Rawnsley and Veitch - a double standard to make you weep

As of right now Tony Veitch is still employed (1) by TVNZ, inspite of having potential criminal charges hanging over him and having admitted to a 2006 assault on his then girlfriend that was so extreme it left her in a wheelchair. Contrast this with the treatment (2) meted out to TVNZ security gaurd Louis Rawnsley, who had the audacity to quietly tell Chritine Rankin that he thought some of her comments on Maori were out of order. He was sacked immediately.

Astonishingly, it seems TVNZ seems a violent misogynisitc rampage less shocking or worthy of sanctioning than telling an evil minded harpy the truth about her despicable racist stirring. It couldn't be because Veitch is a 'public' figure with high recognition, where as Rawnsley seems to have been a quiet, diligent employee with 24 years service behind him? Surely not.

Veitrch is a disgusting piece of human detritus, and TVNZ's hypocrisy is also disgusting. Which isn't to say the treatment given to Rawnsley should also apply to Veitch, but the reverse - if TVNZ are willing to be so thoughtful towards trash like Veitch, then the very least a quiet-spoken, polite man like Rawnsley deserves is the same consideration.

1 - 'Statement from TVNZ Regarding Tony Veitch,' released by TVNZ, Thursday 10th July, 2008. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0807/S00176.htm)
2 - 'TVNZ CEO defends sacking of security guard,' unattributed 3 News article, 8th of August, 2008. (http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/32152/Default.aspx)

So what do Labour have to do?

As pointed out last night, Labour can't win the election. They have to rely on National losing it. That isn't going to happen, unless John Key is actually caught eating a baby. National are not going to do anything between now and polling day. They don't need to. The public is minded to change the government.

What negative campaigning National has done has been very effective. Within 30 seconds of any political debate, someone will start droning on about 'nanny state,' 'state control,' 'being told what to do' and 'political correctness' - all signs of a complete lack of cerebral function in the entity speaking (take a bow, Jock Anderson, on the Panel yesterday), but it is also an indication of how difficult Labour's position is. National haven't engineered this mood - it is the inevitable result of one party being in government too long. They have, however, managed to identify themselves as the sensible alternative to more of the same, rather smartly.

So Labour have to find a way to actually make people want to vote for them again. This won't win the the election, in all likelihood, because the gap is too wide. But it might force National into releasing policy, making statements and, crucially, making mistakes.

The worst thing Labour can do is try to play National's game. Attacking John Key will have a marginal effect, at best. It might make a difference if it was a handful of point seperating the parties, but when the gap is a gulf, shooting squibs at the leader will fall a long way short. Unless they have something that would destroy Key in the yees of the voters, they need to find something else. The impetus isn't with them on this one. People aren't going to vote Clark because they dislike Key - the deep seating dislike of Clark and hergovernment is ensures that only works one way.

The other part of the National strategy - be vague, vague and then vaguer still - also won't work for Labour. Given the choice between an unpopular adminsitration that is promising nothing much, and a popular opposition that is promising nothing much, it is obvious who is going to win. Labour can't damage Key enough (child eating revelations not-withstanding) and they can't simply smile and nod their way to victory - or anywhere near it - from 20 points back.

I hate the term vision, because it always makes me think about George Bush I wittering about the "Vision thing" and it also smacks of Michael Laws, but Labour need something that will actually get people a bit excited about the party - persuade enough of the defectors to come back so as to give the party a chance of getting within grabbing distance of Key's shirt tails. THEN the slow accumulation of doubts and questions about Key and National will start to be important. Do we really want to look at that smirk for another three years? Can we really trust him? Is he competent? At this stage, none of these things matter, because large parts of the electorate would vote for anything other than Labour - but if Labour can claw back enough support, it might make a difference.

The other factor is the possibility that National will have to rethink their strategy. If they see their poll lead shrinking they may risk putting policy out there to be attacked. If people start getting interested in another three years of Labour, National will have to say, "No, we're different and interesting! Vote for us!" and at that point they become vulnerable, because Labour will be able to critique their policy and there is a very strong liklihood (given the staggering uselessness of most of the National front bench) that they will cock up in some way.

