Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Schama interviews Hobsbawm on BBC Radio 4



http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01g4f87/Archive_on_4_Hobsbawm_A_Life_in_History/


Accompanied by a rich archive of interviews with Hobsbawm from the BBC archives, Schama discusses Hobsbawm's activism and career from his involvement as a teen with the KPD resistance to Nazism in 1930's Germany, through his life at the heights of British academia. The programme also focuses on Hobsbawm's often controversial political affiliation with the Communist Party of Great Britain, remaining a member until its dissolution in 1991, long after many comrades had left following the suppression of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
Talking about his early political development, he highlights the moment when we was first turned on to Marxism, at the height of a vicious, street-and-ballot struggle between the Communist Party of Germany and a nascent Nazi threat:
That period in Berlin shaped my life. Without this I simply wouldn't be what I am now. It was one of the masters at school who, in fact, turned me into a Marxist. I explained to him that I was a communist and we needed a revolution, and he asked me a few questions and said “You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly go to the school library and see what you can find.” And then I discoveredThe Communist Manifesto, and that was it... Can you imagine at the age of fifteen, reading The Communist Manifesto, the first few pages, and I said “This is it”.
This astonishing and often very touching profile gives a remarkable insight into the influence Hobsbawm had; as Schama admits, even those who weren't members of the Communist Party Historian's Group, or supporters of the democratic centralist communist ideology, were “intoxicated” by the opening up of historical study engendered by what Hobsbawm calls “social-cum-intellectual-cum-structural history”. Hobsbawm, alongside other great social historians such as Christopher Hill and E.P. Thompson, changed the way history was approached: not through a knowledge of Kings and Queens, or an understanding of the causes of Great Wars, but in the everyday struggles and entertainments of the vast majority of normal, working people whose lives produce and reflect the great social changes of world history.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Norman Birnbaum on Christopher Lasch

Gratitude and Forbearance: On Christopher Lasch | The Nation


" ... The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1994) was the last book Lasch would complete before dying of cancer. (He refused chemotherapy because he had concluded that it would not save his life and would destroy his capacity to write.) It was a work with two messages. The most obvious was his denunciation of the moral isolation of the nation’s elites, their sense of superiority and justified privilege, their claim that they represented a triumphant modernity, the universal acceptance of which was delayed by the philistine shortsightedness of the less educated and less fortunate. The second message was that hope for a different life had to begin with an affirmation of ordinary life—the business of living, the rhythms of the life cycle—and not from the endorsement of a metahistorical project dispensed from on high. In his last years, Lasch, notwithstanding his lack of religious belief, traded intellectually with theologians. He decided that they were using concepts like being, suffering and redemption to describe the permanent structures of human existence that he had approached empirically. He was drawn to the Protestant existentialists, whose hero was the anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, rather than to the Catholic visionaries, with their exalted notions of community. Perhaps that was an oblique tribute to his familial origins, and to the American past."





