Assange again

The point about justice is that it should apply to people you don’t like as well as to those you do. Otherwise it’s not justice. I don’t think that, if I met him, I would like Julian Assange very much. (I may be wrong; I’d love to chat with him to see.) Part of that has to do with what I have described as his ‘caddish’ behaviour towards the women who fall for his (undoubted) charm. (That’s easy for me; being charmless, I’ve never been tempted in that way.) I’m also not at all convinced that all his Wikileaks revelations were politically justified, in liberal terms, or that governments should not be allowed some secrecy to pursue delicate negotiations.

None of this, however, bears on the huge doubts I have about the rectitude of his attempted extradition from Britain to Sweden three years ago, on charges that may be flimsy, and in circumstances that might enable his re-extradition to America on espionage charges. I’ve written about that many times over the past three years: see, for example, my lrb.blogs for (11 Nov ’14, 21 May ’13, 20 Aug ’12, 6 May ’11, 11 Feb ’11), and the piece referenced below (5 Feb.). I should add that many Swedes of my acquaintance share these doubts.

I despair that most of the reports I’ve read on the recent UN declaration in his favour have entirely neglected the facts of the case, building their arguments on the prejudice against him; the idea – which is false – that he is trying to avoid Swedish justice (coupled with the assumption that Swedish justice must be perfect in this area, as most other things Swedish are); and pressure from feminists whose understandable desire to punish sexist bastards seems to conflict, here, with the basic legal requirement of presumption of innocence. There’s also the argument, of course, that ‘well, he’s not as badly off as some’, which of course is true, but also irrelevant, and could be used to excuse any injustice.

I’m also beginning to think like a ‘conspiracy theorist’ in this matter. That scares me. I’ve always resisted this, despite having written books on Plots and Paranoia (the title of one of them). In connection with the Assange case, however, the signs of collusion between Swedish, Britain and American governments are too blatant to be ignored entirely.

Another thing that makes me suspicious is the censorship that seems to be going on in the printed press or on ‘respectable’ websites of pieces supportive of Assange. Craig Murray’s site below – he used to be an ambassador – gives examples of this. I think I’ve experienced it myself: when last year I tried to post a comment on a Guardian website about the EAW which dared to mention Assange (politely and non-contentiously) I was immediately ‘pre-moderated’ – i.e. banned; a ban that lasted 6 months until I pointed out to the Guardian that I wrote reviews for them. And I’ve noticed since that when the Guardian reports on the Assange case, it never even permits comments ‘below the line’. Can you blame me for harbouring suspicions of the ‘powers that be’?

Let me add one more thought that I’ve had about this. Marianne Ny’s refusal to examine Assange outside Sweden has, of course, been the main reason for the stand-off that is keeping him in the Ecuadorian embassy. She’s still making things difficult for him in this regard. Does she – it occurred to me – really want to bring him to trial in Sweden? If he were to stand trial there, it would – insofar as it was conducted in public (and there are doubts about that) – be highly publicised internationally; and if the case against Assange were as weak as some of us think it may be, it would throw her, and possibly the whole Swedish judicial system, in a very poor light. She, and it, might be laughed out of court. That’s a huge risk, for the dignity of Sweden. Better to let him stew.

For those still to be shaken out of their ignorance, or prejudice, I recommend (again) my previous posts on this, in various places; and the following (if the link works): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/02/why-the-assange-allegation-is-a-stitch-up/

(Feb 12: There’s an updated version of this piece in the current Lobster magazine: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster71/lob71-assange-again.pdf.)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

IS SPORT GETTING BETTER?

On the one hand, doping and betting scandals. And football still in the hands of quasi-criminal capitalists, paying their mercenary players obscenely high wages, and pricing loyal spectators out of their grounds. (See my earlier piece on this: https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/mercenaries-in-football/.) Who was it who pointed out recently that you can see four operas for the price of an Arsenal ticket? Who are the ‘elitists’ now?

But then, look at Leicester City! A small, unfashionable club, with one star player loyal enough to sign a new 3-year contract with them, despite the blandishments of richer clubs – beating Man City away from home yesterday and flying at the top of the Premier League!

And – on another front – a South African cricket team now full of brilliant players who would have been excluded on the grounds of their colour just a few years ago!

Grounds for hope?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Assange and the UN

Keep a scandal simmering for long enough, and people will get bored with it. That must be most people’s reaction to the latest news about the Assange case: a UN ruling that he has been ‘unlawfully detained’. He’s a funny-looking bloke, and hasn’t he been accused of rape? Why shouldn’t he go and face the music in Sweden about that? Well, my longish piece of about a year ago (https://bernardjporter.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/julian-assange-and-the-european-arrest-warrant/) explains clearly why. I’ve nothing to add to that. It still stands. The UN ruling bears me out to the hilt. But do you think the British and Swedish governments will take any notice? Or will need to, in view of his semen-smeared reputation?

Fundamentally, the question was simple. Assange was perfectly willing to face trial either if he were questioned in the UK; or if the Swedish government would promise – which it is in their power to do – that he wouldn’t be re-extradited to the USA on Wikileaks-associated charges. One or other of those two things – not both. It is genuinely puzzling, and may also be suspicious, that those two very fair and straightforward requests weren’t met. Many Swedes think so too.