Labour can't squat on the centre ground, however. National has taken it over, albeit under false pretences. Labour needs to present some real, interesting, social democratic ideas trhat will get people excited about voting for them again. Totlally off the top of my head, here are some of the things they could do that might work for me:

• Kiwisaver for all. Every child born in New Zealand is automatically enrolled in Kiwisaver and given their thousand dollar start up - plus, perhaps, a further annual addition from the public purse. This would have some massive, positive impacts down the line - first, making all New Zealanders into good savers from birth, and giving many more people the chance to own their own home, if they decide to use their savings for that.
• Free public transport. Encourage people to take the bus or train by making it free. People can apply for a travel card (perhaps a one off or annual fee) which allows them to use buses, trains, trams within urban areas. Perhaps each citizen is allocated a certain number of miles they are entitled to use free of charge - which would give people the motiation to use up their miles each year.
• 'Opt out' unionisation. All employees are automatically enrolled in a union of their choice unless they specify non-membership (in which case, obviously, they will be paid less). This might conjure images of Britain's Winter of Discontent, but in fact large union membership tends to diminish radicalism, not encourage it. The anecdotal stories I've heard show that voluntary union membership doesn't work - the owners are against it, and will use all manner of dirty tricks to prevent it.
• Free education. All these 'voluntary' fees need to go. Pay through taxation instead, which is fairer and at least does get paid. And further ...
• Educational allowance from age 16 onwards. People leave school to get jobs because they need money. It seems treasonable, soince education is a desirable goal, thet those between 16 and (for argument's sake) 18 are compensated int he short term for doing something that will benefit us all in the long term - staying in education, building up qualifications and then going on to becoming more effective tax payers. The obvious way is simply to pay 'em for remaining in school.
• Renationalise electricity. Just like buying back the railways makes sense in the era of climate change, it make sense to have state control over electricity generation. It is absurd to have profiteering the primary motive behind electricity supply. It should be providing clean, sustainable power. Lets not give Bolger control over it though, otherwise he'll start putting on all sorts of airs and graces and start calling himself King Jim, or something.
• Compensation for victims of crime. A lot of crime is a symptom of social ill - it flourishes in societies that are rotting. As society has allowed or even encouraged these problems (take a bow, Richardson and Douglas), society owes something to the victims, just as employers owe something to those hurt ithrough unsafe workplace practices. We deal with the latter through ACC. There should be something similar for victims of crime to help them deal with the consequences of their misfortune.

Obviously, all of the above would not be an option, but some of it might be. And it would give people positive reasons for voting Labour - positive big government. It strikes a chord because it runs contrary to the modern, miserable individualistic trend - the idea that we are a society and we can make communal decisions like that almost has the sniff of dangerous radicalism about it.

Britain 1979 – Parallels, Part Two

The similarities between the victory of Margret Thatcher in 1979 and the situation in New Zealand in 2008 don't end with the fact that both Thatcher and Key mouthed centrist platitudes in their pursuit of power – remember, "being in government is worth everything" (1).

John Campbell's description of the election campaign that saw Thatcher oust Jim Callaghan's Labour government is also instructive (2). Politicians, after all, have always been liars. They haven't all gone on to win, however. Thatcher did, Key probably will. If Labour are to stop him, someone should examine where Callaghan went wrong, to see if any useful lessons can be drawn from it.

This is not such an analysis. It is just a loose collection of thoughts based upon my reading of the closing chapter of Simpson's book.

First of all, the general position of the parties in 1979 is similar to the current situation in New Zealand in 2008. Labour are in power. While Labour in New Zealand have been in power for a lot longer than the Callaghan administration (or the lacklustre Wilson administration that immediately succeeded it), both Labour and the Conservatives of the 1970s had pursued broadly similar policies, particularly in the key area of industrial relations. Following the Winter of Discontent , it was easy for Thatcher to take advantage of the popular frustration with the 'old way' and suggest – without ever getting very specific – that she offered a new solution to the problem that had been left to fester. National have the opportunity to present themselves in a similar light, as an alternative to a longstanding, traditional way of doing things. Rather like Lange's Labour Party in the 1980s, in fact. And we all know how that ended up.

Further, the election is National's to lose, just as it was Thatcher's to lose in '79. The National Party, like the Labour Party, has enjoyed a big lead in the polls for a long time. Realistically, Labour will struggle to overturn this, even six months out from the election. It will require some sort of monumental cock-up on National's part, or Labour revealing something truly remarkable, to turn it around. So it is likely that National will imitate the Tory strategy in 1979, which was to fight as boring a campaign as possible. Campbell describes the Conservative strategy to "Keep the campaign as low key as possible, avoiding any risks that might jeopardise their commanding lead" (3):

