Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Mr Moose]

Have you any idea of what hobson's book means on the left? Why it's part of the conversation? Of course you don't. The contents? Don't make me laugh. I used to think you were alright as well.

I’d be interested in your actual thoughts on this, are the claims wrong or out of context for example?

Your approval I don’t need.

 

[gentlegreen]

Feet of clay

 

[teqniq]

I’d be interested in your actual thoughts on this, are the claims wrong or out of context for example?

Your approval I don’t need.

I quite liked the three-legged trousers part of your reply that you edited out.

 

[Mr Moose]

I quite liked the three-legged trousers part of your reply that you edited out.

It wasn’t that amusing when I thought about it. I looked at all the diversionary possibilities and thought twice

 

[DotCommunist]

I've done some googling and the book is described as hugely influential on social sciences and to be found in university and public libraries. As to the antisemitism it is reported to contains I imagine its the usual crass ruling class jew hating that runs through the time* but I might be way off beam. I remember the first time I read an Alduos Huxley essay, the man was absolutely vile, just nasty racist shit therein. I was just posting about this the other day, I think people just forget or don't know how steeped antisemitism the 'great and the good' were back then. Its like there has been a deliberate forgetting.

here is the corbyn's foreword being described in the guardian in 2015:

Again, we’ll have to see, he could sweep all before him. Some people have made Chauncey Gardiner jokes – as in the film, Being There – about Corbyn’s innocence. Again, that’s a bit unfair. At his Nottingham rally someone thrust into my hand a copy of JA Hobson’s influential classic, Imperialism (1902) whose 2011 edition contains Jeremy’s own perfectly decent introductory essay. Its analysis will impress many. Others will shake their heads.

This book is now going to be rebranded as completely unacceptable, in order to own corbyn for five minutes. At least thats how it looks to me.

* I hate talking about something I haven't read, can't do it with confidence.

*** I could be accusing the author very unfairly, by the huxley example for instance.

 

[Idris2002]

The text of Hobson's book is on archive.org, if anyone's interested.

 

[eoin_k]

It looks like the main offending passage in this particular work is on page 64:
Imperialism: A Study : John Atkinson Hobson , ( : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I'd say it's more complicated than 'ruling class jew hating' since Hobson's views related to his anti-jingoism, and working-class militants weren't immune from the pervaisive anti-Jewish sentiments of the time either. No doubt, his work reflected and contributed to antisemitism on the left in ways that ought to be confronted critically today. But that doesn't mean responsibility for doing so lies with the writer of the 'Foreword' to any new edition of his work. Imagine if we put all forms of prejudice on an equal footing and held the contributors to every re-issue up to the same standards. Despite the antisemitic tropes adopted by Hobson, reducing his perspective down to a conspiracy theory also tends towards a position that anti-capitalism is inherently antisemitic, given his influence on later analysis of capitalist crisis and imperialism.

 

[Idris2002]

It looks like the main offending passage in this particular work is on page 64:
Imperialism: A Study : John Atkinson Hobson , ( : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I'd say it's more complicated than 'ruling class jew hating' since Hobson's views related to his anti-jingoism, and working-class militants weren't immune from the pervaisive anti-Jewish sentiments of the time either. No doubt, his work reflected and contributed to antisemitism on the left in ways that ought to be confronted critically today. But that doesn't mean responsibility for doing so lies with the writer of the 'Foreword' to any new edition of his work. Imagine if we put all forms of prejudice on an equal footing and held the contributors to every re-issue up to the same standards. Despite the antisemitic tropes adopted by Hobson, reducing his perspective down to a conspiracy theory also tends towards a position that anti-capitalism is inherently antisemitic, given his influence on later analysis of capitalist crisis and imperialism.

Hobson never called himself a socialist of any kind, did he? And an actual class angle is missing from the bits I skim-read this morning.