For the rest – the problems with the European Arrest Warrant, for example, and with the Swedish justice system – go to my earlier piece. I’m too bored to go over it yet again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Imperial Blame

Almost every month Britain is being asked to apologise for one or other of her imperial crimes, to tear down statues of her most egregious imperialists (actually there aren’t that many), and even to compensate her victims financially. That’s going to be difficult, of course, when the victims are long dead, though there’s an argument for saying that the damage Britain did then still lives on, in the present economic and social state of the West Indian islands, for instance (the major example); as well the original profits of slavery that we could still be said to be living off, albeit somewhat diluted. All the same, at this distance in time it’s going to be difficult to disentangle the long-term effects of slavery from those of other events since, such as the misrule of the West Indies’ own democratically-elected governments; or, of course, from the benefits that their enforced connexion with Britain from the 17th century on may have bestowed on them. (I don’t want to make too much of this; but perhaps we can all accept cricket?) In any case ‘compensation’ surely smacks of a rather mercenary approach to these problems, such as is widely criticised in, for example, cases of medical malpractice today. Foreign aid should be determined by present need, not past crimes. Although whether the £25 millions that Britain has recently pledged to Jamaica to build a new gaol, to which Britain can shift some of her own offenders, is a particularly good example of this is a moot point.

Even ‘apologies’ are problematical. Slavery had nothing to do with any of us. It happened long ago, before we were born; as did most (not all) of Britain’s colonial atrocities. Why should present-day Britons be held responsible for events whose only connexion with them is that they were perpetrated by people who happened to live on the same patch of land as we live on today – but in very different circumstances? I’ll accept some responsibility for the Iraq war – I was against it but clearly didn’t protest loudly enough – and possibly for the horrors of the Kenya concentration camps, though I was only a boy at the time. But the slave trade? Or Amritsar? Or the near-extermination of native Americans and Australians? Or the Irish famine? I can just about see the point of governments formally acknowledging the crimes of their ancestors in these respects, and even more of those crimes’ being highlighted in schools, if only to counter more celebratory versions of British imperial history. But apologising? And how far back should that be taken? As a native of eastern England, I’m still waiting for Denmark to apologise for her ancestors’ rape and pillage of my country in the 10th century; or Normandy (originally Scandinavians again, of course) for her brutal subjugation of England after 1066; or Italy for the Roman empire (and for enslaving us); or Saxony (or wherever the Anglo-Saxons came from) for pushing back the Celts. Or – come to think of it – the English upper classes for consistently down-treading the rest of us for most of that time. Where will it end?

Quite apart from all that, the British Empire might be the wrong target to choose for this – quite understandable – resentment. Of course slavery happened under its aegis, but it wasn’t the only aegis – even high-minded Sweden had a slave colony, continuing to practice slavery for some years after Britain had abolished it – and it was quite a weak one, so far as aegises go. One myth about the British Empire – it probably derives from the big-sounding word ‘empire’ – is that it was a powerful entity, dominating its subjects and imposing its ways on them: rather like those Vikings and Romans did, or are thought to have done. In fact it wasn’t. It grew out of Britain’s world-wide trading interests, which are often dubbed ‘imperialistic’ today per se, but weren’t regarded like that at the time. It was formally ruled by just a handful of Britons – perhaps 2,000 at its height, which must be fewer than it takes to run a medium-sized town today, albeit with native collaborators and the backing of a few British troops. It was always vulnerable, and consequently ultra-cautious about imposing its will on its subjects, for fear they would stop collaborating – that was a lesson the Indian ‘Mutiny’ taught it. It was exploited by capitalists and settlers, who were responsible for most of the worst atrocities there, but usually against the wishes of their more paternalistic – minor public-school educated – rulers, though they were often too few and weak to prevail. If you want a proper target to blame for these crimes, then free enterprise – the outsourcing and ‘privatising’ of its government to businesses and settlers – might make a better one. As a result, the Empire was pretty cheap to run, apart from the Royal Navy that secured Britain’s trade routes as well as her empire; and also, and partly for that reason, of relatively little interest to ordinary people back in Britain; except during the ‘Boer War’ of 1899-1902, when one very little colony humiliated their army. That was of interest.

Of course this doesn’t exonerate Britain from retrospective responsibility for the crimes attributed to empire. It was morally wrong of her governments to off-load their responsibilities to capitalists and privateers, and then, when they got into trouble, to step in to defend them. But it does spread the responsibility somewhat: to the descendants of the European settlers who actually did the enslaving and massacring in Jamaica and Australia, for example; or to private companies like Jardine Matheson, which was originally responsible for the vile opium trade. (Jardine Matheson is still going, though its webpage keeps quiet about this.) It happened under ‘imperialism’. But the ‘blame’ goes wider than that: to many more agencies and phenomena than a monolithic British Empire, and to a different time from our own. The past is a foreign country. What it did was wrong, in many – not all – respects, and that must be acknowledged, with proper humility: in fact, drummed into old empire-nostalgic reactionaries. But speaking for me, and my government, we have an alibi – the best one of all. We weren’t even born.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 16 Comments

IOWA

Bernie Sanders’s impressive showing in the Iowa primaries is greatly encouraging for all us 1960s nostalgics. Or it would be, if the USA were a democracy. As it is, just imagine what it will be like if he becomes the Democratic candidate: the kleptocracy fighting back tooth and claw, funded by billionaires and supported by a bought media, to smear him as a ‘Red’ and worse. Just like the last election here in Britain, which is even less democratic than the USA. (We MUST have proportional representation soon!) In both countries, the rich have never accepted democracy, but instead have learned, cleverly, how to control it; to turn it into a game that they can win. It must have occurred to others how like TV game shows American political conventions have become. Trump, of course, played that expertly. It was good to see him getting his come-uppance, albeit from a candidate nearly as crazy and terrifying as him.