The electoral strategy set by Reece and Thorneycroft had three strands – neutral, negative and positive. The first priority was to protect the Tory lead by keeping the campaign as dull as possible and allowing Mrs Thatcher to say nothing that might frighten the voters. The negative strand was to keep the heat on Labour, reminding the electors in simple language of the government's record ... inflation ('prices'), unemployment ('jobs), cuts in public services (schools, homes and hospitals) and above all the strikes and picket line violence of the winter ... From this the positive appeal followed naturally – the simple electoral cry of all, "Time for a change!" (4)

This reluctance to fight Labour on issues led them to refuse an offer for Thatcher to debate Callaghan on television. It was feared that even if she won, the sight of her "Laying into Uncle Jim" would alienate voters. Key, at least, will not have that option. He will have to debate Clark. While he will probably find it a rather trying experience, he can take comfort in the fact that Clark won't be able to overturn a twenty point deficit, no matter how thoroughly she mauls him. If Labour are relying on that, they are doomed, and deserve their fate.

The negative strand of the campaign was most famously demonstrated by the Saatchi & Saatchi 'Labour isn't working' posters, which summarised perfectly what the Tories were about – attack the other party, no matter how crudely or disingenuously. Buzz words. Slogans. Powerful images. Say nothing about your own policies, because that will only give the enemy something to use against you. There was no positive reason to vote Conservative in that poster. They didn't need to give one. It was enough to remind people that they felt Labour government had let them down.

This feeling of disillusion was far more important to the Tories in 1979 than any policy they could muster of their own, which is another similarity between Then/There and the Here/Now. Or, rather, the Here/Soon. Campbell's describes how Thatcher overturned traditional voting patterns in 1979:

Academic analysis of the 1979 result suggests that the Tories did do exceptionally well among their target groups, gaining an 11 per cent swing among the skilled working class (the C2s) and 9 per cent among the unskilled. Many of these converts continued to vote Conservative throughout the 1980s. But there is also plentiful anecdotal evidence of lifelong Labour voters who were persuaded to vote Conservative for the first time, and spent the next ten years bitterly regretting it.

On who recorded his reasons at the time was the Director of the strike-ravaged National Theatre, Peter Hall. 'We had a society of greed and anarchy,' he wrote in his diary at the height of the winter chaos in terms which Mrs Thatcher herself could not have bettered. 'No honour, no responsibility, no pride. I sound like an old reactionary, which I'm not, but what we have now isn't socialism, it's fascism with those who have the power injuring those who do not.' Three months later, he shocked himself by deciding to vote Tory, having come to the conclusion that Labour was no longer the party of social justice. 'It's now the party of sectional interest; the party that protects pressure groups and bully boys.' 'It wasn't all that difficult this morning to vote Tory,' he wrote on 3 May. 'In fact it positively felt good .. we have to have change.' Hall wanted Mrs Thatcher to 'sort out' the unions. Fourteen years later he could not deny her credit for having done so, though he loathed practically everything else she did, particularly the commercialisation of the arts. 'I can understand now why I voted Tory,' he reflected in 1993. 'I very much wish I hadn't had to.' (5)

The final swig to the Tories was 5.1 per cent, lower than the swing in the traditional Labour vote – so the above average defections in the targeted working class vote were crucial to the Tory victory (6). Labour needs to watch out for its core vote – assuming it has any left come polling day – and defend it against the sick feeling of disillusion and disappointment that the Tories exploited so well in 1979.

Ultimately, it may be impossible. The British Labour party is credited with having fought a good campaign in 1979, generally out-performing the Tories. They reduced a Tory lead of between 9 and 13 per cent st the start of the campaign to between 3 and 5 percent (7). Further, they Britain's Labour party enjoyed one asset that New Zealand's does not - a popular leader who was seen as a symbol of unity, rather than division. Callaghan always beat Thatcher in the Preferred Prime Minister stakes (8), but still they lost the election.

Here in New Zealand in 2008, things are different and yet eerily the same. The government has been in power a long time, long enough to make the "Time for a change" slogans have a superficial validity regardless of any other considerations. The impetus is for change. Campbell describes Callaghan in fatalistic mood, and the wily old fixer's thoughts make grim reading for any Labour strategists:

Jim Callaghan told his senior policy adviser, Bernie Donaghue, that every thirty years or so there occurred 'a sea change in politics'.

It then does not matter what you say or do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves. I suspect there is now such a sea change – and it s for Mrs Thatcher. (9)

Turning the clock back thirty years in New Zealand takes us back – more or less – to the fall of Muldoon. There was a sea change then, alright. Since the mid-nineties, however, the tide has been running the other way, and New Zealand has been better for it. It would be strange indeed if the New Zealand electorate rejected Clarkite social democracy (you can't call it socialism with a straight face, unless you are Lindsay Perigo) in favour of the same medicine that made so many gag (with no noticeable benefits) in the 80s.