If he had previous for anti-semitism, that would indicate that he was identifying a certain ethnoreligious group with the "financiers" who were getting the UK and its economy into the murky waters of imperialism. Which wouldn't even need a conspiracy theory to function as anti-semitic propaganda.

The idea that Corbyn is praising other aspects of Hobson's book so as to secretly spread that sort of propaganda is risible, though. Someone needs to take his detractors aside on this one and tell them the story of the boy who cried wolf. . .

 

[eoin_k]

Hobson never called himself a socialist of any kind, did he? And an actual class angle is missing from the bits I skim-read this morning.

If he had previous for anti-semitism, that would indicate that he was identifying a certain ethnoreligious group with the "financiers" who were getting the UK and its economy into the murky waters of imperialism. Which wouldn't even need a conspiracy theory to function as anti-semitic propaganda.

The idea that Corbyn is endorsing Hobson so as to secretly spread that sort of propaganda is risible, though. Someone needs to take his detractors aside on this one and tell them the story of the boy who cried wolf. . .

I wasn't trying to suggest he was a socialist or anti-capitalist by associating him with the left, but as well as his influence on Lenin he's in a conversation with Fabians and members of the Social Democratic Federation. You can also read material with a similar vein of antisemitism running through it in the SDF paper Justice from this period thanks to H. M. Hyndman. The antisemitic passage in the book is plain to see, but how central it is to his argument and Corbyn's reading of it might be another matter.

 

[Balbi]

Someone's edited J.A Hobson's wiki page and Imperialism's wiki page to add sections on anti-semitism, following Finkelstein's article.

Meanwhile it's not hard to find such left wing antisemites like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and others praising Hobson's work - including an entire BBC documentary presented by Tristram Hunt on Hobson's great ideas.

I mean, sure, if we're going to discount Hobson's work on imperialism because he's an anti-semite then we're going to have to chuck out pretty much every text - unless we're only going after the ones Corbyn has specifically written a foreword for. David Aaronovitch challenged someone to see if Brown or others had written a forward for a similarly racist or anti-semitic author - yeah, turns out Adam Smith was a massive fucking racist too.

 

[treelover]

Hunt has actually called for a more nuanced response

 

[Shechemite]

How many researchers do you reckon are on this project of sifting through everything JC has done or said over his political career in the hope they can build more of a case against him?

More to the point, who is funding them?

 

[Humberto]

I hope if they get in, which it looks like they will at some point, they will take a long-term approach. If more stable livelihoods and communities means taxing a small percent who's hobby is to horde it all for their own self-aggrandisement and shit-headedness, then I am all for it. Tinkering at the edges will never be enough to stop the Tory hordes. The game is rigged by them.

 

[Rob Ray]

Just to offer a small measure of how fucking pointless this line of attack is, Daniel Finkelstein has previously proclaimed in the Times, in an article titled Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man, subtitled "Even though the wartime prime minister was a lifelong white supremacist his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses" that: “To insist that for Churchill to be a great man he must never have thought or done anything bad is to insist that the world is divided into good and bad people and you can only be one or the other.”

So in the knowledge that Churchill was directly responsible, via racism that Finkelstein openly acknowledges, for policy decisions that led to the deaths of millions in Bengal, with that particular figure Danny is A-OK with praising the work.

But maybe saying Churchill was OK because he wasn't on a mission to specifically brutalise Finklestein's own parents (while being willing to murder wholesale "lesser races" that "breed like rabbits") isn't close enough. Perhaps we should only go with well-known political philosophers who indulge in a dash of anti-semitism. Like Edmund Burke, who wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France that:

They [leaders of previous revolutions] were not like Jew brokers contending with each other who could best remedy with fraudulent circulation and depreciated paper the wretchedness and ruin brought on by their degenerate councils.

What does Danny have to say about Burke?