The parallels between Bernie and Jeremy are of course obvious. One very obvious one is that, despite being old men (almost as old as me!), their main support in their respective parties comes from the under-35s. This is another world-wide – or at least transatlantic – rebellion of the young against the mess that the previous – in this case just after my – generation made of things. It reminds me of the ‘youth’ revolt of the 1950s – often misattributed to the ’60s – about which I have just penned a piece for the LRB (not yet published).

One of the depressing things in Britain just now is the way the old (‘New’) Labour guard are ganging up on Corbyn. The last issue of the New Statesman printed the opinions of a number of these, Labour politicians and commentators, all from what can be accurately described, I think, as the ‘Westminster bubble’. I despaired as I read it. In the North of England, I believe, none of this makes any sense. Even here in Sweden disillusioned Social Democrats are expressing the wish that they had a Corbyn too.

My feeling (or hope) is that the ground-rules of politics are going to shift fundamentally over the next 5-10 years, as ‘austerity’ and trickle-down are shown to have failed, resentment grows against tax-dodgers (like Osborne himself!), Old Etonian public relations smoothies no longer resonate as ‘real’ people, and the old tricks and slogans become more threadbare. Corbyn, under enormous pressure now, will find the climate turning in his favour. He just has to hang on. As a historian, my mind goes back to the 1900s:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/08/07/bernard-porter/whos-a-dinosaur-now/
What looks old-fashioned now can become new-fashioned very quickly. But then I’m probably fooling myself.

Incidentally, I learn that the longing of some East Germans for the return of the old 1960s DDR – as in that wonderful film Goodbye Lenin – is called ‘Ostalgia’. I like that.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

REFUGEES, PS.

Just a reminder that I have some knowledge in this area, though I wouldn’t like to claim that The Refugee Question in Mid Victorian Politics – the title of my 1979 book, re-issued a couple of years ago by CUP – was identical to today’s.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

REFUGEES

Sweden at first takes tens of thousands, then announces it’s going to send 60,000 home. Denmark is presented taking away their jewels, like the Nazis. It must be more complex than this. I must try to find out, then write about it.

Yesterday evening I was taken ill during the film The Big Short (is that the title?), and had to come home. In bed I watched a documentary on an obscure Swedish TV channel (99, I think), about Jewish refugees in the 1930s. I hadn’t realised how resistant the USA was to taking them in. Instead she tried to persuade Britain to settle them in her Palestine mandate. Switzerland did take them in, but insisted they had a large red ‘J’ stamped in their passports, so they could be sent back when the crisis was over. Others rejected them. An international conference at Evian failed to reach agreement on how to share them out. Britain took tens of thousands – 130,000 I think, all told (that is in Britain itself, excluding Palestine). They and their descendants of course have proved a terrific boost in every area of British life. I don’t know the figure for Sweden, but I imagine – or would like to think – that she was generous too. The refusal of other countries added enormously to the Jews’ tragedy.

The present-day parallels, are of course striking. Possibly the lessons too.

I still don’t know how the Big Short ended. Did the banks collapse (surely not), or did Superman zoom in to save us? I may be confusing it with a trailer for a Superman film that came on before. I had a fever. Don’t spoil it for me; I’m hoping to go again when I feel better. (Joke – of course I know what The Big Short was about.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Managerial Crap

Here’s a short piece I contributed to the LRB Blog 3 or 4 years ago. I’m sure that any of my followers who work in Universities will feel it still resonates.

I took early retirement from my last university job about a dozen years ago. One of my reasons was the way in which my post as head of the history department had become ‘managerialised’. I had mercifully forgotten the horrors of this until I recently stumbled on a copy of one of my memos to my colleagues. Here it is. (I’m not sure of the date.)

MEMO BEGINS:

“I list below the words, phrases and acronyms that cause me difficulty in the Agenda for the 11 September meeting and its attachments. Some of them I think I understand, but I’m not sure; others I thought I understood but can’t make sense of them in the present contexts; the rest – the majority – simply baffle me.

“Monthly supplier statements; infotype; drilling down, and drill-down functionality; human resources processes; cost centres vs. profit centres; funds reservations; controlling module; principal investigator; distribution/assessment cycle; materials management modules; standard hierarchy within SAP; master data Cost Element (budgethead) level; CO module; petty cash control account; dunning procedures; Transfer’s accrual’s and reconciliation’s [it’s the inverted commas that have me puzzled]; value/quality contracts; storage location on the system; account assignment; physical inventory checking list; text description; issue unit/order unit; deletion (archiving) material records; interface [in various contexts]; output routing; standard texts; SSU web based salary costing system; planning functionality; the level Travel Equipment Salaries Consumables; activity planning [footnote explanation of this is unenlightening]; stored rates; HR/Cost centre/Project interface; profile payments; milestones and milestone bills; basic project templates; submission of formal start date; data fields; salaries segment; HR/project link; sold-to-party; sales order/billing plan; ‘go live’; SAP requisition prior to it’s conversion [inverted comma again]; ‘Info Record’; Referencing an existing system requisition; line item; price comparison report; salaries cycle run; summarisation report [footnote unhelpful]; history [in this context!]; data partly defaulted; vacancy authorisation process; recruitment module implemented; employee self-service; sub-set of fixed term contracts; flagging input of non-taxable fees to Payroll by dynamic event; mgt info; user information needs; selection or reporting parameters; gap analysis; bespoke developments/requirements; Dev Trust position; org unit; end user; resource allocation model; time series analyses; time and funding splits; audit/notification tool; financial awareness training; and (acronyms): HESA, SAP, MIGs, FST, OSR, BACS, CHAPS, GAYE, PA, PD, PI, WBS, ESG, FSST.”

