your views.
With kind regards,
Habbabkuk
Oh fuck off Anon1 – I’m not anti-Jewish at all. Can’t you support your own hatred except with lies?