1 – Attributed to Ruth Richardson, quoted by Nicky Hager in The Hollow Men, Craig Potton Publishing, 2006. The comment occurs in an email to Brian Sincliar, and is quoted on page 68 of my edition of The Hollow Men.
2 – Margret Thatcher: The Grocer's Daughter, by John Campbell, published by Jonathan Cape in 2000.
3 – ibid, page 427.
4 – ibid,
page 429.
5 – ibid, pages 433-4.
6 – I am not suggesting that directors of theatre companies are blue collar heroes. It is a shame that Campbell didn't back up his 'anecdotal evidence' by talking to someone a bit more proletarian than Peter Hall.
7- Campbell, op. cit. Pages 427 and 444 respectively.
8 - ibid, page 427.
9 – ibid, page 443.

Britain, 1979 – parallels with NZ Labour’s current woes

History has lessons, if you look in the right places. If you ignore history, you are likely to become it, usually in an involuntary and bloody manner. Santayana said, in a famously quotable form, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (1).

Marx considered something similar, less pithily but more pungently, recalling that

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. (2)

So we must look to Hegel, perhaps, to find the source of the idea. I'm sure Marx knew precisely where in Hegel, and was simply being modest when he suggested he couldn't remember precisely where. No matter, after all, this is New Zealand, and the nearest anyone has come to forming a thought on the significance of historical precursors is Split Enz assuring us that history never repeats. Which tells you, perhaps, everything you need to know about how such rumination is regarded by Kiwis. The ponderous thought of Hegel, Marx and Santayana is dismissed, and dismissed in a three minute pop song.

Doing my own bit of historical rumination lead me to re-visit the final chapters of John Campbell's biography of Margret Thatcher, The Grocer's Daughter, which chronicle her election triumph in 1979 (3). Perhaps here are some object lessons for the New Zealand Labour party of 2008, as they face the fate of Jim Callaghan's doomed administration.

First of all, there is some similarity between the emptiness of the Tories in 1979 and the National Party of 2008. Campbell even titles one chapter, Thatcherism Under Wraps. Thatcher played cleverly, maintaining a facade of centrist reasonability. This was forced on her because her ideological position was at odds both with the electorate and with her party. Thatcher, newly elected leader, is described as lacking

... the authority to impose a thorough-going free-market agenda on the Tory Party, let alone project it unambiguously on the county ... She had to be prepared to fight on a vague prospectus that gave only the vaguest hint of her true ambition. (4)

Key, I think, is doing something very similar. He is far to the right of his public position. He is smart enough to realise that the New Zealand public don't want what he wants, so he tones it down. Occasional hints escape – there is much suggested about what might happen in a second term, once National is safely ensconced and the electorate are feeling more comfortable. It is a smart strategy, and very likely to be effective. That doesn't make it less disingenuous or less despicable, of course. Key should be honest, and tell us what he wants to do, not try and and dupe the electorate into thinking they are just voting for a different bunch of managers, who might be more competent but will do pretty much the same as the last lot. It isn't so, and he should have the decency to say so. It would cost him the election, of course, which is why he won't do anything of the kind.

Few people who voted for Margret Thatcher in 1979 voted for Thatcherism. Most of them voted against Labour, without looking to closely at the alternative. The British electorate were sick of industrial disputes and the apparent inability of either the Hethite Tories or Labour to deal with the Unions. They didn't vote for the Falklands' war, the Miner's Strike, privatisation, the Poll Tax, unemployment at 3 million, the evisceration of British industry in the name of 'efficiency' and the collapse of social cohesion. That is what they got though. New Zealand has had a taste of all this, of course, but it seems likely that the electorate has forgotten. History, after all, never repeats.