“Am I the only one among us to be experiencing something akin to panic at the prospect of trying to master all this? I’m sure I could do so, but it would take a very great amount of time and training in financial and management systems.

“Surely this is all MAD? How much work are all these systems going to save us ultimately? Is that anything like commensurate with the time we shall have lost in trying to understand them? Is it really worth the University’s while to divert its ‘line managers’ into this sort of task, to the detriment of the teaching, research and ordinary human management which used to be our traditional roles, are the ones we are trained for and skilled at, and whose performance the University will be ultimately judged on?” END.

The last straw for me came when the vice-chancellor decided he was going to abolish the safety checks on electrical equipment formerly done by qualified electricians, and put on training courses for heads of department to do them instead. He called it ‘empowerment’. I must remember that when I next buy a pullover instead of growing my own sheep. That’s when I decided to go.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Thatcher Conspiracy

sort of novel. It’s meant to be satirical. I don’t really believe Thatcher was a Soviet mole – the point is, however, that it would make perfect sense if she were. Either a free-standing little story; or I could continue it into an alternative history of the 1980s and ’90s. Again, comments welcome. (If anyone is following this.)

 

THE THATCHER CONSPIRACY

CHAPTER I

The Beginning

‘Now, let me just get this straight’, she said, as she took another sip of her tea. Not proper tea, not English tea, but with a bit of hot water added and a dash of milk it would serve.

‘You want me to become a Conservative?’

She grimaced as she said the word. It went against all her newly-acquired principles. She was a true believer, after all. Her ambition was to become a heroine of the Revolution, helping to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in the country where Marx had believed it would begin, but was proving curiously resistant to embracing it. She despised Conservatives. They were the ones who had patronized and snubbed her as a gurrl – she remembered the sneery tone – at Oxford. And they were her political kind’s archest enemies. Weren’t they?

But she continued listening. The man was, after all, good to listen to, and to look at: tall, patrician, gently-spoken, a bit effeminate, the very personification of all those heart-throbs she and her school friends had used to swoon over in their cheap Mills and Boon novels – usually read secretly under she sheets. (She took naturally to covert activities.)

‘Of course the Conservatives are a problem,’ he replied; ‘but not necessarily for the reasons you suppose. That’s why you have to join them, and eventually, we hope, to lead them. I’ll explain in a moment. But firstly, let me tell you how we – you and I together – will go about it. We’ve been preparing it for years.’

He lit a cigarette. Foreign, she thought. A Gauloise? No, it had a long tube attached to it; Russian, perhaps. That went with the romantic image too.

‘First of all, we’ll need a back-story. That won’t be too difficult, in view of your real background. A provincial shop-keeper father is a little lower in the social scale than we generally go for; but the petty-bourgeois very often have the right sorts of ideas. Petty-bourgeois women especially, I’m afraid. Sorry; it’s not their fault, poor dears’ – he couldn’t shed his own inherited patronizing language completely – ‘but the effect of their conditioning. And an entrepreneurial background – of a sort – may appeal to the modern kind of Tory more than the effete nobs, like me, that they’ve looked up to all these years. They also tend to have closed minds. That can be presented as an asset, if it’s dressed up the right way – as “conviction”, for example.’ He paused.

OK, she thought. And her membership of the Oxford University Conservative Club couldn’t do her any harm. No-one need know that she had joined that simply out of curiosity, or that she had been a secret member of the Communist Association at the same time. They’d be able to keep that quiet. And to shut up anyone who might betray any of the Lefty thoughts she had shared with her friends during her time at Oxford. She had heard that polonium was a pretty effective silencer. (She looked at her glass of tea with a twinge of anxiety. But he had drunk out of the same pot.) In any case, she hadn’t had many close friends at Oxford. Or, come to think of it, at any time. What was it about me? she wondered, not for the first time. Oh well, it’s their loss.

‘Of course,’ he continued, ‘you will have to pretend to admire your father, the sower of the entrepreneurial seed in the womb of your poor, despised mother – an apt metaphor for what we hope will be your relationship with your country – and the source of all your deeply moral principles.’ He turned to look at her more directly, aware that this might present a problem.

‘But Dad was a monster!’, she cried.

Anthony corrected her. ‘Father, not Dad. “Dad” is infra dig in the circles we expect you to move in now.’

Margaret made a mental note to take this on board. She went on.

‘He was mean, unsympathetic, materialist, judgmental, and pretty universally loathed by his customers and our neighbours. I began to see through him at the age of 14. That’s when I developed my bolshie streak. Isn’t it normal for children to react against their parents around then? And he tyrannized over Mum – sorry, mother – in a way that left her like a limp rag at the end of her life. If I ever get to write an account of my own life, I’ll try to make it up to her.’

‘No, you won’t’, interjected Anthony. That will ruin the image. If you can’t think of anything bad to say about her, you must miss her out completely. People will wonder why, but will come to understand. A soft, motherly mother is not what a strong leader needs. I’m sorry if that sounds macho, dear, but macho is what we need. You must grow some balls. – Not literally, of course’, he added hastily. ‘Conservatives don’t do transgender. Although’ – quietly, as an aside – ‘they do do queer.’

‘Queer?’ thought Margaret. ‘What does that mean?’ Anthony said the word in a way that seemed to imply more than just ‘unusual’; perhaps something a little naughty. But she didn’t want to betray her naivety in this area.

