Like most people, I have not read the journal of that name in years. But I shall have to look up the next one, now that Professor Stuart Hall has died.
It was not in that, but in Marxism Today, that he coined the word “Thatcherism”. I am starting to miss both MT and, even though spiked is of course very much online, Living Marxism. Each would have made great sport of the Coalition.
I can see no basis whatever for the view that the Internet has killed the market for such monthly publications. If I had the money, then it would give me great pleasure to set up both a magazine called The Weekly Standard, and a monthly journal called Commentary, giving a shared platform to the range of critics of the ideology promoted by the namesake publications in the United States.
After all, it is not as if there would be any shortage of material. There is more than enough to discuss. [From this point, you are reading the comment that has caused my account to be disabled by Comment Is Free.] The Right is in crisis following
the collapse of the neoliberal economic order and of its neoconservative
geopolitics. The Left is in crisis due to the second collapse of Marxism in as
many generations, namely that of Trotskyism in the form of neoconservatism.
No one seems to know how to
address such questions as the global economic crisis that began in 2008, the
prolonged aftermath of the events of 11th September 2001, the rise
of Asia, the redefinition of the European Union and of the United Kingdom’s relationship
with it, and the redefinition of the United Kingdom and of the identity of each
of its constituent parts.
However, attendance to what were
once the largely ignored and marginalised phenomena of environmentalism,
feminism, Third World liberation movements, the influence of tendencies such as
Black Power and Black Consciousness, and the use of homosexuality as a mark of
individual and collective identity, has opened up the space for attendance to
what are largely ignored and marginalised phenomena today.
Those include the Classical,
Biblical, Medieval and Early Modern heritages that define the traditions
deriving from disaffection with the events of 1688, 1776 and 1789.
Those
traditions emphasise the indispensable role of the State in protecting against
the market everything that conservatives seek to conserve. They offer perennial
critiques of individualism, capitalism, imperialism, militarism, bourgeois
triumphalism, and the fallacy of inevitable historical progress.
They uphold
the full compatibility between, on the one hand, the highest view of human
demographic, economic, intellectual and cultural expansion and development,
and, on the other hand, the most active concern for the conservation of the
natural world and of the treasures bequeathed by such expansion and development
in the past.
Among the expressions of those
traditions are the trade union, co-operative and mutual, Radical Liberal, Tory
populist, Guild Socialist, Christian Socialist, Social Catholic and
Distributist, and many other roots of the British, Irish and Commonwealth
Labour Movements.
Variously, those roots have been embedded in, have been fed
and watered by, and have grown into economic and wider patriotism locally and
nationally, proud provincialism, worker-intellectualism, and organic
working-class culture and self-organisation in town and country.
This sensibility includes a
strong affinity with the recent historical reality of workers’ self-management
and profit-sharing within a multinational state which included both culturally
Christian and culturally Muslim places and peoples, and which enjoyed vast
global influence while resolutely pursuing peace and eschewing transnational
military power blocs.
Opposition to the shameful British role in destroying
that (rather Anglophile) multinational state first began to bring back together
the traditional British Right and the traditional British Left, each of which
found itself excluded from consideration and debate.
“Identity politics”, as if there
could ever be any other kind, are being appropriated, deployed, transformed and
transcended by heterosexual males, by Christians, by the White British ethnic
group, by those who identify specifically as English, and by people of mixed
ethnic heritage.
It is now possible to listen directly to the voices of all
parts of the world. The old have never been so energetic, their numbers and
expectations having increased enormously. The young are as energetic as ever,
and politically more so than in at least a generation, technology having made
them better-organised than ever before, while other trends have greatly
disadvantaged them compared with their recent predecessors.
The mass anti-war
movement has also become the mass anti-cuts movement, both of which are
anchored on the Left but reach deep into Tory Britain on conservative
principles of foreign policy realism and the use of State action to defend
organic communities against unbridled capital.
This list is very far from being
exhaustive.
The United Kingdom is uniquely
well-placed to host these discussions, being the bridge between Europe and the
English-speaking world, being the heart of the Commonwealth, being the home of
the British Council and of the BBC, and being possessed of the world city.
Our
critique of Whiggery predates any Counterrevolutionary movement on the
Continent, because it predates any Revolution there or in North America. Our
Left is itself deeply rooted in the anti-Whig subcultures.
Predating Marx, it
long predates Gramsci in meeting and transcending his aspirations. Like that of
the traditions which produced it and with which it exists in constant creative
tension, our Left’s very existence is a standing contradiction of economic
determinism and of metaphysical materialism.
By never compromising either the
theoretical or the practical, and by drawing on the fine arts and on the
humanities, on the social sciences and on the natural sciences, on elite
culture and on popular culture, on “religious” material and on “secular”
material, engagement with these and related ontological, epistemological,
ethical and aesthetic resources will help to restore the possibility of an
economy and a society, of a common culture and a polity, of a Right and a Left.
You need to read the great Right-wing historian Maurice Cowling.
ReplyDeleteHe said World War Two was a liberal intervention, that John Stuart Mill was a secular liberal autocrat with totalitarian instincts.
Bizarrely he claimed that 1688, and not 1789, was when the rot first set in.
I don't know if that means he also opposed constitutional monarchy, a right to jury trial, a right to bear arms, a ban on a standing army, the outlawing of torture and all the other treasures the 1689 Bill of Rights bequeathed us.
To oppose 1688 surely means to oppose British civil liberties, jury trial etc most of which derive from the 1689 Bill of Rights.
I read Maurice Cowling before you were born, so I stopped reading your comment there.
ReplyDeleteSomeone has spotted a vacancy he thinks he could fill. Someone might be right.
ReplyDeleteDazzling. Breathtaking. You are a true genius.
ReplyDelete