Like Thatcher, Key is convinced he is right, of course, and probably believe his free market dreams are what is best for everyone, because they served him well. He is not a Hollow Man in the sense that the term is sometimes misused – he does not lack conviction, but he is so convinced of his convictions that he will mouth any homily to be able to put his ideas into practice, in the end:

In the meantime, she could compromise, bide her time and go along with policies in which, in her heart, she fundamentally disbelieved – as she had been doing, after all, for most of her career – with no fear she would lose sight of her objective or be blown off course. (5)

Key is convinced, because he's made so much money his way, everyone else will be able to do the same. It's what logic lizards call a fallacy of composition – the idea that what works for you will work for everyone else. Most of the time, the opposite is true – what works for you only works because others are not doing it. But this is strange and incomprehensible stuff to the right – though occasionally one of them will be honest enough to say he (or she) doesn't give a damn about that and wants to make a pile anyway, to Hell with everyone else. But most of the time, the mask is held up, and the mantra is repeated, "opportunity for all, weath for all, wealth cascading down the generations ..." Campbell, is an aside raises an eyebrow at Thatcher's description of herself as a 'conviction politician.' He suggests that she was more accurately described as a "Principled opportunist" (6). I think that is a bit kind - blind or blinkered opportunist, perhaps. And the same applies to Key.

So there seems to be a parallel between the Thatcher of 1979 and the Key of 2008. Both are presented as everyday people – Thatcher went to some lengths to present herself as gentler, more feminine and less strident, paving the way for the vacuity and image obsession of the Blair years (Yes, that too can be blamed on Thatcher!. Both have a an instinctive faith in the Free market and a strong desire to open it up – but an understanding that they must bide their time before doing so. Lull the electorate into a false sense of security, convince them you are jsut going to do more of the same, only do it better, and then, once they trust you – and, of course, your opponents still tearing themselves to pieces in a an ideological civil war and too busy with it to actually do any meaningful opposition – start putting the real programme into effect.

There is something slightly farcical about Key, however, that proves Marx right. The way he fluffs his lines every other time he opens his mouth, the gaping holes that are being poken in his credibility. It's buffonish, though perhaps it only seems that way because it is happening now, in slow motion. Thatcher herself was regularly made to look stupid in the run up to her victory, both by the wily Callaghan and her own party. She still won, though, and the results weren't particularly funny. Perhaps Key won't seem so clownish once he's actually making a bollocks of everything for real. Unfortunately, I think we will very likely find out whether I am right on that one.

1 – Like most, I knew the quote without being certain whence it came from. Bartleby assures me my memory is right, It was George Santayana who said it and the quote occurs in chapter 12 of his book, Life of Reason, published in 1905, or perhaps 1906. (http://www.bartleby.com/66/29/48129.html)
2 – I am aware this is not the first time I have used this quote on lefthandpal. It is one of my favourites, and I think, very true. As for citation, I can at least be more exact than Marx. The quote is from "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, " by Karl Marx, 1852. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)
3 – Margret Thatcher: The Grocer's Daughter, by John Campbell, published by Jonathan Cape in 2000.
4 – ibid. Page 364.
5 – ibid. Page 368.
6 – ibid, Page 369.

Ba'ath to the future - genocidal bastards are our friends again

The USA is using the remmants of the old Ba'athist terror network to destabalize Iran. These are, of course, the remmants of the organisation that savagely murdered hundreds of thousands of Shi'ites in 1991, following the abortive uprising against Saddam Hussein, which Bush I instigated. So at least, when it comes to killing Iranian Shi'ites, they should know what they are doing. According to the excellent Patrick Cockburn:

... George Bush successfully requested $400m (£200m) from Congress last year to fund covert operations aimed at destabilising the Iranian leadership. Some of these operations are likely to be launched from Iraqi territory with the help of Iranian militants opposed to Tehran. The most effective of these opponent groups is the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which enraged the Iraqi government by staging a conference last month at Camp Ashraf, north-east of Baghdad. It demanded the closure of the Iranian embassy and the expulsion of all Iranian agents in Iraq. "It was a huge meeting" said Dr Othman. "All the tribes and political leaders who are against Iran, but are also against the Iraqi government, were there." He said the anti-Iranian meeting could not have taken place without US permission.

The Americans disarmed the 3,700 MEK militants, who had long been allied to Saddam Hussein, at Camp Ashraf in 2003, but they remain well-organised and well-financed. The extent of their support within Iran remains unknown, but they are extremely effective as an intelligence and propaganda organisation.

Though the MEK is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups, the Pentagon and other US institutions have been periodically friendly to it. The US task force charged by Mr Bush with destabilising the Iranian government is likely to co-operate with it. (1)

So, lets make this clear. Iraq was invaded because Iraq was supposedly involved in international terrorism, part of an 'Axis of evil' and because the Ba'ath party was an evil organisation that had the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands.

But now the USA is working with the remnants of the same Ba'ath Party's most odious extremities, an acknowledged terrorist organisation. The very people who committed the atrocities in 1991 are now being recruited to commit more acts of terror now. Funded by the American tax payer.