Every Conservative has to read Edmund Burke, and, in particular, the Reflections on the French Revolution, a timeless and brilliant statement of Conservative ideas.

source

This is not to say that Churchill and Burke *shouldn't* be (critically!) read necessarily, but if you're going to be starting this "no praise for the work of historic figures with problematic aspects or you're also a scumbag" line then fuck me you're going to end up with a pretty short list of pre-millennium Great Minds of History you can call on, near-enough none who will be heroes of the right.

 

[Balbi]

Isn't there going to be a point here where this relentless 'Corbyn did this and Corbyn did that and Corbyn's an anti-semite' from certain quarters within and without of the Jewish community that's going to break against them.

Like, they've been taking this line for a while now and it doesn't appear to have dented Labour's overall polling numbers - as if it's a real micro-conflict that's incredibly important to a small number of engaged political actors that's completely ignored by the wider public. In the end, if there's a general election the voting public aren't going to look at Corbyn and go 'yeah well his policies will benefit me massively but he wrote an introduction to a century old book once so I'll vote Tory instead'.

 

[Balbi]

Just to offer a small measure of how fucking pointless this line of attack is, Daniel Finkelstein has previously proclaimed in the Times, in an article titled Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man, subtitled "Even though the wartime prime minister was a lifelong white supremacist his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses" that: “To insist that for Churchill to be a great man he must never have thought or done anything bad is to insist that the world is divided into good and bad people and you can only be one or the other.”

So in the knowledge that Churchill was directly responsible, via racism that Finkelstein openly acknowledges, for policy decisions that led to the deaths of millions in Bengal, with that particular figure Danny is A-OK with praising the work.

But maybe saying Churchill was OK because he wasn't on a mission to specifically brutalise Finklestein's own parents (while being willing to murder "lesser races" that "breed like rabbits") isn't close enough. Perhaps we should only go with well-known political philosophers who indulge in a dash of anti-semitism. Like Edmund Burke, who wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France that:



What does Danny have to say about Burke?


source

This is not to say that Churchill and Burke *shouldn't* be (critically!) read necessarily, but if you're going to be starting this "no praise for the work of historic figures with problematic aspects or you're also a scumbag" line then fuck me you're going to end up with a pretty short list of pre-millennium Great Minds of History you can call on, near-enough none who will be heroes of the right.

This aligns really neatly with the fucking Change UK's claim that it....

aims to pursue evidence-led policies, rather than those led by ideology

Basically, burn all the texts and just let big data rule the future - it's Fukuyama redux, history is over because it's irrelevent.

 

[Dogsauce]

Isn't there going to be a point here where this relentless 'Corbyn did this and Corbyn did that and Corbyn's an anti-semite' from certain quarters within and without of the Jewish community that's going to break against them.

Like, they've been taking this line for a while now and it doesn't appear to have dented Labour's overall polling numbers - as if it's a real micro-conflict that's incredibly important to a small number of engaged political actors that's completely ignored by the wider public. In the end, if there's a general election the voting public aren't going to look at Corbyn and go 'yeah well his policies will benefit me massively but he wrote an introduction to a century old book once so I'll vote Tory instead'.

Part of the point of this straw-clutching is to tie the party up in knots and keep it fighting itself, thus reducing the ability to put other messages across or provide effective opposition. That’s how it damages things. Keeps other stuff off the agenda.

 

[Balbi]

Part of the point of this straw-clutching is to tie the party up in knots and keep it fighting itself, thus reducing the ability to put other messages across or provide effective opposition. That’s how it damages things. Keeps other stuff off the agenda.

Aye, but how effective is this going to be - local election canvassers, I bet, won't have had questions about the foreword to Hobson's 'Imperialism' on the doorstep. And the Euro's is going to be all Brexit, all the time.

 

[Mr Moose]

Just to offer a small measure of how fucking pointless this line of attack is, Daniel Finkelstein has previously proclaimed in the Times, in an article titled Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man, subtitled "Even though the wartime prime minister was a lifelong white supremacist his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses" that: “To insist that for Churchill to be a great man he must never have thought or done anything bad is to insist that the world is divided into good and bad people and you can only be one or the other.”