Tuesday, March 27, 2012



http://www.lrb.co.uk/v09/n03/benedict-anderson/old-corruption

Vol. 9 No. 3 · 5 February 1987



Old Corruption

Benedict Anderson writes about the Philippines


She is today, as the widowed ‘Cory’ Aquino, Time’s widely admired Woman of the Year. But she started life as Corazon Cojuangco, daughter of the wealthy sugar magnate Don Jose Cojuangco, and cousin of that Eduardo Cojuangco who in the Marcos era became one of the most notorious plunderers of the Filipino economy. She owes her present eminence to both names, but it is the earlier one that is the more significant for assessing the situation in which the Philippines finds itself.
Like almost all Christian Filipinos, she bears a Spanish Christian name, although Spanish colonial rule ended ninety years ago, and today almost no Filipinos understand the Spanish language. The suffix ‘-co’ to her maiden name, a suffix common to the family names of some of the Philippines’ more powerful dynasties (Cuenco, Chioco, Tiangco), derives from the Hokkien Chinese suffix-of-politeness for males: it shows that she belongs to that Chinese-mestizo class, blooming between the 1760s and 1850s, which has largely monopolised political power in the islands in modern times.[1]Important as American influence has been since 1900, it has served primarily to reinforce a social system and cultural order which is profoundly rooted in over three hundred and thirty years of Spanish rule. Not for nothing is it sometimes said that the Philippines is as much a part of Latin America as it is of South-East Asia.
Yet it was Latin America with a difference. By the time the Spanish arrived in the 1560s, Felipe II’s empire was already in decline, and the Philippines, named after him, was the last major imperial conquest. Most of Madrid’s energies were spent on her vast American possessions; the few Spaniards who came to the Philippines found neither gold nor silver to plunder; the only source of rapid wealth lay in the fabled ‘galleon trade’ by which Chinese porcelains and silks were exchanged in Manila for Mexican silver and sold at vast profit in Spanish America and Madrid. Outside the Manila entrepot – where Chinese merchants and artisans rapidly increased in number – few Spaniards, except for soldiers and clerics, resided. It was through the latter, above all, that the islands were to be ruled.
The timing turned out to be crucial. In the Americas Christian missionary zeal confronted local, state religions which it crushed with ruthless ease. In the Philippines, however, it found itself in a neck-and-neck race with an energetic Islam sweeping rapidly northeastward across island South-East Asia. (Had the Spanish arrived forty years later, much of the archipelago would probably have become religiously impenetrable, as predominantly Islamic as Indonesia and Malaysia are today.) Thus the late 15th-century politico-religious struggle in Andalusia was renewed, not many decades later, on the other side of the world – and in the same vocabulary. To this day, the Muslim populations of the southwestern Philippines, most of whom the Spaniards never subdued, are known, even to themselves, as ‘Moros’ (‘Moors’), and their armed resistance to Manila as the Moro National Liberation Front. Yet anti-Muslim (and Counter-Reformation) zealotry would not have been enough to ensure a programme of conversion so successful, ultimately, that 90 per cent of today’s Filipinos are at least nominally Christians. What proved critical, and not merely in this religious respect, was the absence anywhere in the Philippines (except where Islam had recently moved in) of indigenous states. Nothing remotely like the Burmese Buddhist monarchy, the Vietnamese Mandarinate, or the Javanese and Malay Hindu-Muslim dynastic realms. Christianisation of scattered pagan communities could proceed largely by peaceful means, a fact nicely underlined by the complete absence in the Philippines of the Inquisition. It was also carried out in the many local vernaculars – to the acquisition of which immense clerical energy was committed – and not in Spanish. Thanks to this policy, as well as the remoteness of the archipelago, and the pervasive, reactionary power of the clerisy, even after three hundred and thirty years of Spanish rule no more than 5 per cent of the population had command of Spanish. Spanish culture, in the most general sense, had a deep, continuing impact: but it was mediated not so much by the Spanish language as by Iberian Christian clerics – a vast, if largely ‘accidental’ difference from the experience of the southern Americas (except perhaps of the Jesuits’ Paraguay).