‘Secondly,’ Anthony went on, ‘you’ll need a husband. In fact we’ve got one lined up for you. He’s ideal: rich, which will pay for the child-minding (don’t worry, when you’re prime minister you won’t have to help with other people’s children), and – given a gin and tonic or two, and a round of golf – pretty docile. He’ll be able to introduce you to other rich people. Of course, they’ll be your natural constituents in the future. The only real problem is his name, which we presume you’ll need to adopt: it rhymes too easily with ‘snatcher’. Still, maybe no-one will think of that. He doesn’t know, of course: he’s too dumb to understand the complexities of our plot, and too indiscrete to be trusted with them. Apparently he has literary ambitions – is toying with the idea of doing a Diary piece for Private Eye. We may be able to help him there; the editor is one of ours, too. It will be blimpish in tone. That should help us with the image we want to set up for you. How could a strong socialist woman abide such a fool?’

Margaret shuddered at the thought. Particularly the idea of having intimate relations with him. Perhaps, if things worked out well, they could just do it once. And have twins, for economy. As long as neither of them turned out to be like the monster they were planning to turn her into.

‘The next thing, of course, will be to get you into Parliament, then into a Conservative cabinet, then elected leader of the party. We have the people to do that: Conservative MPs we’ve turned or compromised, lots of lovely girls – and boys – to act as honeytraps, genuine right-wingers who only need a little encouragement to get behind you, tame journalists to stick their knives into your rivals.’

Margaret wondered who they might be. Surely not dear Rupert?

‘Of course your feminine – uh – affliction may go against you at first, though we have ways to counter that. Remind those public school toffs of their school matrons. For those who still go in for certain sado-sexual practices that may not be difficult. Whisper ‘dominatrix’ in their ears. That should have them panting for you. Don’t worry; you won’t need to actually sleep with them. They’ll be far too terrified. You’ll have your Members in your hand. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Unless…’

‘No, no,’ interjected Margaret, hastily. She did understand some doubles entendres; or at least, when a double entendre was meant. ‘But OK. You’ve got me into Parliament, made me leader of the party, and won a general election for me, despite my “affliction” as you call it. I’m sure I can make a lot of that – first female prime minister, and so on. We might even get some of those feminists on board! After that I’m sure you can keep me going with other tricks and hidden allies.’

‘Indeed.’ It was at this point that Anthony came out with the name of one General Galtieri of Argentina, whom she’d never heard of, but who apparently had promised to step in to help – he hadn’t said how – if she found herself losing popularity. Plus some foolish trade union leaders to antagonize the public. They had it all planned, didn’t they?

Gosh, she thought. Perhaps it might just work!

*

‘But what then?’

Of course she had an inkling. But this next stage looked even more difficult than the first. She had got used to the idea of subverting left-wing parties, trade unions and protest movements to the Communist cause. Moscow had been trying that for years, with only moderate success. (Harold Wilson was a particular disappointment.) Surely Conservatives – even those who liked having their bottoms spanked by a woman – would be far more resistant. They were the ones, after all, who owned the assets that her sort of socialist wanted to sequester. Surely they’d notice when she started doling out their hard-earned (or hard-inherited) money to the feckless poor, and nationalizing things?

Or perhaps Anthony’s idea was quite different – for her to make a thorough mess of it, discrediting her party, and so bolstering Labour that way? Labour would win the following election, and that’s when the transition to true socialism could start. Margaret didn’t like the idea – she was constitutionally averse to making a mess of anything; but, of course, in a higher cause one must make personal sacrifices. Or – she suddenly thought – was that too risky? An incompetent leader could after all be easily replaced. Misogynistic Tories would not be at all averse to this – or, indeed, surprised. ‘Women, eh?!’ Someone else would fill her shoes. And capitalism would survive. It would have all been for nothing.

She put this to Anthony. He was impressed. ‘You’re a bright girl, Margaret’, he said. ‘Or can I call you Maggie? A little narrow-minded, but clear-headed. I’m sure you’ll be good at tactics, when it comes to it.’ She flushed. ‘But just now we’re concerned with the broader strategy. That may be a little further-looking than a petty-bourgeois, even a petty-bourgeois who has converted to socialism, will have thought of.’ That took some of her blush away. ‘You’re perfectly right that we don’t want you either to “turn” the Conservative party, or to wreck it. Not in the short term, anyway.’

That was said with emphasis. It seemed to be the key.

He sat back, shifted his bottom to make himself more comfortable, and put his fingers together, a bit like a professor in a seminar. Then, after a short pause, he resumed.

‘I’m afraid, Maggie, I’m going to have to give you a bit of a lecture on Marxist theory here. You may have heard it already, at that short course at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow you attended just after we recruited you, you remember; that time when you told your parents you were going on a dirty weekend with a boyfriend. No, they didn’t believe it, either. (A friend? Unlikely.) They suspected you were going to a Young Conservative ‘do’. They entirely understood your wanting to keep that quiet. And it was a very short course, and rather dull and technical – the labour theory of value, and all that stuff – so you might have missed the important part of it, so far as your future career is concerned. That was to do with the coming revolution. This is where you come in.’

He leant forward, clearly excited. She could feel it. She didn’t think it was sexual – not, at any rate, for her. (There was a rather good-looking young waiter approaching.) ‘The thing is, Margaret, we want you to be a successful Conservative prime minister; successful, that is, in fostering unrestrained free market capitalism, castrating the trade unions, widening social and economic inequalities, and undermining the welfare state. Plus, a war or two might come in handy. Conservatives like those.’