This is, of course, very familiar. The US government has always been willing to pal up to the most vile and murderous tyrants in their inept attempts to exert control over the region (THINK: Iran Contra. THINK: US aid and military intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. THINK: Rumsfeld clutching Saddam's bloody paw. THINK: Glaspie telling Saddam to sort out his issues with Kuwait his way.) Possibly, some in the US government are regretting executing Saddam: "He could have been really useful against the Ay-er-tollers, you know, he knew how to kill 'em."

It is just so f__king depressing that they never learn. And they crease their Simian brows in (perhaps genuine) confusion as to why they are hated and reviled in the middle east.

It seems to have escaped the Bush administration's puny attention that there are still hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq. Perhaps they believe their own propoganda that they have some control over the country. In fact, they are barely tolerated, and the reason they aren't being targeted even more savagely is because the Iraqis are more interested in killing each other over some squabble over succession dating back fifteen hundred years. But if Iran calls on the Shi'ites to rise in Iraq they will, and the blood will flow on all sides.

1 - "Military action 'would destabilise Iraq'" by Patrick Cockburn, published in The Independent, 5th of July, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/military-action-would-destabilise-iraq-860509.html)

John Key - the new David Benson-Pope?

I still can't get my head around this John Key - rail shares thing. The man was made associate transport spokesman for the National Party in 2002. He didn't think there was anything wrong with holding 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail - bought earlier in the same year - and asking questions in the house about the company - which he did in April 200 - prior to selling the shares, which was not done until June that year. (1)

This raises massive questions about his honesty, integrity, judgement and competence. He's either lying about not identifying a potential conflict of interest, or an imbecile for not spotting it and sorting it when he was given the transport job back in 2002.

Strangely, his shifty behaviour seems to have been okayed by the fact he probably lost $49,000 on the sale. Somehow, the un-logic hgoes, this makes it alright. He obviously wasn't being dishonest, just klutzish. After all, a clever schemer wouldn't have been dumb enough to lose that much money, right?

A clever schemer, in fact, would have had the sense to realise the long game was more important. Rather than clinging onto shares that were never going to realise a profit, they would have ditched them immediately the political opportunity opened up. Also, not selling them earlier suggests a lack of financial judgment - an astute investor would have cut their loses by selling before Key did. In spite of what the media are implying, bungling your finances to your own detriment doesn't indicate honest. Rogues can be fools as well.

The fact that Key hung onto the shares as long as he did only shows you can have poor judgement, no principles and be incompetent, all at the same time. Just like David Benson-Pope.

1 - 'Key lost $49,000 on sale of rail shares ,' by Colin Espiner in The Press, 5th of July, 2008. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4608005a6160.html)

Random thought on The Communist Manifesto

The closing lines (1) of the Communist Manifesto are well quoted:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Those fond of flinging such rhetoric about - and all disciples or alleged disciples of Marx - should first consider an almost as famous passage (2) from the opening of the pamphlet:

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight ...

All well and good and very revolutionary,comrade.

But the line immediately following warrants some thought by every revolutionary, whether papered middleclass students playing at radicalism or those in less fortunate circumstance, where violence and revolution are legitimate, necessary choices:

... a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

It is no revelation that revolution and violence often backfire - the tiresome objectivists and their ilk are for ever banging on about how every socialist revolution has resulted in a tyrannical bloodbath. What is intersting, and usually overlooked by fervent young Trots, is that Marx foresaw all this and warned against it in the very first lines of the Manifesto.

Sometimes it is necessary to fight. In Zimbabwe, it will be necessary. There, it may work. In the PRC it would be necessary, but given the size of the country and the strength and resources of the Bastards of Beijing, it is unlikely to succeed - at most, it will only replace one set of tyrants with another, which is what happened when the Maoists took over, anyway.

The disaster of the USSR, the PRC and almost any other avowedly Marxist state are testament to the dangers of armed struggle. The Russian Revolution doomed both contending parties - the old aristocracy was ground under the heel of totalitarianism, but so was the supposedly victorious proletariat. Fighting for freedom or liberation - under the guise of any ideology or idea - is a risky business. They rarely end well, no matter how necessary they are. Perhaps Marx, if he had been more honest, would have admitted such in the final lines of the Manifesto.

1 - From The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Fredreich Engels , Published in 1848. This quotation originates in Chapter Four, Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm)
2 - From The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Fredreich Engels, published in 1848. This quotation originates in Chapter One, Bourgeois and Proletarians. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)