Ecclesiastical power had one other decisive influence on the development of the 20th-century Philippines’ social structure. While the Church in general, and the Orders in particular, gradually acquired vast wealth, especially in land, and while many clerics fathered children on local women, a formally celibate Spanish clergy could not, by its very nature, create a class capable, through the legal inheritance of family property, of creating vast private latifundia. What it did do, however, was to set a landowning example, create the social space for a mestizo latifundism in due course, and prepare a huge treasure for looting under early 20th-century American colonial rule.
The beneficiaries turned out to be the likes of Corazon Cojuangco’s late 18th-century forebears (the ‘patriarch’ immigrated from Fukien). From the early days the priesthood, dreaming of a Christian Middle Kingdom, had put much effort into conversion of those whom they called sangleys (‘traders’ in Hokkien), and whom we think of today as ‘Chinese’. If they had little success with the sangleys themselves, they did very well with the children born to such men by Christianised native women. Spanish law helped by assigning the formal legal status of mestizo to such children: i.e. preventing them from assuming their fathers’ sangley status. Assigned their own distinctive hybrid costumes and gremios (guild organisations), they emerged quickly as a distinct community – above all, in the environs of Manila.
Historical luck was with them. During the two-year English occupation of Manila in 1762-64, the often-victimised sangleys supplied and fought alongside the invaders; in revenge, the returning Spaniards expelled the bulk of the sangley community, and barred substantial further entry by mainland Chinese for close on a century. They could afford to do so because by then the galleon trade was in steep decline (the last galleon sailed in 1811), and the enlightened Bourbon despot Carlos III was expanding Spanish power into the countryside and promoting a quite new commercial export agriculture (including a royal monopoly in tobacco). With the sangleys out of the way, and the few resident Spaniards mainly occupied with administrative and ecclesiastical tasks, the ‘Chinese-mestizos’ took over most significant local commercial activity, and began moving out into the countryside of Luzon and the Visayas in Carlos III’s wake.
It is striking that when Spain’s American empire was disintegrating between 1810 and 1825, all was calm in the distant Philippines. The creole magnates, lawyers and petty officials who led nationalist revolutions against the Bourbons’ ‘second conquest of the Americas’ found no counterpart in the archipelago – even though the islands were administratively subordinated to the Viceroyalty of Mexico. The Church used its monopoly on education and control of printing to guard against any intrusion of liberal ideas; and the mestizos had good reason to be grateful for the new policies of Madrid. They might have no role in the Orders, and little in the decrepit administrative system, but they were entrenched in the expanding urban and rural economy. When in 1834 Madrid decided fully to open Manila (and a bit later Cebu City) to international trade, the mestizos were poised to take optimal advantage of the new opportunities. By then there were almost two hundred and fifty thousand of them in a total population of not much more than four million.
In the 19th century it was with British capital that the mestizos happily joined hands, as in the 20th century they would do with American and Japanese. For example, the island of Negros was almost uninhabited when British interests set up the first sugar mill there in 1857. Forty years later the population had increased tenfold, mainly by mestizo-organised immigration, and 274 steam mills were in operation.[2] Two great Chinese-mestizo ‘sugar’ families with British connections, the OsmeƱas and the Cuencos, came so to dominate Cebu’s ‘party’ politics that by the 1950s it was said that in that island ‘there are no Nacionalistas and Liberals – there are only OsmeƱistas and Cuenquistas.’[3]
---------------------------------------
[1] On this group the locus classicus is Edgar Wickberg’s The Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850-1898 (Yale, 1965).
[2] David Steinberg, ‘Tradition and Response’, in Crisis in the Philippines: The Marcos Era and Beyond, edited by John Bresnan (Princeton University Press, 1986). Along with essays on ‘The Social Situation’ by Wilfredo Arce and Ricardo Abad, and on ‘The Economic Crisis’ by Bernardo Villegas, Steinberg’s text is a valuable contribution to an otherwise conventional ‘How did things go so wrong?’ volume.
[3] Cited in Onofre Corpuz, The Philippines (Prentice-Hall, 1965).

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Paine:

Peter Linebaugh's  Introduction to Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice:  http://hydrarchy.blogspot.com/2009/09/introduction-to-thomas-paines-common.html


Tom Paine was a worker and commoner. He spoke and wrote from a particular experience, that of an English artisan at the onset of industrialization. He was, too, a planetary revolutionary—indeed, he helped give meaning to the term—and as such his writing is hugely significant for the twenty-first century. If we were to compare him to any contemporary figure, it would be Che Guevara. He asserted aspiration, possibility, the unheard of. He breathed the warmth of human agency to frigid hierarchies of power. The phrase “world revolutionary” might have several meanings—a sailor of the seven seas, a scientist of the universal mind, a philosophe in the republic of letters, a journeyman on the move.  


... his uncompromising condemnation of all the world’s religions. In “The Age of Reason,” published in 1794 and 1795, Paine wrote, “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” Theodore Roosevelt once called Paine a “filthy little atheist,” but Paine did believe in God; he just didn’t believe in the Bible or the Koran or the Torah; these he considered hearsay, lies, fables, and frauds that served to wreak havoc with humanity while hiding the beauty of God’s creation, the evidence for which was everywhere obvious in “the universe we behold.” 

In “The Age of Reason,” Paine offered his own creed:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. 

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy. 

But . . . I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. 


“Paine’s religious opinions were those of three-fourths of the men of letters of the last age,” Joel Barlow observed, probably overstating the case only slightly. Paine’s views were hardly original; what was new was his audience. While other Enlightenment writers wrote for one another, Paine wrote, as always, for everyone. His contemporaries believed that radical philosophical speculation—especially critiques of religion—was to be shared only with men of education (and, it was assumed, judgment). The poor could not be trusted with such notions; freed of church-based morality, they would run amok. Paine disagreed, profoundly. To say that he was vilified for doing this is to miss the point. He was destroyed.

Mark Twain once said, “It took a brave man before the Civil War to confess he had read ‘The Age of Reason.’ ” But that didn’t mean it wasn’t read. In 1797 alone, a single Philadelphia printer sold a hundred thousand copies. In Britain, sales of “The Age of Reason” outpaced even those of “Rights of Man,” though, since it was banned as blasphemous, it’s impossible to know how many copies were sold. The London printer Richard Carlile, who called his bookstore the Temple of Reason, was fined a thousand pounds for publishing it, and sentenced to two years in jail. (During an earlier trial on similar charges, Carlile had read aloud from “Rights of Man,” a ploy that allowed him to publish it again, as a courtroom transcript.) 

After Carlile’s wife fell into the trap of selling “The Age of Reason” to a government agent posing as a bookstore browser, she—and her newborn baby—followed her husband to prison. Eventually, in order to avoid exposing anyone inside the bookstore to further prosecution, there appeared in the Temple of Reason an “invisible shopman,” a machine into which customers could drop coins and take out a book, about which Collins writes, “It is sobering to think that the freedom of the press once depended upon a mechanism now used to vend Mars bars.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/16/061016crbo_books#ixzz1qAbMGaVv
 

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Barrington Moore, Jr, ca. 1985:



http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/moore86.pdf 



Authority and Inequality under Capitalism
and  Socialism


THE   TA N N E R   LECTURES  O N  HU M A N   VALUES 


Delivered  at 
Brasenose College, Oxford University 
May  16, 17, 2 3 ,  and 24,  1985



'No bourgeoisie, no heterogeneity'

The other Moore's law | http://www.economist.com/node/13063306


'What is it about the middle class that influences politics? To oversimplify, its crucial feature is heterogeneity. Compared with the poor and the rich, the middle class contains a greater range of interests. It covers a wide range of occupations: software engineers, shopkeepers, teachers and all the manifestations of economic complexity. 


'Because of this variety, the middle class is driven by a wider range of concerns than either the poor—whose main worry is the need for more money—or the elite, who concentrate on defending their political or economic position. The middle class is not a narrow special-interest group in the same way. 


'Other things being equal, any group in the middle should act as a moderating influence on social conflicts. By definition, a growing middle class will reduce income inequality because it will moderate the stark divide between rich elite and rural poor that is often a source of conflict in emerging markets.  


'In sum, the middle class acts as a buffer. Sometimes it allies itself with the poor, sometimes with the rich. That does not guarantee the emergence of democracy, but the presence of a large, varied middle class does make democracy more attractive than if a country is dominated by just two classes. 


'Such a large, varied middle class encourages new policies, often (though not always) more liberal ones. To oversimplify again: the characteristic political demand of the poor is for transfers. They want a new well in the village or electricity for the slums. This encourages a politics of patronage. The characteristic political demand of the middle class is for things like property rights and a stable economic policy. This tends to give rise to a politics of accountability, if not necessarily democracy. 


'Because the middle class contains so many competing interests, patronage politics—handing out goodies to a favoured few—can end up hurting as many members of the group as it helps, so it becomes less tempting.'