The waiter cleared the tea things away. Anthony ordered a malt whisky for each of them; and something more for himself ‘later’ – she didn’t quite catch what. She hadn’t had whisky before, but she took a sip. It gave her a nice burning feeling, just behind what her posh friend Alan Clarke liked to call her embonpoint. She thought she might take to it. It could give her courage, too – ‘iron in the soul’. (Was this what the Scots called ‘Iron Brew’? She must check.) She was going to need plenty of that, if she was to succeed in this great if puzzling project that Comrade Anthony had mapped out for her. But to what end? It looked so – well – counter-productive. Unless he wasn’t what he was pretending to be, a KGB mole, but in fact what he seemed: an arty-farty reactionary.

‘Let me explain’, he said. ‘But first you’ll need a history lesson.’ That’s odd, she thought. Surely history was just kings and queens and dates. Whatever use could that be? But she listened anyway. The Iron Brew was helping her focus, in a pleasant, warm way. Her embonpoint hardened at the tips.

*

‘You’ll have read your Marx – some of it, at any rate. I don’t expect any of our comrades have read all of him, though in fact Kapital volume I has some rather good jokes in. Funnier than Poussin, anyway.’

Poussin? Another reference that passed her by. It sounded like a hair conditioner. Anthony sensed her discomfort.

‘An artist,’ he added, helpfully. Ah, that explained it. Daddy – sorry, Father – had not gone in for that sort of thing much. ‘He was French seventeenth century, idyllic landscapes with classical timeless figures; perfect representation of the aristocratic class values of his day. You can see why I chose him for my speciality – the ideal cover for a communist. Marx, of course, was against the aristos; more than that, he believed they were on their way out. Inevitably, according to the laws of our new science of historical materialism. I imagine, by the way, that it was the ‘scientific’ aspect that attracted you to communism, with your degree in Chemistry.’

Well yes, she thought. It could well have been. Science. So definite, so certain, so comforting.

‘By the time Marx was writing,’ Anthony went on, ‘the old feudal aristocracy was already on its way out, being rapidly displaced – again, inevitably – by the newly emergent capitalist middle class. That was obvious. It was what the philosophers of free market capitalism had been predicting for years, and what any fool could see happening around him or her in mid-nineteenth century Britain. The industrial revolution, free trade, philistinism, industrial slums, tight-arsed morality’ – he winced – ‘all that stuff. So that wasn’t a particularly clever observation on Marx’s part. So far, so liberal. But then he moved on. And this is where it gets really exciting.’

Anthony looked excited. Perhaps he really was stimulated by ideas.

‘The thing was this. The process wouldn’t stop there. Victorian liberals tended to think it did; that liberal capitalism was the highest and ultimate form of human social organization – the “end of history”, if you like. (That’s a good phrase. I wonder whether Comrade Fukuyama might like it?) Everything would get better for everyone. The world would get richer. People would be happier. There would be no more wars, or foreign imperialism, or even domestic crime. Armies and police forces could be disbanded. There would be enough “stuff” for everyone. Tyrannies would melt away. Superstitions would give way to rational thought – otherwise known as Protestant Christianity. Free competition would conduce to greater equality – yes, even that. Not many people know that’ – this said in his Michael Caine voice. ‘It would be heaven on earth, brought about by the liberation of the divine spirit of competition between individuals. Full stop.

‘But no. Marx had looked beyond this. It was difficult for him, because according to his own philosophy everyone’s thinking processes were bound by the assumptions, the climate of opinion, the ‘discourse’, as a later school of alleged philosophers put it, of his or her time; which is why you couldn’t get a decent salmon en croute in the Middle Ages. But Marx did. (Not get a decent salmon en croute – see into the future.) He glimpsed, albeit mistily, so far as its material details were concerned, the truly socialist society that was to come about in the future – was to, notice, because he saw that this too, like every other broad trend in history, was inevitable. First feudalism; then capitalism; then socialism: each stage following on from the other, naturally. And “naturally” because they didn’t require any human agency, or will, or policy, to give rise to them. It would happen anyway. But only in certain circumstances. – Are you getting bored?’

Margaret was, a little, but quite happily so. That could have been down to the three or four further whiskies Anthony had plied her with as he was talking. ‘Stop it,’ she giggled; ‘too much alcohol and I’m anyone’s.’ ‘Not mine’, quipped Anthony. Again, she didn’t quite understand.

‘So, what are these circumstances?’ she asked, which showed that she had been following the main train of his discourse, roughly. ‘I guess you mean when the time was right.’

‘Exactly!’ said Anthony, delightedly. ‘Gosh you are a bright one, Maggie! I must tell them back at the Lubyanka. They had their doubts when I picked you out of that bunch of tourists visiting the Royal Art Collection all those years ago. I liked the way you ignored the pictures but just sat on the bench with your face buried in Hard Times. They thought that indicated stupidity; I thought it marked you out as materialist material, if you’ll forgive the clumsy phrase. Just what we wanted. I guess you’ve never lost your admiration for Thomas Gradgrind? No, I thought not. You may be able to use that in your new career.’

‘So,’ she asked, ‘when will the time be right for socialism to displace capitalism – for our revolution?’ She imagined it would be when the trade unions and the Labour Party and the Church of England and the animal rights people and the vegetarians and academics and LRB contributors and all those other likely fellow-travellers, plus a few workers, had been thoroughly subverted and fallen into the laps of the comrades. That’s what she understood the latter had been working towards up to now. But no. According to Anthony, that was entirely wrong. It wasn’t a question of persuasion. It was a matter of events.

