Jack Straw's comments re: the Centotaph and Churchill are, of course,
nothing more than the latest indication of the British Labour Party's
bovine attitude to the institutions and symbols of the British state.
There is nothing 'new' or 'Blairite' in this. The Labour Party
has a long and inglorious history of gutt-wrenching subserviance to
the trappings and practices of imperialism and associated ideologies.
Adam Tickell's assertion that the end of WW2 "...ushered in a period
not of liberalism but of social democracy" is questionable. (Of
course, in terms of theory, both liberal and social democratic thought
share the same ideological foundations. They both accept the
naturalism of the social relations of capitalist production, while
seeking different solutions to problems the structural sources of
which they refuse to acknowledge or act on).
Nevertheless, to characterise the post-war period as 'social
democratic' is misleading. The post-war boom (kicked off by the
decidedly non-social democratic Marshall Plan and US-led liberalisation of
world trade) enabled a temporary reconciliation between
full-employment, competitiveness and profitability (a reconciliation
that was already encountering deep problems in the UK in the early-1960s). This
had less to do with social democracy than the particular conjuncture
of global economic and political factors that enabled European social
democracy to bask in the glow of Keynesian-welfarism. When profits
and full-employment were no longer compatible, full-employment was
quickly abandoned. Social democrats have been struggling to
convince themselves ever since that capitalism can enter a new 'golden
age' and so rescue the political credibility of the social democratic
project - if only the correct mix of policies and technologies can be
found. Forgive me for not holding my breath on that one.
However, Paul Treanor's comments about the intentions and moral
status of the soldiers who fought during WW2 are foolish - and
indicative of an elitist and ultra-left mentality that has,
unfortunately, always been a feature of sections of the Marxist left.
What Paul fails to do is consider the historical conjuncture of
forces and cirmcumstances that rendered democratic Marxism a marginal
and ineffective presence during and after the war period - and why,
in the minds of the many millions who fought, the defeat of fascism
was a priority.
Rather than undertake sober and balanced historical analysis of why
many workers identified with their nations, Paul seems
content to lecture the dead and strike puesdo-radical poses. This
approach to political issues is actually profoundly conservative and
counter-productive. It acts only to discredit and marginalise the
Marxist left in the service of a smug and self-righteous elitism. The
point of Marxism is not to formulate abstract moral judgements about
the past, but to better understand why what happened did happen and
then try to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
Michael Fisher
Centre for Urban & Regional Development Studies
University of Newcastle
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)191 222 5980
Fax: +44 (0)191 232 9259
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|