So in the knowledge that Churchill was directly responsible, via racism that Finkelstein openly acknowledges, for policy decisions that led to the deaths of millions in Bengal, with that particular figure Danny is A-OK with praising the work.

But maybe saying Churchill was OK because he wasn't on a mission to specifically brutalise Finklestein's own parents (while being willing to murder wholesale "lesser races" that "breed like rabbits") isn't close enough. Perhaps we should only go with well-known political philosophers who indulge in a dash of anti-semitism. Like Edmund Burke, who wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France that:



What does Danny have to say about Burke?


source

This is not to say that Churchill and Burke *shouldn't* be (critically!) read necessarily, but if you're going to be starting this "no praise for the work of historic figures with problematic aspects or you're also a scumbag" line then fuck me you're going to end up with a pretty short list of pre-millennium Great Minds of History you can call on, near-enough none who will be heroes of the right.

You make good points. There is a problem brought out by your comparison though, which is that Corbyn doesn’t acknowledge the antisemitism and not for the first time.

I imagine people who observe or write forensic detail here would have. But you are correct, it’s a pointless line of attack, perspective required including from me.

 

[LDC]

Aye, but how effective is this going to be - local election canvassers, I bet, won't have had questions about the foreword to Hobson's 'Imperialism' on the doorstep.

What doorsteps are you thinking of where they get questions like that?!

 

[sleaterkinney]

Isn't there going to be a point here where this relentless 'Corbyn did this and Corbyn did that and Corbyn's an anti-semite' from certain quarters within and without of the Jewish community that's going to break against them.

Like, they've been taking this line for a while now and it doesn't appear to have dented Labour's overall polling numbers - as if it's a real micro-conflict that's incredibly important to a small number of engaged political actors that's completely ignored by the wider public. In the end, if there's a general election the voting public aren't going to look at Corbyn and go 'yeah well his policies will benefit me massively but he wrote an introduction to a century old book once so I'll vote Tory instead'.

Labours and Corbyns numbers have been falling since the election.

The fact he isn't out yet is because of the personality cult around him and his supporters either being blind to what he's done or actually agreeing with it a bit.

 

[ska invita]

.

The fact he isn't out yet is because of the personality cult around him and his supporters either being blind to what he's done or actually agreeing with it a bit.

What has he "done" that they're blind to?

 

[butchersapron]

Labours and Corbyns numbers have been falling since the election.

The fact he isn't out yet is because of the personality cult around him and his supporters either being blind to what he's done or actually agreeing with it a bit.

That and labour being ahead in the polls. Which, by your metrics, means a great job is being done and he needs to stay.

 

[sleaterkinney]

What has he "done" that they're blind to?

There's a list of stuff, the mural, inviting Raed Salah to the commons, the treatment of jewish mps in his own party..

 

[Treacle Toes]

There's a list of stuff, the mural, inviting Raed Salah to the commons, the treatment of jewish mps in his own party..

Does this mean equate to TC and the government agree with and support all that is said and done by the Israeli state then?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Ah yes, whataboutery.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Ah yes, whataboutery.

Is it though? I am trying to understand why what's right for TC and the gov isn't for JC and the labour party... Equality in the way you judge these relationships and connections, plus why they happen is fair isn't it?

 

[Shechemite]

Jeremy Corbyn has the moral courage of Theresa May.

Great line that.

 

[killer b]

It's absolutely right to hold politicians on our own side to higher standards than those of our enemies. That's the whole fucking point isn't it? That we have higher standards?

 

[teuchter]

This aligns really neatly with the fucking Change UK's claim that it....



Basically, burn all the texts and just let big data rule the future - it's Fukuyama redux, history is over because it's irrelevent.

Why the assumption that texts and history aren't part of the evidence? Is history not evidence based in itself?