‘Let’s go back to Marx’, he said. ‘Remember him? A lot of so-called Marxists don’t seem to. They think of him as the leader of a revolution. To be fair, he did come to think of himself a bit like that just before his death, when all this philosophy went to his head. Incidentally, did you know that the London Police Special Branch were still keeping him under observation two years after his official death? Either they feared his breaking out of his grave in Highgate Cemetery, or they knew something we don’t – even in the KGB. Perhaps he faked his death in order to spend more time with his family. Or his mistress. Or playing cricket – I’ve often thought he bore an uncanny resemblance to WG Grace. Or the police were just fools. (That’s the most likely answer.) But there’s a nice potential conspiracy there waiting to be uncovered. Which, however, would have little bearing on our main concern today. I think.’

Gosh, these conspiracy theorists! thought Margaret. They do have such fun!

Anthony went on. ‘The point about the time being right is that none of these revolutions will work if the time is wrong. In the case of our revolution, it was wrong in 1917, when it is generally supposed to have broken out. That was in Russia, of course; but conditions were nothing like ready for it there. Industrialism and industrial capitalism were patchy; and the countryside in particular was still largely feudal – that is, two stages of historical development in arrears. Russian Marxists, however, were some of the most “advanced”, in organization and enthusiasm. They wanted their revolution then. They kept writing to Marx, and, after his (query) death, to Engels – “please can’t we have it now?” – only for Engels patiently to point out the scientific facts to them: which were – yes, you’ve got it – that the time wasn’t yet ripe. But they went ahead regardless, and succeeded in achieving a kind of revolution in 1917.

‘Even then, however, hardly anyone believed it was a satisfactory one, either practically – all that oppression of the “people”, who were supposed to be its beneficiaries – or theoretically. Lenin was troubled by Russia’s economic backwardness in 1917, but got around that by arguing that if you regarded global capitalism as a whole as having developed to its maximum, with imperialism being its “final stage”, and so internationally ripe for collapse, the Russian part of it could be regarded as its weakest point. That, however, would only convince meticulous ideologues if its collapse started a chain reaction across the rest of the capitalist world. There seemed hope for that for a while, but then it faded. (Lenin blamed imperialism, again.) The 1917 revolution clearly stood out then as having been premature. If you think about it, that makes good sense of the Soviet Union (and other communist states) today. Premature babies are not fully formed; can’t flourish in the wider (in this case capitalist) world; and as a result need incubators to keep them alive. The incubator in Russia’s case is her autocratic form of government – I grudgingly admit it – which is what we hope will keep the hope of socialism alive in a hostile environment, until it can live by its own physical resources. But it’s still far from satisfactory, from a theoretical point of view.’

*

Margaret had listened to this lecture with wrapt attention. She thought she understood it. (She’d seen incubators in her Domestic Science classes at school.) But she couldn’t quite see where it was all leading, apart from some rather depressing conclusions about her new-found faith. Nor could she see how it involved her. She was being asked to aid the development and success of the capitalist system she loathed. How on earth could that be reconciled with bringing the whole monstrous edifice down?

And then it came to her, in a flash. She was a bright girl, if she was led in the right direction. The Communist revolution had failed because the historical conditions for it were wrong. In particular, capitalism was not mature enough in the countries it was first tried in. Ergo, for the revolution to stand any chance of success, capitalism must be further developed until it was ripe enough for its fall. Marx – she remembered now – had predicted that this would happen due to internal faults in the system, contradictions, which would lead it to collapse of its own accord. (This was Marx’s true genius, Anthony pointed out – as an analyst of the capitalist system and its inherent flaws. Even in the later twentieth century he had never been surpassed in this field.) But only then.

And then she looked – or rather thought – around her. Capitalism didn’t seem to be doing so badly in Britain. People tolerated it. Conditions under it had certainly improved since her young days, in the 1930s and ’40s, with less poverty, and so far less radical opposition to it than between the wars. Parliament had used to have Communist MPs. No longer, unless they were dissembling; which simply meant that anti-capitalism was not a popular enough cause to be openly professed. Why was that? It went against all early Marxist expectations, which were of capitalism’s becoming progressively and naturally redder and redder in tooth and claw, until the people saw the savagery – inequality, poverty, unemployment, Chelsea football club and the rest – that underlay it, and could tolerate it no more. Competition would morph into monopoly, which would erect grand tyrannies to rival any statist one. Capitalism would take over the instruments of education and propaganda, which would leave ordinary people with no means to counter it. Then, because of ever decreasing profit margins – she didn’t understand the technicalities of this, with her rather basic economic perceptions (based on her weekly shopping), but she accepted it – things would become so bad that the system must collapse. But this wasn’t happening. The natural progression, or depression, on which the Marxists had so depended had been halted. Capitalism was acceptable. Why was that?

Put like that, the answer was obvious. Anthony smiled as he saw enlightenment flooding Margaret’s pretty face. (At least he supposed it was pretty. He was no judge. To him it looked hard and flinty.) The welfare state had intervened. Unemployment and sickness insurance had rubbed the rough, pointy edges off the capitalist system, so that ordinary people did not feel its inherent injustices any more. Trade unions had intervened to prevent the deterioration of wages that a ‘red in tooth and claw’ capitalist system clearly implied. This was mainly Labour’s doing, under Attlee and then Wilson; but even the Conservatives – influenced perhaps by the aristo-paternalistic strain that still remained in the party: noblesse oblige, and all that – had taken it on board. This was the particular problem that Anthony’s people were faced with. They understood Labour, though they despised it for trying to compromise with capitalism to shore it up. The Conservative party, however, was different. It was not playing the game as it was meant to. It was not capitalist enough to bring the Communists’ much longed-for Götterdämmerung about. It was – shall we say – somewhat ‘wet’.

‘So,’ said Anthony, his eyes gleaming quite fanatically by now. ‘You know what you have to do. Take over the Conservative party. Revive the “dry” side of it, which has always been there, but overshadowed recently by the “wets”. (That may have something to do with the Empire. You can’t run an Empire drily. The natives get uppity. But the Empire isn’t a consideration any more.) Get the capitalist juggernaut running properly again, unencumbered by regulation, taxes, trade unions, or any legislation designed to protect “people” from its downside. People will have to learn to put up with it. Their reward will be the tiny chance of their becoming rich beyond avarice, or decency; which, you can say, will benefit everyone because their wealth will “trickle down”. (It won’t, of course.) Those who can’t cope with this, through weakness or inability or moral scruples, will only have themselves to blame. Self-blame comes easily to a culture with Christian roots, however far back. I understand you used to be a Methodist? That may be a problem: Methodism in the past was generally associated with working-class radicalism. But you can change that. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, can be tweaked by suggesting that the Samaritan couldn’t have been as charitable as he was if he hadn’t have been an entrepreneur. (Just an idea.) Another idea would be to suggest that there’s “no such thing as society”. That might not faze the socialists, but it should put a smidgeon of doubt in the minds of the socially-minded – i.e. nice – people in your own party.

‘You’ll know what to do then. Undermine the welfare state, emasculate the unions, and so on; all in order to get the capitalist train racing more and more rapidly, until it crashes into the buffers. Then we’ll take over. The New Jerusalem. Easy-peasy. You can fling off your dowdy two-piece Tory-blue suits, ruffle your twin-set, and reveal yourself at the barricades, in your true identity, bare-breasted – if you like; that part isn’t compulsory – as our new Marianne.’

*

Margaret wasn’t sure who or what Marianne was, but she rather liked the sound of this. She imagined, pleasurably, her father turning in his grave. Perhaps they would make her Queen, in a socialist kind of way: Comrade Queen, perhaps – she thought she could develop the voice for it, with some training to get rid of the ‘Linkisheere’ – and put her profile on the coins. (Or would they need to abolish money? She wasn’t sure.)

But enough of these pleasant conceits. They might not come about. It was difficult to imagine capitalism being put through all its paces during the term – even, say, two or three terms – of a single prime minister. She assumed that Moscow had made contingency plans for that; was lining up a successor to her: another ‘dry’ Conservative, or even a Labour Prime Minister with enough gall – and lack of principle – to continue her work. The Russians, she knew, were supreme chess players, and knew when, in the interests of the long game, to sacrifice a Queen. In which case she would die unremembered for what she really was, and probably reviled for what she had seemed to be. She had a prevision of a young man in the future decapitating a statue of her. She wouldn’t blame him. But she would have liked him to know.

This was why she had decided to pen this account of that crucial meeting with Anthony Blunt, in the third person so that no-one could accuse her of vanity. It would remain a secret until the Revolution came, when British Communism’s true clandestine heroes could be revealed, and properly memorialised. Margaret would be disinterred and laid to rest at Karl’s feet in Highgate cemetery. Niall would lie nearby; together with all those others who served the cause selflessly, anonymously, and at such cost to their good names. She rather liked the idea of that – until she thought of the worms. That did make her a bit frit. But hey, this was all a while away. Until then there was work to do. And she was good at work.

 

CHAPTER II

Several years later

She was sitting in the garden of her dreadful mock-classical suburban villa – the philistinism had always been genuine – sipping yet another whisky, the sixth today, she thought, and looking back. So, that was that. She was ousted. Who was responsible for that: her party, the rabble protestors, or the hidden hand of Moscow, annoyed that with the poll tax she was pushing on too quickly too soon for the plan? She’d heard whispers that they had a younger and cleverer – if shallower – successor in mind, who was at that very moment being primed to complete the task. ‘Tony’, his name was supposed to be. Not her dear Anthony, surely? No, she remembered, he was dead. And de-knighted. She gave out a sigh. Well, she had protected him as long as she could. And he would no doubt join them all in Highgate Cemetery when the trumpets sounded. ‘Thank you, Anthony’, she whispered, in a prayer to the Great Collective in the Sky. ‘Your heroic deception will not have been in vain.’

‘What was that, Mumsy?’ It was son Mark, coming from the house behind her. One of the things she most regretted is that she had not let him into the plot, giving him, in company with a whole generation of what had come to be called ‘Thatcher’s children’, an entirely unsuitable role model to follow in life. (Carol had had a little more spunk. She wondered if she had suspected?) ‘Any chance of a few quid? That arms deal didn’t quite come off. And there’s this super wheeze to oust an African dictator I’ve been asked to contribute to. Led by an Old Etonian. It can’t go wrong.’ She’d heard that before. She wasn’t over-impressed with Etonians – hadn’t Eden, Macmillan and Home had been three of them? – which is why she had sent Mark to Harrow: her friend Winston’s school. For all the good that had done him. Stupid little prick. – Thirty years in the House of Commons had embellished her vocabulary somewhat.

 

… Abandoned for now. Probably utter crap. One reader has told me so.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

TILLBAKA

I’m decided to reactivate this blogsite, after a year of silence, mainly to give me a ‘project’ to work on now that I have no more books to write. It will be a mix: comments on the news, especially relating to Sweden; links to items I’ve read; some memories of a longish life; a couple of aborted novels (!); my thoughts on Sweden, Hull, life after death, and how to make the perfect Yorkshire puddings.

I don’t imagine I have any ‘followers’ left, or will pick up any, though I’m told that if you wait long enough they will come. Comments will be welcome, especially from anyone who thinks my ‘novels’ might be worth persevering with. Keep tuned!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment