It’s not easy being on the left at this time of year. The annual Remembrance season unleashes a massive social pressure to conform to a national narrative of respect for the troops who’ve ‘sacrificed’ their lives for the nation in its wars in the past, and support for those currently fighting its wars in the present.
For those in the public eye this pressure is especially pronounced, with TV presenters, celebrities, and studio guests ensuring on pain of public opprobrium that they have a poppy pinned to their chests. A notable exception to this is Channel Four’s Jon Snow, who in the past has described it as ‘poppy fascism’. I recall this time last year George Galloway telling me how he was put under pressure by Sky to wear a poppy when he was on to review the papers. Of course, he refused, but it does illustrate the hysteria that is whipped up and of how the poppy and Remembrance Day has been politicised.
A few days ago I had a piece on Remembrance Day published at the Huffington Post. It’s an amended version of an article I posted on Socialist Unity this time last year. I have to admit I thought twice before deciding to send it in, anticipating a hostile backlash. I’m happy to say the response to the article has been overwhelmingly positive, with over 400 people clicking on the ‘Like’ icon thus far.
I also appeared on BBC Scotland’s ‘Call Kaye’ phone-in show last week to debate the politicisation of the poppy with Ian McGregor, Chief Executive of Poppyscotland. When I was contacted about doing the show the night before, I was told that McGregor had come out publicly and stated that people can wear the red poppy and still be antiwar. They were trying to get me to say the opposite – i.e. that you can’t wear the poppy and be antiwar. I realised immediately that this was a set-up, so I responded to the producer that conceivably you can be antiwar and wear anything you like, but that the red poppy cannot be considered an antiwar symbol, given that it’s been so politicised. Anyway, I went on the show the following morning and lo and behold they did their best to make me out to be against the poppy and therefore against the troops and their families, etc.
You can listen to the debate here. The item starts at around 47.00 in.
As a result of the Huffington Post piece, I received a tweet this morning from someone who’d read and liked it. She drew my attention to the furore that’s broken out in response to the decision by Daniel Cooper to refuse, in his capacity as Vice President of the University of London Union, an invitation to lay a wreath at the University of London remembrance service. Daniel, a socialist, wrote an outstanding letter laying out the reasons for his decision not to participate, which everyone should read.
Regardless, his decision has met with condemnation bordering on anathematization, consisting of a dedicated Facebook page demanding his resignation and this article in the Daily Tab, a London newspaper I’ve never heard of.
This to me emphasises the need for the left to challenge the conventional narrative surrounding the poppy and Remembrance Day no matter how hard or difficult it might be. The alternative is to cede ground in the battle of ideas to the right when it comes to setting the narrative not only in terms of the history of Britain’s wars, but more importantly over fomenting support for its present and future wars.
Overall, this week leaves me even more in awe of those giants in the history of the left who paid a far heavier price than any of us have had to pay for maintaining an antiwar stance in the face of such nationalist hysteria and patriotic fervour surrounding the militarisms of their respective countries. I’m thinking here of people like John MacLean, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and Eugene Debs.
As Liebknecht wrote: ‘Capitalism is war; socialism is peace’.
A simple statement, one he dedicated himself to upholding, and ultimately one that cost him his life.
Marko on said:
“Regardless, his decision has met with a hostile backlash, consisting of a dedicated Facebook page demanding his resignation”
This is the kind of hysteria, the kind of anti freedom of thought that the right thrive upon and that some sections of the left have fed with the recent rape and abuse scandals.
I personally am sick to the back teeth of the militarisation of society in recent years. Just the name “Help the Heroes” makes me want to puke my guts up. Where are the dissenting voices?
jock mctrousers on said:
Excellent piece. If it was just about remembering those who fell, including those still unpardoned who were put to the firing squad by their hooray henry bosses… but I’ve just caught a bit of the pomp and ceremony on the tv, starting with ‘Rule Brittania’ – ‘Britains never, never, never, will be slaves…’ How about serfs, then?
The whole thing is just part of the pageantry and propaganda of the royal Tory state. And the pretence that they died to ‘save our country’ (someone actually said that to me recently – a black Irish guy too, the mind boggles)…?
I don’t grudge or mock those who choose to wear it, but I don’t want to contribute to it.
Mark P on said:
I make a simle distinction each year.
I make a fairly generous donation to the poppy collector’s tin. Its in memory of those who gave their lives fighting facism in WW2, the survivors forced to get by on depleted pensions and those too getting by with injuries from wars the should never been sent t fight in the first place.
I politely tell the collector that no I won’t take a poppy as I don’t wear one. The whole respectful solemnity of the Poppy commemoration has been traduced by those who shamelessly use it to clamp down any questioning of why our armed forces today are fighting wars of no obvious cause.
Mark P
jock mctrousers on said:
Daniel Cooper’s letter, linked to in the main article, is excellent. Very promising writer, I’d say.
http://tinyurl.com/b5bvsad
Vanya on said:
I can understand people wanting to remember those killed in previous wars.
The issue for me is the way that wearing it has been so closely associated with support for current wars.
That I understand was the reason George Galloway chose last year to stop wearing one. I recall that he certainly wore on the year before.
Obviously this is compounded by the way that wearing a poppy has become semi- or even completely compulsory in various contexts.
George W on said:
Personally I always wear a poppy with pride. I have mates in the forces and, what ever war they fight in, they are working class kids doing a very important job. They deserve all the support and respect we can give them.
I do accept that the establishment uses the occasion to force pro-imperialist sentiment down everyone’s throats. But they are going to be trying this all the time anyway. Instead of throwing the toys out of the pram, socialists should put across anti-war sentiment while supporting the troops. Doing so in this manner might gain more support. And if you talk to most who have been to Afghan, those in the forces want out as much as anyone.
Fair play to anyone’s preferences on the subject, but to me refusing to wear one is similar to being sectarian-’I hate rangers, up the celtic’-here I mean those who support the club for any other reasons than football, or refusing to support withdrawal from the EU because of its association with UKIP or the BNP. Its identity politics rather than socialist politics.
It strikes me to be a little silly and works only to isolate socialists from the working class.
John on said:
Really? Occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is a ‘very important job’?
John on said:
I’m sure John MacLean, Eugene Debs and Karl Liebknecht were told much the same in their day. And yet today it is their names that we remember and not the names of those who told them that they were being a ‘little silly’.
Vanya on said:
#7 That astounded me as well.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
Yes, I went to Gatwick Airport at the end of October and most people who were staffing desks in airport shops etc. were already wearing them. I remembered wondering whether it was a case of “wear this or join the dole queue”.
“Poppy fascism” is a good term for it. Nazi Germany’s “Winter Relief” collections, “One Pot Sundays” and giving the Hitler salute were not strictly compulsory, but if you didn’t play ball there were all kinds of possible sanctions. People who didn’t contribute to a “Winter Relief” collection might find themselves mentioned in the local paper a few days later, with their address given. And that was the milder end. People who didn’t give the Hitler salute might be kicked in by SA men. A post-war cartoon by Kurt Halbritter showed a middle-aged man with a black eye near a Nazi parade, with the SA men who had just assaulted him turning and going back to the march. The man’s unsympathetic wife says to him, “I’ve told you that you have to salute them.”
George W on said:
John,
obviously the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghan are terrible, most service men and women would agree. But would we seize to have an army under socialism?
We need to build links with both those in the forces and the majority of working class people who wear poppies. Many, if not most, of whole are also againist imperialist wars and want the troops home. But is the best way of engaging with these people to refuse to wear a poppy?
Fair enough if that’s what you decide, but I wear a poppy for my own reasons-to support the often trumatised front line troops who need help-and I find it useful when putting across anti-war sentiment. I suspect it also gets over better than if I had declared that I refuse to wear a poppy, or even worse wore a white one.
Far more effective to quote harry patch among friends than to burn poppies like the SWP used to do at university and appear the same as Muslims against crusades in most peoples minds.
Vanya on said:
#11 If your argument was against burning poppies then I would agree with you entirely.
But you stated that British soldiers are currently doing an important job, which John and I have both questioned to say the least. It’s a far cry from sympathising with their plight to agreeing with what they’re doing.
Either you’re against the occupation or you’re not.
MB on said:
George W, c
George, I sometimes don’t stand up when God Save the Queen is belted out at the football in Australia. Sometimes when I don’t have the political energy to make a stand I’ll slouch up but keep talking. I don’t chant Aussie, Aussie, Aussie Oi Oi Oi! In ‘most peoples minds’ that’s sacrilege. Do you do any public acts that are uncomfortable? What barriers are worth breaching even if it pisses most people off?
George W on said:
Vanya,
The forces do an important job of protecting the country. Iraq..etc are policy decisions, policy decisions that imperialist countries tend to make. Just because I am against private healthcare, doesn’t make me lose respect for the profession of nursing.
If you actually talk to those in the forces they will agree with you about Iraq and Afghan, some are even brave enough to come on antiwar demonstrations.
But it is childish to say that because of Iraq…etc you refuse to supple the troops.
Its a good argument to make that despite its military focused propaganda the establishment doesn’t provide for soliders who have been effected by war.
You can wear your poppy, put money in the tin and say “its terrible they let brave soliders rot when they get a leg blown off, what the hell are we in Afghan for?”
In the vast majority of cases you get servicemen and women and their families agreeing with you. Then you can go on about imperialism, socialism..etc that’s a harder sell but you are starting from a better base.
Try marching up and screaming ‘butchers of Basra’ I don’t wear a poppy because you are murderers’…etc
It just comes off as selfrigteous.
I had this same debate with YCLers uncomfortable with my opinions, and in international meetings, comrades from Canada, USA, Belgium..etc felt the same. But I tried having the same debate with a group of Cubans and Venezuelans, and their blend of socialism and patriotism most resounded with the opinion favouring the wearing of poppies.
The point is that to be in the forces is a hard necessary job. In the future they will be our brave army/navy/airforce defending socialism. They are ordinary working class people who deserve our support.
Most share of view of Iraq/Afghan and it is better to engage with them than condemn them.
Karl Stewart on said:
GeorgeW, I think you should join UKIP.
Marko on said:
I am from a solidly working class community and I have noticed that the mejority don’t seem to be wearing poppies. It is often worn by people in power and those wishing to climb up the greasy pole in order that they can lick the backsides of elite.
I sometimes find it sinister and creepy, I have just come back from holiday and at the airport (Manchester) there were loads of people doing the poppy appeal and one old geezer said to my young nephew “You should join the grenadiers lad”. I found this more disturbing than the actions of Jimmy Saville.
Now I do have some reservations about attacking the poppy because it can potentially alienate those families who have relations killing and raping and plundering on behalf of the 1% (I have a brother in law in Iraq right now) but on balance they can shove it up their arse and the heroes can go fuck themselves.
George W on said:
MB,
I usually sing Jerusalem instead. But yeah its a hard one. I have plenty of comrades who don’t wear poppies, wear white ones, support Celtic for misguided ‘political’ reasons, are vegatarian or refuse to be anti-EU for fear of association with the far-right and fair play to them. Im just saying my personal opinions.
John on said:
I’m sorry George, this stikes me as mealy-mouthed. There is also the need to support the other victims of Britain’s wars – the Iraqis, Afghans etc. There’s a difference between engagement and appeasement. Of course, you have to make the class argument over how the troops are exploited and so on, but I don’t think you make that by buying into the ideological symbols and rituals that sustain that exploitation – i.e. the Poppy and Remembrance Day.
Sometimes you have to weather the storm and take the heat. The idea that we offer support to the troops for the job they do on the basis that they will soon be part of our socialist armed forces is specious in the extreme.
George W on said:
Karl Stewart,
lol!
Mark P on said:
Ome of the setbacks we need to consider is the massive reteat from the popularity of the Stop the War message in 2003 to the effective marginalisation of the argument and the minisclue nature of the campaign today.
‘Help for Heroes’ has been franjly hugely successful, as has been the inexorable militarisation of public life, in which football has been absilurely central. The FA Cup is now marched out on to the pitch by the armed forces.
At the same it is hard to detect any kind of actual popular enthusiasm for the war in Afghaistan, this isn’t a Falklands type moment. The absolute craven compliance with the the military mission by Labour doesn’t help of course.
These are difficult issues but lts be honest, poppies or no poppies, there is no effective and articulated opposition to our troops being in Afghanistan. This has been a massive defeae for the Left here, so far reduced from the popular potency of 2003.
Mark P
Vanya on said:
#14 Did you ever consider joining the forces? If so, what made you decide against? If not, why not?
Also, do you see any difference between patriotism for a Cuban or Venezuelan socialist on the one hand and for a British, Belgian etc one?
Karl Stewart on said:
MarkP, I think the difference is that the 2003 mass movement was one of opposition to the Iraq invasion in particular, I don’t think the military intervention in Afghanistan has ever been anything like as unpopular.
On the poppy issue, I’ve often worn one in the past, but I’m thinking I’ve been wrong to have done so and seriously reconsidering my views on that in light of the trend that others here have commented on here of an increasing militarisation in society, which is beoming more and more apparent at various non-military events and functions
Also, I think this trend is going to get worse – the build up to the centenary of WWI will be quite pronounce next year and will be impossible to avoid in 2014 – and we on the left need to be aware of this and be thinking about how we should respond.
The letter that the above article links to by Daniel Cooper sets out many of the arguments that I think we should be highlighting – how was it possible that Haig was never prosecuted as a war criminal for the many millions of deaths?
Let’s highlight that, and also let’s highlight the Somme and the 20,000 British deaths on Day One and the half-million British dead in the course of that “battle” alone.
Absolutely shocking figures – let’s keep reminding everyone of this and that Haig, the man responsible for this slaughter was never punished for it – why not?
He knew that these men were being sent to their certain death and continued to order them forward – his only “strategy” being one of “attrition,” of gradually wearing down Germany’s manpower resources.
John on said:
This is undoubtedly a difficult issue, living as we do in a state that is addicted to war. How to engage is crucial, and certainly I admit that my attitude in the past in this respect has been crude.
The troops are not just victims but prisoners of the ideology that perpetuates Britain’s warmongering history, and it’s how to penetrate or cut across it that is key. Many of us are products of the communities from which most of the troops come from – low income, under privileged etc – and understand the impetus that leads them to signing up before they’re even old enough to understand what it is they are signing up to.
That said, we have to oppose this ideology regardless of how tough it is. The letter from Daniel Poole is an excellent example of how principle should always come before taking the easy way out.
I don’t doubt George W’s intentions, just his approach.
George W on said:
Vanya,
Funny you should say. I applied to join the OTC at uni, despite the fact that my mates hate the graduates who come straight into being officers. But failed the medical, apparently if you have ever had asthma you are out, even if just as a kid. Probs a good idea because you had to do a presentation on a subject you enjoyed in the first week and I was going to do it on socialism.
Of course Cubans and Venezuelans are defending either socialism or a socialist government as a member of the armed forces. But Hugo was active before he was elected.
British troops refused to go to Russia after the war and I know the cpgb organised cells and gave out leaflets during the general strike so I am interested in engaging with the troops but realise its a hard issue.
Mark P on said:
Clearly 2003 was a diff situation. But the argument against military interventiin in Afghahistan has moved dramatically backwards ever since, the oppositiin almost entirely outmanourvred by the ‘Help for Heroes’ cause.
Neverthelss I would seriously question whether there is very much popular support for the troops being out there but the anti-war case has entirely faled to connect. This represents a serious reversal for any kinfd of popular progressive majority here and needs to be faced up to honestly and realistically.
Mark P
Marko on said:
“The FA Cup is now marched out on to the pitch by the armed forces.”
Don’t forget how the awful Olympics, with it’s awful minority sports, was corrupted by militarisation. Didn’t they have missiles on tower blocks?
Morning Star reader on said:
I think some very clever decision-making has been going on in British ruling class circles. It is recognised that many ordinary people draw a fairly clear distinction between (a) a particular war, whether it should be fought or not etc. and (b) the soldiers themselves, many of them working class, trying to make something better of themselves (whatever that something turns out to be in reality).
After the unpopularity of Iraq (mostly because of the blatant lying), and of Afghanistan, it was decided by government ministers, military chiefs, media bosses and their chums to (1) focus as much propaganda as possible on ‘our boys’, the ‘heroes’ and the like, making full use of sporting occasions. Of course, most of the heroes and their families continue to be treated like shit by the ruling class after they’ve outlived their usefulness.
Then there’s (2) the clever decision to trumpet a future withdrawal date as far as Afghanistan is concerned, which means that although the military presence there is not wildly popular in Britain, most people here think it will all be over before too long.
Add to this (3) the endless flow of bullshit reports about how the (‘underlying’) military situation in Afghanistan is always ‘improving a little’ (i.e. not too much to be unbelievable); and (4) the almost total exclusion of any critical or dissenting voices – indeed of any debate at all – about Afghanistan from the mass media.
Particularly nauseating is the full-scale collaboration of the BBC and the Labour Party leadership in this dishonest, cynical strategy.
Armistice Day, war-dead commemorations and the red poppy have been drawn into the whole shoddy exercise as well, but I think socialists should react carefully. In my view, we should try to refrain from doing or saying anything that (1) accepts that the First World War and the other imperialist slaughters have ever had anything to do with defending the people of Britain; or (2) disrespects the lives that were lost. This is difficult, especially when everything is done to wrap up all Britain’s imperialist wars with the Second World War – which most people in Britain, rightly in view, regard as a necessary war in a just and noble cause, namely the military struggle to defeat fascism.
Because Armistice Day and the red poppy encompass WW2, I would not not attack either, while taking various opportunities to respectfully draw the distinction between just and unjust wars. But I would not attend war commemoration events (unless they relate to WW2 alone), or wear the red poppy, because that distinction cannot usually be made.
My father was a front-line commando in WW2, a solid trade unionist who understood the need to fight fascism – but who had no time for the upper-class blimps who still dominate Britain’s armed forces today. He would have hated the way in which Armistice Day and the red poppy are now being hijacked by the war-mongers who have taken us into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mark P on said:
If I remember correctly the Olympic flag in the Opening Ceremony was unfurled and run up the flag pole by uniformed members of the armed services.
The militarisation of British public life has taken place subtly and withou scarcely a comment, it is a nausetating way to smother oppositin to the futile mission in Afghanistan. Sadly, it has worked.
Mark P
Ian on said:
Can we as a left show a bit of unity and try to reclaim the poppy for the vast amount of working class people who were used as cannon fodder for capitalism in 1914-18?
Is this so hard?
redcogs on said:
On the golf course this morning (don’t), playing with an acquaintance who used to be a submariner on a nuclear vessel.. At 11.00 am he said “remember and respect the fallen”. i didn’t want to let it pass unremarked, feeling (as most of us probably do) the coercive pressures to ‘poppy up’ and identify with god queen and nation. so i replied “Yes, too many millions have fallen, yet the politicians are still as determined as ever to send countless more to their graves, the warmongering bastards”.
He didn’t disagree particularly, but i then had to contend with an hour’s discussion on the concept of the ‘Just War’..
And i lost the match by several strokes. Not a good day.
Vanya on said:
#26 Ironically the Olympics both demonstrated that the army can be put to good use in emergencies AND should have given us a perfect opportunity to combat the ideology of private is best with G4S saga.
(I’m not advocating the routine use of the army to carry out internal security functions btw)
#27 You make some good points there.
The attempts by Cameron to glorify the First World War by celebrating its start in 2014 should be the subject of as much opposition as possible, and are already the subject of an early day motion put forward by a Plaid MP, as is the continuing saga of the failure of the British state to allow the Soviet and now Russian governments to honour properly the veterans of the arctic convoys.
redscribe on said:
Well, I think it is quite positive that George Galloway has stopped wearing a poppy. Poppy Day was always a celebration of imperialist war. The White Poppy was at least a partial protest against that celebration, but unfortunately implied a pacifist stance. Recent wars have clarified that at least.
redscribe on said:
Well, I think it is positive that George Galloway has stopped wearing a poppy. Poppy Day was always a celebration of imperialist war. The White Poppy was at least a protest against that celebration, but unfortunately implied a pacifist stance. Recent wars have clarified that at least.
Jim on said:
I’ve been “reproached” several times over the last fortnight over not wearing a poppy. I always take the time to explain why I do not wear it and my views are usually accepted. Someone above talks about the need to “reclaim” the poppy. I don’t think there is any reclaiming to do, it’s always been more a symbol of glorifying war rather than one of remembrance, it’s actual trading name is still “the Earl Haig Fund”. Butcher Haig was reviled by many who served under him and his inept tactics responsible for the deaths of millions of soldiers. There were no “homes for heroes” despite the promises after WW1, only unemployment and poverty – a bit like the situation for former soldiers today.
Marko on said:
“the army can be put to good use in emergencies ”
Pass me the fucking cyanide tablet.
Vanya on said:
#34 So if we had a natural disaster you would be against the use of the military to carry out rescue work?
The reality is that every state has armed forces and there is a legitmate use for them- Actual defence of the country against foreign attack and assistance in civil emergencies.
Sending abroad to invade and occupy other peoples’ countries is not legtimate, and putting missiles on top of peoples’ homes in London was not a legitimate deployment of defensive weapons.
And we all know that the best defence against the most likely terrorist threat is a change in foreign policy and a change in the role of the military from an imperialist tool to that of a defence force.
johng on said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP-fxfEYiK0&feature=related
Vanya on said:
#36 Yes, it just reinforces the need to challenge all the shite about WW1 that Cameron will be pushing assuming he’s still around in 2014.
I was fortunate enough to have a grandfather who served at Paschendale, Ypres etc and to be told (within reason in terms of what was appropriate for a child) about some of the horrors by someone who saw them at first hand.
Feodor on said:
Just read Daniel Cooper’s letter: it’s well-written, informative and clearly articulates why he did not want to attend the service, while at the same time managing to convey a deep sense of empathy with those that fell in combat. On this basis, the witch-hunters may well find that their scheming back-fires on them – even on their facebook page, there are quite a few comments from people who seem very uneasy about how he is being targeted for a personal belief.
If he retains his post, it will be a small victory. But opposing the wider militarisation of society and the way supporting ‘our heroes’ has become a cynical cover for ruling class war-mongers, that’s going to be a very hard, uphill struggle.
Also, I agree with Marko (post 16): I don’t think I’ve seen anybody wearing a poppy going about their daily business; instead, it seems restricted to politicians and other public figures, arse-licking gits who want to be either of the previous, and those whose jobs are in the public eye (i.e. service workers etc.), which to me indicates a certain level of tacit and not-so-tacit coercion.
I certainly won’t wear one, am rarely questioned as to why, and when I am, generally respond by stating that I remember the war dead of the past by opposing more slaughter in the present and future. And in my experience, most people are willing to accept that’s a reasonable view – I don’t think this is as sensitive a issue as some of the above posters are making out. (Though, admittedly, maybe I get more of a free-ride than most of the posters here because I’m a little younger, and people are generally more willing to accept dissenting views from someone in their twenties than from someone in their fifties.)
Cliff Moore on said:
Costa Rica dosen’t, and has not since 1949. And in the immortal words of John Lennon – they are “…not the only one”. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
IAN CAMERON on said:
Having had an interest in UK Chartist and early Trade Union history etc I thought to try and get an idea who the many thousands of UK forces actually were who got wiped out in wars in Afghanistan in 1842. So I wrote to the Imperial War Museum given all the IWM etc., hoo ha ha re the Great War dead. They had no I.D. information to offer at all. Not a scrap. Zero.
Vanya on said:
#40 Sorry I should have said, ‘the overwhelming majority of states have armed forces in some form or other’.
Feodor on said:
Apparently, an Aylesham man has been arrested for posting a picture online of a poppy being burned.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/11/12/police-arrest-man-for-posting-picture-of-burning-a-poppy/
(My apologies if Andy et al. don’t like direct links to that particular blog; I’ve no idea if you have a rule on this or not.)
andy newman on said:
Feodor,
I have no opinion of liberal conspiracy. So no problem with links
BombasticSpastic on said:
The British Legion and the Poppy Appeal boasts that some of the monies collected by the poppy sellers from the public goes towards helping the wounded from British conflicts overseas.
Last year £90 million was spent on health and welfare; £20 million towards personnel recovery centres; and £18 million in individual grants – some of these grants probably on making homes of disabled service personnel accessible, no doubt.
As I speak we still have a welfare state. Though no great fan of the British military machine and the wars in which it becomes embroiled in at the behest of double dodgy governments, I am nonetheless a Socialist and hold strongly to the belief that the NHS and welfare state take care of the needs of our citizens as and when they present themselves; and that our NHS and welfare state are funded through NI and general taxation.
Disabled service people should not have to depend on charitable handouts, no more than any other person living in this country should. (Sorry, I am aware that hundreds of thousands of people, including children, are doing exactly that in soup kitchens and at food parcel distribution points up and down the country).
Ex-service personnel should not have to depend on ‘charitable’ handouts from the British Legion (BL). Sadly, the BL tradition is being rolled out in different forms up and down the country; and more and more of us will have to depend on the munificence of Lord and Lady Bountiful in the near future. And of course we all know there is always a price to pay for anything ‘given’ to you in the name of charity.
Karl Stewart on said:
It has been somewhat disturbing this weekend to see the strong military presence at all the scheduled sporting events.
And some strong points have been made in this debate about the political reasons for this growing militarisation into civilian society.
It is set to become a growing trend, particularly as the 1914-2014 centenary approaches.
I think we need to take every opportunity to remind everyone of the sheer scale of the slaughter that the ruling class inflicted on the working class in that war.
Perhaps we should also demand posthumous pardons for every British serviceman killed for refusing to fight, maybe campaign for a posthumous war crime trial of Haig for the mass slaughter he initiated, and for the British state to formally apologise to the British people for slaughtering so many of us during that war.
John Palmer on said:
What happened to the “White Poppy”? The White Poppy was displayed by anti-militarists and anti-imperialists (as well as pacifists)in the 1950s and 1960s who wanted to mark their respect for the tragic loss of soldiers’ and civilians’ lives in the world wars but not to support jingoistic celebration for war or the military.
andy newman on said:
John Palmer,
It seems to be having one of its periodic come backs, as Rod Stewart wore a white poppy this year on graham norton show and frankie Boyle wore one on jonathan ross show.
I know that celebrity endorsement is a facile barometer, but it does increase profile
John Grimshaw on said:
Not surprised Ian. I believe Dr. John Watson was injured in the second Afghan war (1874-80) but we probably know more about him!
jim mclean on said:
IAN CAMERON,
I believe the names can be accessed through the historic records of East India Company and their Roll of Honour. Unsure about the civilian casualties that outnumbered the military 5 to 1. If your ever in Reading here is the Berkshire memorial.
http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Berkshire/ReadingAfghanCampaign.html
John Grimshaw on said:
#46 I couldn’t agree more Karl. The whole thing is getting ridiculous. As I watched two two football matches yesteray and was awake in time for 11.11 am it would have been perfectly possible had I been so minded for me to have observed at least three silences, one of which owing to “silence inflation” was in fac t two minutes. Sory any Tottenhham fans out there by the way. I think we had the Irish Guards at Eastlands yesterday. I wonder if the reality is that as British imperialism gets weaker the establishment starts to compensate by investing more in meaningless ritual (which in any case they have no intentin of honouring) to try to “bind” us to their common purpose i.e. keeping them rich at our exspense. My local vicar was I suspect more than a little embarassed yesterday because his job required him to stand outside the library with some soldiers and fireman standing to attention singing “God Save the Queen”. But that’ll teach him.
I would love tosee the formal apology extended to all the young men and women they have so wikfully sent to their deaths over the yeras Karl. I mean did you see how young the squaddies were in Helmand yesterday observing their silence. Mind you not that it stopped one of them being shot by an Afghan soldier directly afterwards. But I guess fat chance of that.
SA on said:
I cannot help but think the 1914 centenary is a collosal own goal for the establishment. Those of us old enough to have spoken to the ’14 -’18 suvivors have no illusions about the slaughter.
Also this year I noticed far less poppies worn by the public compared to a couple of years ago. War fatigue maybe as the debacle of Afghanistan becomes ever clearer.
IAN CAMERON on said:
jim mclean,
Thank you very much indeed. In due course I will try. Do you know if this means that the names of 1000′s are all known? Curious that the IWM were so unhelpful given what you’ve just posted. I dont mean any of the above as a negative reflection of what you’ve helpfully suggested. I am sincerely grateful.
IAN CAMERON on said:
jim mclean,
Can I ask you something – maybe you’ll know. Back in the 1840′s how for example were UK service personnel recruited? Presumably military were frequently recruited in the UK?
albacore on said:
People are pointing out what is clearly a massive increase in the presence of the military at sporting events etc.
Does anybody here have examples of how this is driven i.e. who is approaching whom to make this happen? Who is deciding that poppies are compulsory on TV?
It would be interesting (to me, anyway) to have a better idea of how this trend is fed and watered.
SA on said:
More often than not, a few regiments were recruited in the empire. The exception is India where the EIC had its own military with many Indian regiments.
Post the ‘mutiny’ the Indian regiments were part of the Crown army.
George Hallam on said:
The Official History of the war gives TOTAL British and Commonwealth casualties for the Somme, killed, wounded, or taken prisoner, as 419,654. (Sheffield, Gary (2003). The Somme. Cassell age 151)
Of these less than 100,000 (95,675) were killed or missing.
Karl Stewart on said:
How strange that you should quote pro-Haig historian Gary Sheffield’s account as the “official” history of WWI???
Barry Kade on said:
I wore a red poppy this year. I pinned it to my jacket with an anti-capitalist badge.
John Grimshaw on said:
I presume its the British Road to Socialism?
George Hallam on said:
Of course, you are right. I should have said:
TOTAL British and Commonwealth casualties for the Somme, killed, wounded, or taken prisoner, as 419,654.
Of these less than 100,000 (95,675) were killed or missing.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme#cite_note-Sheffield151-76 Miles 1938 cited in Sheffield 2003: 151)
Bibliography
Miles, Wilfrid [Captain] (compiler) (1938) ‘History of the Great War Based on Official Documents, Military Operations: France and Belgium, 1916 Volume II: 2 July 1916 to the end of the Battles of the Somme’
Sheffield, Gary (2003). ‘The Somme’. Cassell
Please forgive this lapse. I will try to see that it doesn’t happen again.
I do think it is so important that one gives correct references, don’t you?
stephen marks on said:
Should we not be planning our own commemorations for the anniversary of the Christmas Truce of 1914?
andy newman on said:
SA,
I read a history of the first Afghan war about ten years ago. IIRC no regiments of the British Army were involved, there were over 4500 Britons in the invasion force but all in the service of the East India Company zPtesidency armies.
It was not unusual either for European mercenaries too officer Asian armies. In the ear between the british and the Sikh kingdom, the Sikh army had Irish generals. And in the war between Persia and the Emigrate of Herat both sides had British military advisors, who in fact had been to school with each other.
Jellytot on said:
@51I wonder if the reality is that as British imperialism gets weaker the establishment starts to compensate by investing more in meaningless ritual….to try to “bind” us to their common purpose
I think that’s got a lot to do with it.
Pete Shield on said:
John Palmer,
Re White Poppy They are still being sold by the Peace Pledge Union
http://www.ppu.org.uk/
Mark Victorystooge on said:
Units of the British Army were recruited in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland and sent out to police colonies. Some units spent entire decades far away from Britain, often in places like India. In India, local troops, called sepoys were recruited by the East India Company, which ran India as a colony up to the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Their officers were often British and there were units of British troops as well as Indian ones.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
It is years since I have been there, but the IWM as I recall gave little coverage to any wars before 1914-1945, and only in recent years has it paid some attention to post-1945 conflicts. So if the museum failed to come up with anything re the 19th century, that is probably why.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
No conscription like in Continental armies. Later in the 19th century regiments were allotted areas where they could recruit, often but not just the area which might give the unit its name, but I don’t know if that was the case in the 1840s (there was a major army reform after the Crimean War of 1854-6 exposed deficiencies). Like today, economically disadvantaged areas were often selected by recruiting sergeants, who would tell young recruits about the wonders of being a soldier. Most regiments, not just Irish ones, had a significant number of Irish recruits, fleeing poverty, or as in the 1840s, the Famine. There were also a fair number of Scots in “English” regiments as well as the Scottish ones.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
I read somewhere that by the late 19th century, all Irish regular infantry regiments, with the exception of the Connaught Rangers, were designated as “Royal” regiments. This was a privilege extended to certain units, entitling them to dark blue uniform facings like those worn by the Brigade of Guards. So the Dublin Fusiliers became the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, etc. It was undoubtedly an attempt to tie Ireland a little closer to Britain and the monarchy. English, Scottish and Welsh units were not declared “Royal” on anything like the same scale.
George Hallam on said:
It is more usual to date the start of the Second Afghan war as 1878.
Jim on said:
Mark Victorystooge,
We have the “Royal” Navy and the “Royal” Air Force but the “British” Army. I always thought that was because the army fought against the crown in the English Civil War.
SA on said:
Andy you’re nearly right in your recall. The British force was as follows:
44th Foot, later the Essex Regiment and now the Royal Anglian Regiment.
Regiments of the Bengal Army:
2nd Bengal Light Cavalry
1st Bengal European Infantry
37th Bengal Native Infantry
48th Bengal Native Infantry
2nd Bengal Native Infantry
27th Bengal Native Infantry.
Bengal Horse Artillery
So two British regiments the 44th (Crown) and 1st Bengal European Infantry (Company) and if memory serves the Bengal Horse Artillery (Company) were British too.
I had not heard about the Irish generals in the Sikh army although some of Napoleon’s lads found a home there.
Karl’s right about the disproportionate numbers of Irish and Scots in the British Army. It was never really a respectable trade in working class England.
An Indian soldier was only a Sepoy if he was infantry those in the cavalry were called Sowars.
Vanya on said:
Why am I starting to get visions of marmite butties, notebooks and quilted hooded coats (and I don’t mean parkas)?
Karl Stewart on said:
Vanya, is it because you’re at Clapham Junction with GeorgeH?
SA on said:
An ever present danger. Even as I typed I knew…
Vanya on said:
#74 No, at the Imperial War Museum of the North in Salford- there’s a T34!!!
Vanya on said:
#76 And if you go onto their website there’s loads of dead good pictures of it.
Karl Stewart on said:
…well, that seems to have got rid of George for now – no doubt he’ll return with details of serial numbers and engine specifications!!
brokenwindow on said:
I agree with the spirit of the piece but it’s hardly a British ruling class disease;is this kind of crap – a fusion of nationalism,sentimentalism,structured forgetting – has its place anywhere;China,Russia,France,etc. It’s definitely being fed into the ‘identity’ vacuum here along with the 60 year Silver Jubilee,The Olympics,The Royal Wedding. Despite the atrocious economy there has been no credib;le threat to the heist;even this website is a bit of a mouthpiece for Miliband,not to mention the Chinese Military! The only thing not taking it lying down is the weather.
George Hallam on said:
Don’t speak too soon
George Hallam on said:
For another point of view on your last point see Floud et al for a statistical analysis of the height of recruits
“..of men born between 1851 and 1884 who had survived to the age 0+ 18, at least 10% were medically examined after applying for enlistment to the army. For much of the period the proportion was much higher, reaching a peak of 17.0% f or the cohort born in 1880. (In addition, the army figures do not include, because they had no chance of being accepted for enlistment, the substantial fraction of men who were shorter than the army height standards). Moreover, these comparisons are made with the total male population, not with the more appropriate comparator, the working class population. Estimates of the size of the working class in late nineteenth century Britain are contentious; the Rev. Edwards, who gave a figure of 50%, was certainly too low and 70% might be more accurate. Some 17% of the whole population is equivalent on either basis, therefore, to between 24% and 34% of working class males.”
(Floud, Wachter & Gregory 1985: 15-16)
Floud, Roderick, Wachter, Kenneth and Gregory, W. Annabel (1985) ‘The physical state of the British working class, 1870-1914: evidence from army recruits’ Working Paper No. 1661 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, http://www.nber.org/papers/w1661.pdf?new_window=1
unionworkeruk on said:
I traveled from South East London to North London on Saturday by bus and underground. Very few people were wearing poppies of any kind. Those wearing them were mainly on the way to the Lord Mayors Show. It seems most people just not interested either way.
Tom on said:
Funny to see this criticism of British militarism not so many weeks after Newman and “Jellytot” were creaming themselves over Chinese sabre rattling!
jim mclean on said:
recruiting 19th century.
http://www.queensroyalsurreys.org.uk/1661to1966/recruiting/recruiting.html
SA on said:
81. I read your link George and interesting though it is I would make the following comments.
It covers the period 1870 to 1910 – high imperialism if you like. The push factors for Irish and Scots have diminished by that time, never the less, place of enlistment would not be a good ethnic identifier for recruits. I would therefore expect the actual number of Irish and Scots to be higher.
The previous occupation of recruits confirms my opinion that the army was not a popular trade among the English working class as more than half had been labourers or servants. The bottom of the working class with the worst conditions and least security.
The stuff on height is interesting but perhaps too optimistic. The cities comsumed the working class and I suppose now we tend to forget what that meant for physical health. An example would be the use of ‘Bantam’ formations by the British army where average height would be 5 foot. I suppose they made smaller targets in an era of ever more effective firearms but it was neccisity that led to the Bantams.
We now have around a quarter of children living in poverty in London and its been that way for a generation if it continues we will see height falling among those effected.
andy newman on said:
Jim,
I believe it is because the army is the only service to have been formed by merging English and Scottish standing regiments. The Navy is a co.tinuation of the English navy.
John Grimshaw on said:
I post the following for obvious reasons.
“Colleagues
What I have posted below is what happened to Trade Union activist Marc Schiemann in Luton yesterday. Please distribute amongst your networks so we can expose this man for the thug he is. If you know anyone in Bedfordshire please tell them to Vote on Thursday. Sadly we have really struggled with people to help with the Leafleting, On Saturday morning Luton UAF helped out taking the total to 7 which was amazing but usually it has been 1 or 2 people with myself doing more than my fair share (just ask my wife) across 2 towns.
Please share the transcript below:
Marc Scheimann Vs Kevin Carroll Sunday 11th Nov
Today Sunday 11th of November peace campaigner Marc Scheimann press secretary to Luton TUC, attended with his 4 year old son Luton Remembrance Day outside Luton Town Hall by the War memorial.
After 2 minutes silence, religious speeches of commemorance the parade marched away and at 11:25 Marc & Kiran Scheimann approached the rear of the memorial to lay a white peace poppy wreath.
Each year since 1989, Marc has always laid a peace wreath to remember his German and British grand fathers who both lost their lives on 2 opposing sides during the 2nd world war, which is why he wears a red and a white poppy.
For 24 years Marc has respectfully done this with the understanding of the Luton public without any problem, until this year.
This year English Defence League deputy & far right British Freedom Party candidate for the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commission, Kevin Carroll made the exception.
Waving a clenched fist and using aggressive gesturing he shouted at us before speaking to 3 police officers he hopes to lead after November 15th.
2 Officers came over to us and requested my name address and telephone number which I gave them. They asked us to step back for a moment because they felt I was causing breach of the peace by my actions. I stated that it was only a very small minority of the public shouting and they were all connected with Kevin Carroll.
After a few minutes My son and I laid our peace wreath flanked by 2 police officers. They asked me to leave straight away and I said I had to have time to pay my respect, talk to members of the council including our 2 Mps.
I feared for the safety of our peace reef so we stood close by it with the 2 officers 1 at each side.
Kevin Carroll came close up pointing with a closed fist with 1 extended finger at our wreath and my son and I.
Suddenly a 20ish year old woman shouting made a grab to remove our wreath from the wires. I dived forward letting go of my sons’ hand to fall on the wreath preventing its’ theft will the officers took no action.
Mr Carroll seeing that his hopes had been thwarted stated shouting again saying many times over “ you’re just a scumbag” “ you and the Wakehams (fellow peace campaigners) hate troops” “when I’m police commissioner I will make sure you are locked up in jail for this”.
My only reply was that I hoped he would loose his deposit getting less than 5 % of the vote.
His actions and tirade clearly demonstrate if doubt ever existed that he doesn’t just hate Muslims but all people what ever the colour of their skin who dare to hold different opinions to his.
Do you want a man who threatens a disabled man and his 4 year on son leading Bedfordshire Police?
Please distribute widely to ruin this mans megalomaniac chance of power
Regards Marc”
Zaid on said:
Obviously I never wear a poppy and it doesn’t often come up in conversation. But if ever it does, I normally just shrug my shoulders and say something like “I prefer to remember their victims”. Then if people want to debate the issue they can, but I’m certainly not going to pretend to them that I agree with them (or worse still come out with some guff “the poor soldiers are neglected when they come back from Afghanistan” and pretend to myself that I’ve put across some kind of anti-imperialist argument).
CJB on said:
As a citizen of N.Ireland I have seen for my own eyes the roll the British army has played in the occupation here and I can assure you the words hero’s, patriots, self sacrificing, upstanding men, are enough to make me want to vomit, the British army’s behaviour around the world to this day is a disgrace, and that is due to the general philosophy that is brainwashed into the recruits by the senior ranks of the military and parliament, which is that the British army is a proud and righteous institution, tell that to the foreign women gang raped by the squadies, or the innocent citizens beaten and killed in the streets in OTHER PEOPLES COUNTRYS, the supporters of the armed forces should be ashamed of themselves, never minding trying to alienate free thinking people for making a choice of not wearing a poppy and most importantly choosing not to be hypnotised by the same old rhetoric, there is no place in a socialist society for any army.
“Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.” ~Albert Einstein
Vanya on said:
#88 Do you think that expressing the view that the state should take responsibility for the care of soldiers it has sent to fight for them and have suffered serious injury or trauma as a result is incompatible with opposing imperialism?
#89.’… there is no place in a socialist society for any army.’
Do you therefore envisage that the construction of a socialist society will be allowed to proceed without actual or threatened armed interference by those who want to protect their vested interests by putting a stop to it?
If not, how should such a society respond?
Sam64 on said:
Worth pointing out that the association of the poppy with, specifically, WW1 (strong anyway) will become more pronounced in the run up to the 100th anniversary of hostilities in 2014.
I gather a string of documentaries and so on are already being made. We’ll have to see what they produce but they’re likely to follow the drift of the all but obligatory wearing of the poppy covered in this post: the sacrifice of servicemen in national wars is beyond critical scrutiny and even history.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
In at least one edition of Martin Middlebrook’s classic First Day On The Somme, there is a photo of British soldiers marching away some captured Germans. The Germans at the front of the picture, apparently officers, actually tower over the British soldiers escorting them, and during World War I the British commented sometimes on how tall at least some Germans were, compared to themselves. Incidentally, the Germans (and Dutch) are I think still taller than the British, on average. But certainly industrial life did stunt people’s growth, and perhaps more in Britain than in Imperial Germany.
After Pearl Harbor, the Americans found that the Depression had damaged the health of a lot of the Americans they were calling up into the armed forces, and a great many were rejected for military service, at least to start with. Health and other criteria were somewhat loosened later on, which was one reason why someone like Eddie Slovik, who had a minor criminal record, was called up, and ultimately shot for desertion – the only one in the US armed forces to be executed for this offence.
andy newman on said:
On Radio four the other morning, they asked someone from the British legion whetehr it was harder now that people didn’t know why we are in Afghanistan compared to the moral certainty of WW2.
The response, (not word for word, but the gist was)”no we are all very clear why we are in Afghanistan, it is just the same”.
If anyone does know why the British army is in Afghanistan, perhaps they could explain it to the rest of the country?
Mark Victorystooge on said:
Distressed tradesmen, surplus agricultural labourers, young men on the run after getting a girl pregnant and minor criminals etc. were often typical recruits during this period. Some people joined up, collected bounty and then promptly deserted, pulling the same stunt in a number of regiments though they were no doubt harshly punished if caught.
Scowell, the Duke of Wellington’s chief codebreaker and information gatherer in Spain, commented favourably on the intelligence of captured French he interviewed (who were generally conscripts) as compared to the average British soldier of the time. Wellington’s “scum of the earth” comment was harsh, but it was often the case that British soldiers joined up because they could not make it in civilian life, for one reason or other. Whereas French conscripts came from a wider cross-section of French society.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
The military is a profession that favours unquestioning obedience – “theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do or die” is an ethos well suited to those without too many grey cells upstairs. Which I think is the case with people who think WW2 and contemporary Afghanistan are “just the same”.
BombasticSpastic on said:
It’s obvious why Britain continues to send armies to Afghanistan. It’s to test George Santayana’s thesis on the past.
CJB on said:
Good grief, do you believe that the armed forces and police that are in place will be there to support the construction of a socialist society as you put it? They are primarily there to protect the power elite from the general population; they will be the strong-arm of the people wishing to protect their vested interests, off course it will be under the guise of protecting the state against civil unrest, the government has spent a lot of time and money in brainwashing and conditioning of these people to follow without question, British Army Oath…
I… swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.
Omar on said:
CJB,
What do you think the roles of the Red Army and the People’s Liberation Army were in the aftermath of the Russian and 1949 Revolutions?
johng on said:
Which *revolutions* in 1949 were they?
Omar on said:
johng,
The one that established the PRC.
Jellytot on said:
@99Which *revolutions* in 1949 were they?
Come now, 1949 was obviously a revolution and even your own supposed China expert Charlie Hore describes it as such:
“The Chinese revolution of 1949 was one of the most momentous events of this century.”
http://www.marxists.de/china/hore/00-intro.htm
johng on said:
Oh yes that one yeah. I think it was. What kind of a one? Perhaps the best riposte is ‘its too early to say’.
johng on said:
I thought there was a reference to the late 1940s in Eastern Europe. I see my mistake now. A considerably more complicated question that though.
George W on said:
Vanya,
Vanya. Hate to be pedantic but the imperial war museum north is actually in Trafford. As I resident of Salford I know ut is just across the canal.
To be even worse if it is the one outside you are referring to it is a T-55 and, unfortunately, an Iraqi one at that.
Its a good museum though, a bit more arty than its London counterpart. Fits in with the area what with mediacity and the Lowry across the water.
johng on said:
The degree of ideological crisis that sparks these pathetic ‘reports’ is on the verge of becoming interesting. Because of course it wouldn’t be a problem if the IDF didn’t often kill a lot of children.
CJB on said:
The PLA was formed by the communist party before the Chinese civil war of 1949, the ideology was already there, do you think the generals and commanders of the British army are going to mobilise the people of the UK for an armed uprising, don’t think so, considering most of them are the descendants of the aristocratic bourgeoisie themselves, these are the people who will do anything to defend their way of life, which is why I believe the senior ranking military are from privileged backgrounds.
George W on said:
CJB,
Of course the buulk of British army generals are reactionary, but do you think it is also possible to write off the rest of the army? A mistake I think.
Vanya on said:
#97 No it is highly unlikely that they will be the same.
But that isn’t the basis of my question which was in response to your statement that there would be no place for ‘any’ army.
Had you said ‘an army like the current British Army’ then I would have seen where you were coming from.
My question remains therefore.
Omar has put it in a slightly different way, so as to require that you accept that Russia and China were/are socialist societies or societies where socialism is/ was being created.
Omar on said:
CJB,
Just to, hopefully, cut this inane exchange short, I believe Vanya and I were responding to your above statement “there is no place in a socialist society for any army.” There most certainly is, as the examples of the USSR and China (not to mention others) demonstrate. We are not arguing that the current British armed forces are going to be at the vanguard of a revolution (at least of the socialist variety) should it happen here,M’kay?
Omar on said:
Omar,
Ahh, I see Vanya has already clarified…
Vanya on said:
#109 I should have added that my version is a bit more abstract.
Vanya on said:
#105 Yes George you are correct that the museum is in Trafford- I was hoping that someone would spot my deliberate mistake.
Top marks for that:)
Also, I can assure you that I am aware of the fact that the armoured vehicle to the exterior of the building is a T55, but did not consider that this would be of such interest given its later vintage and the fact that it is as you correctly point out, formerly the property of the Iraqi army.
The T34 to which I referred is located inside the building.
I am again impressed. You are obviously a suitable apprentice to your namesake Mr Hallam.
George Hallam on said:
I’m glad you took the trouble to read the article.
I find it an interesting example of statistical inference.
I’m sure you’re right that place of enlistment is not a sure indication of ethnic identity. Though it will tell us something.
I take your point about labourers and servants. It would be interesting to track down the birth certificates of recruits to see the occupation of their parents.
I drew the article to your attention because it contained some real world data, not because I agreed with every word of it.
George W on said:
Vanya,
Jesus, there’s a T-34 inside? I never noticed. I guess I should take the comparasion with the other George as a compliment. His insistence on the use of facts is both admirable, and at times, irritating.
But surely, if we believe in scientific socialism then cold hard facts have to be the basis of our arguments.
neprimerimye on said:
There is more chance of the SAS supporting a socialist revolution here than the PLA supporting workers in China.
Vanya on said:
Off topic (other than it’s about the state as armed bodies of men/women and ties in with Blue John’s comment above) but I’ve just had an email from Unite advocating a vote for Labour candidates in the Police Commissioner elections on thursday.
Suitable subject for a new thread admin?
Zaid on said:
They may not necessarily be incompatible (or at least not immediately axiomatically – I’d have to give it some thought to be sure). But the point is you should not delude yourself into believing they are the same thing.
Vanya on said:
I’ll try my best not to.
John on said:
Zaid, I wonder if you understand the concept of praxis at all, the art or process of applying theory in practice?
In order to do this effectively we need to understand the terrain we’re on at any given time. In this society at this specific juncture, a state with imperialist interests in which soldier worship has never been more prevalent, I really can’t see you getting very far when it comes to recruiting the working class to socialist or communist ideas if you refuse to engage on the issue of the troops on any basis other than a simplistic and ultra left one of painting them as imperialist running dogs.
This is obviously assuming that you are interested in reaching the working class with your politics in the first place
It is not only advisable, it is essential for the left to engage on the sensitive issue of the troops with the public at large by identifying the class differences between them and those who send them to kill and be killed in foreign wars.
The alternative is to ignore the issue of class when it comes to the troops entirely. This only plays into the hands of an establishment that goes out of its way to do the same by fomenting some bogus national interest that completely obscures it.
Vanya on said:
Perhaps not.
There is a school of thought on the far left that essentially writes off the majority of the working class in the western imperialist states and it’s been around for a fair while. It does of course coincide in its outlook with sections of the middle class and they overlap in attitudes.
John on said:
Exactly.
George W on said:
Vanya,
Spot on comrade
jim mclean on said:
It would be difficult to give a class base opinion in relation wearing the poppy. Granny McLean would wear it as her man died at Neuve Chappelle. Granda H would not wear anything to do with “Butcher Haig”. He and his wife also had a few choice words for Churchill over the Dardanelles. Their street suffered badly due to tradition of people in the same areas being put in the same regiments and companies. I have worn both red and white, more to do with family history than support of the imperialist war. One thing about recruitment, in the Highlands it was the norm for the Clan chief to raise a Regiment when it was needed and this remnant of feudalism lasted until the time of the clearances.
SA on said:
Sure George, I understood that.
Yes it would be interesting to see what their parents did. There were military families but from the records I looked at many years ago they supplied a minority of recruits ‘born in the barracks’ as it were. Those wives who got themselves onto the regimental books would if widowed often marry another soldier as quickly as possible. Its easy to see that their offspring would stay in the military community. I think disease and resulting death checked this trend.
The other thing that strikes me is that being a soldier was preferable to being a servant for many men. What we know about 19th century military life is pretty grim so it tells us something about life in service.
George Hallam on said:
Yes, of course. I hadn’t thought of that possibility. I was thinking more on the lines of trying to disaggregate all those “labourers, servants, husbandmen, etc.”
Given that most recruits were young (17 to 25), these were occupation that offered easy access. Their parent, being older, would have had the chance to establish themselves in something less temporary.
Karl Stewart on said:
Sam64 makes an important point up at post (91), that this will all become much more pronounced in the coming period leading up to the centenary of 1914.
In recent years, attempts to “rehabilitate” that war, to justify it, the tactics used and the decisions of war criminals such as Haig have become more widespread than before.
The historian Gary Sheffield appears to be the leading advocate of this “revisionist” approach to WWI – he’s published books on both the Somme and Haig himself which both put the central argument that the war was justified, that fighting on to “victory” was the correct policy and that, therefore, the strategy of “attrition” was justified.
The revisionist historian Sheffield seems to have even become the resident “expert” on the subject for the history section of the BBC’s website.
One wonders why these thoroughly reactionary arguments are starting to become more mainstream now – at a time when UK military intervention overseas is starting to become the norm, and when what John at post (120) describes as “soldier worship” is more prevalent than it has been for many decades.
CJB on said:
Omar, just to finish this inane exchange as you put it, the Russian revolution was not won by the army but by the civilians who had enough, the army followed the lead of the civilians and took up arms against the remaining loyalists and then the provisional government, my statement remains the same there is no place in a modern socialist society for any conventional army, all army’s are a by product from a draconian age, when the politicians and the monarchy ruled through fear with the purpose of protecting their own power and interests, so please tell me in this current time what roll the army would play in a socialist society?, who would they be protecting us from? Who would be attacking a socialist society with socialist values in this modern age?
johng on said:
Who exactly does the British army exist to defend us against?
John Grimshaw on said:
#129 The Chinese?
Greg on said:
I wear a poppy every year. Its to remember my grandfathers. Both hard working Labour supporters, who were conscripted into the army (one in WW1, and one in WW2). They had no choice. There were millions like them, and so many were killed and wounded. For me it is about rememberance. RIP.
Vanya on said:
#128 Members of the old ruling class who want to turn things back maybe, their allies in other societies that were not socialist perhaps.
Or do you envisage that socialism is only possible when classes have been eliminated and socialism exists in every country in the world?
And do you believe that such a situation will come about entirely peacefully?
George Hallam on said:
It is important to distinguish between the policy objectives that justified fighting a war and issues about of how it was fought.
The ‘justification’ for any strategy, including attrition, rest its effectivness in achieving the desired results, not the policy objectives it served.
Military historian are only useful if the distinguish between these two areas.
CJB on said:
I think you are getting a bit carried away with yourself; we are nowhere near the stage of an armed uprising, I was thinking along the lines of a newly created political party for the working class and also for the people left to rot at the bottom, with a person leading that party who understands and empathises how shit things really are at the arsehole end of society, look at what Chavez has accomplished as a leader, the same can be done in the UK, something other than these two corrupt party’s we get to choose from.
1: Take control of government, making it open and transparent to the public, removing corruption.
2: Shut down the M.O.D, Recall all troops from overseas, put their skills to other uses, also announcing all foreign hostilities stopped, and no further interference or military support for imperialist countries (USA/Israel) (Why would terrorists attack)
3: Nationalise the banks and energy companies, so on and so on… it can be done without a single shot being fired. If the majority of the people stand together, the masses need inspired…
Omar on said:
CJB,
Think I’ll leave Vanya to it,mate, as I’ve not the patience at the moment. Read more carefully in the future.
CJB on said:
yes do take some time off from being a arrogant twat, we could all do with a break
observer on said:
[post deleted - one of those people who started posting increasingly abusive nonsense until he was banned, and now he's back, posting purely abusive nonsense]
Vanya on said:
#136 I’m not going to say any more on the subject. I suggest you do look through the points made by and to you and work out what the disagreement is about.
Then you can come to your own conclusion as to how much of a disagreement there is and what it is about.
Karl Stewart on said:
No that’s disgustingly inhumane shite George and exactly the kind of warped “logic” that the WWI revisionists are using. They start from the basis that Haig and Lloyd George’s “war aims” were the right policy, and then they argue that, within that prism of thought, Haig’s strategy of “attrition” was the right one.
The war was morally wrong from the start. In 1914, the correct policy would have been not to go to war. Certainly by 1915 it was blindingly obvious that there was a stalemate and the correct policy would have been a ceasefire and a return to pre-war borders. Failing that, and given that defence had proven time and again to be far, far more effective than attack, then a policy of simply holding ground would have been the correct one.
One can only judge Haig’s strategy of attrition to be the correct one if one first agrees that the war was right in the first place, that no efforts at establishing a ceasefire and a return to pre-war borders should have been made and that simply standing firm and holding ground was somehow “wrong” too, and if one has absolutely no sense of humanity whatsoever.
Defending Haig on that basis is a bit like saying that using the gas chambers was the most effective way of killing the maximum number of jews, provided one first agrees that the elimination of the jews was the right policy.
CJB on said:
To hopefully end this nonsense…
Statement: there is no place in a socialist society for any army.
Response: Do you therefore envisage that the construction of a socialist society will be allowed to proceed without actual or threatened armed interference by those who want to protect their vested interests by putting a stop to it?
Vanya, this is the heart of the disagreement, you have asked a question based on a hypothetical situation developing, involving some kind of armed struggle, which I can only presume by your statement from the wealthy elite wishing to remain in power, if not please elaborate and please highlight to me how this would develop and in what context, and could you explain what you mean by construction of a socialist society and what this would involve and who would prevent it from proceeding? I tend to think in terms of reality not fantasy, if a truly socialist party is elected by the people they will have control of the government and the armed forces and police, you need to be clear on what you wrote…
there are many country’s without army’s in this day and age socialist or not…
Vanya on said:
#139 In the abstract George is right, but of course war is the continuation of politics by other means and therefore such a distinction is always going to be limited.
There’s a difference between a physical science and a social science such as politics.
johng on said:
Commuting to London most weeks for about ten years meant I spent quite a lot of time in Waterloo WH Smith of an evening. I usually went into the history section. It really struck me how most popular history was right wing, and a huge chunk of it was military. As memoirs by ex-SAS men jostled for space with defences of the British Empire and revisionist accounts of the first world war above, I’d often turn for light ideological relief to the innumerable books on medieval royalty and the crusades.
It was incredibly depressing and bizarre (especially if you were feeling a bit knackered and had been hoping to find a book to read on the train). But its wierdly unanalyzed as a phenomenan and treated as natural. Its only when you see a Richard Starkey on Newsnight that you consider the sheer poison being mainlined.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
I believe this attitude influenced the Black Panthers, among others. Actually, in view of how supine the working class have mostly been in imperialist states, it is surprising this attitude isn’t stronger. After all, it can hardly be described as a distortion of reality.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
It is no coincidence that it is like that – it is pabulum for the masses. And after all, it is not as though there are many left-wing bookshops around, are there?
Anyway, these days I don’t look at even the signed-up left and think, “Yes, these people resist imperialist and capitalist mindwashing and continue to think critically.” It has become clear that much of the apparent political counterculture too is under the influence, though not necessarily conscious of it.
Years ago I went into the American Bookshop in Amsterdam, and was struck by how typical US books were even more right-wing than British ones. It helps explain how right-wing US politics are. And that’s for the Americans who actually go abroad, and actually read books…
stuart on said:
Bit harsh!
Karl Stewart on said:
No Vanya, George and the WWI revisionists are not right in an abstract sense.
As a complete abstraction, and totally devoid of context, the notion: “Let’s slaughter millions of young men on an industrial scale” is fundamentally wrong.
And put in its full context, the notion: “Let’s slaughter millions of young men so that we, the ruling class of this country, can protect our competitive advantage over the ruling class of another country” remains fundamentally wrong.
GeorgeH and the WWI revisionists’ thesis is wrong on both an abstract and contextualised basis.
There is only the warped “logic” of: “The slaughter of millions of young men helps those of us who want millions of young men to be slaughtered to achieve our aims.”
It is the same warped logic of the nazis: “The mass killing of jews helps those of us who want millions of jews to be killed to achieve our aims.”
Vanya on said:
#143 It’s an attitude that has influenced many people for whom I have a great deal of respect, including the Black Panthers.
And like most attitudes on the left it contains many grains of truth, which makes it just that more dangerous.
And. what value is it if it provides either no guide for action or a completely useless guide?
There are 2 main dangers, of overplaying both the level of backwardness and the extent to which it can be changed- one is to condemn and fail to engage and the other is to pander.
Both are exacerbated by political isolation from working class communities and failure to address how such isolation can be overcome.
Vanya on said:
#140 If you believe that socialism can be constructed without the threat of force against those who would use force to prevent it you’re welcome to your belief.
In my view that’s a fantasy.
Let’s agree to differ.
#146 My understanding is that George is making a distinction between military methods and the policies which those methods are designed to further.
I am saying that there is a distinction between them, but that it can’t be a pure distinction because you cannot ultimately make a separation between politics (or ‘morality’) and the means you use to pursue it.
It would be interesting if you were to examine a military struggle that you did support and have your views on the morality of the methods used.
George Hallam on said:
What do you think you are saying here?
“Let’s slaughter millions of young men on an industrial scale” is an injunction, a command
to do or refrain from doing something, in this case ‘murder’.
So you seem to be saying that, ordering people to do “murder” is fundamentally wrong”.
You may well be right. It is certainly a widely held point of view.
However, if one were to subsitude ‘kill’ or ‘murder’ things become a bit more debatable.
But this is all by the by. My point was that judgements about the morality of an aim are not the same as assessing the effectiveness of a particular method use to accomplish that aim.
I believe Agatha Christie put a good deal of time and effort into understanding how poisons worked and which were the hardest to detect.
As far as I know she didn’t actually advocate killing people.
George Hallam on said:
should read:
if one were to subsitude the word ‘kill’ for the word ‘murder’
johng on said:
It is of course David Starkey. However he is such an unpleasant git that getting his name right is hardly a priority. But apologies to Ringo Starr. And yes, of course, Mark, our differences over Syria are very much shaped by my love of Ripping Yarns by Anon. First prize for hack of the month.
Martel on said:
#149 ‘But this is all by the by. My point was that judgements about the morality of an aim are not the same as assessing the effectiveness of a particular method use to accomplish that aim.’
This is morally dubious in the extreme. It is based upon a completely impractical assumption that if some consensus can be established upon the good of an end then the means to achieve this can be taken out of the ethical framework.
I think that greater food and water security would be an excellent end. However this would not justify the morally repugnant act of reducing the world population by a third by unleashing some form of genetically modified super-disease.
The ends do not justify the means. Machivelli was wrong. The means must justify themselves. An act can not be deemed good just because it will lead to a good consequence. The means must be judged by the same ethical system that decides on the end.
Not to mention the issue that the viability, or desirability, of the end will always be determined by the means employed.
George Hallam on said:
You may well be right. It is certainly a point of view.
Whatever one thinks about this issue, it should be no barrier to having an informed discussion on the effectiveness of the British strategy of attrition in the First World War or of German ‘blitzkrieg’ (if there ever was such a thing) in the Second.
Vanya on said:
Martel, your last sentence isn’t an aside, but something that contradicts your simplistic denial that the ends justify the means.
If your means result in an undesirable end then they haven’t been justified by the end. It’s clearly a case by case analysis that is required, but starting point has to be the desirability of the end.
That’s why this means and ends thing has always been a pointless counterposition as far as I’m concerned.
It’s also why George and Karl are both right and wrong at the same time.
Martel on said:
#154 ‘If your means result in an undesirable end then they haven’t been justified by the end.’
The end does not necessarily have to be achieved.
The ‘end justifies the means’ can be a guide to action. Which usually justifies completely wretched behaviour for the sake of some supposedly noble cause.
Vanya on said:
#155 I rarely find that anyone is consistent over this argument.
My dad and I used to have this argument.
He was a navigator/ bomb-aimer in lancasters and although he just missed out on an operational mission in May 1945 he possibly had more cause than many other people to ponder the question.
Zaid on said:
John, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because of the widespread respect and sympathy enjoyed (in Britain at least) by the British armed forces and the concerted effort in the media to portray military personnel as heroes, we should express concern (either genuine or feigned) for the welfare of troops in Afghanistan and other war zones as a way of engaging with the working class. This is misconceived on many different levels.
If you make those carrying out the military projects of imperialism the object of your solidarity rather than their victims, this will leave you stranded in debates about supplying them with better equipment (I’m guessing you are not in favour of that although I’m not sure about many others on here). How are you possibly going to argue they shouldn’t have more effective body armour or more powerful guns when you’ve devoted effort into portraying yourself as somebody who looks out for their welfare?
Secondly, you can’t play that game more effectively than the right. Nobody is going to think to themselves “hmmm, I’ve always voted UKIP or Conservative (or Labour), but I think I’ll join the far left instead – they are the ones who REALLY support our boys”. It’s a delusion.
Thirdly it sounds (and in fact is) creepy to say something to somebody which you think they may want to hear, in order to set them up for what you really want to say to them (which you suspect they won’t be so enthusiastic about). If I were a poppy seller and you came up to me and said “isn’t it terrible that all those soldiers are being left to rot when they get back from Afghanistan?”, to me it wouldn’t seem a million miles from “psst – do you want to see some poppies?” – I’d wonder what you were really after.
Fourthly, there is no point in making some bland remark about the plight of the soldiers, with which the poppy seller or wearer (or whoever you are trying to “engage” with) can happily agree. It does not raise their consciousness. (In fact it probably lowers yours).
No constructive purpose will be served if you, as you put it, “engage on the sensitive issue of the troops” – it’s far better to avoid the topic altogether and make wiser choices about both the issues you raise and the people with which you raise them.
The other points you raise – about theory, practice, and the situation we are in – are a whole other topic altogether and I am not going to respond in detail here. I will say, however, that we live in a world where communism has never been more necessary but also one in which all the organizations, programmes and methods designed to get us there are hopelessly irrelevant. The number of Marxists in Britain is tiny, most people don’t want communism, and most people have never come across even the concept. However, there is no road which will get us there that does not involve vastly greater numbers of people being persuaded of its desirability than there are now. For me this make discussion and propoganda the main tasks of the day…
Mark Victorystooge on said:
There are two Western-backed armed entities that are very active in the Middle East right now. One is the Israeli armed forces. The other is the very much bought and paid for “Free Syria Army”. I suppose we should be grateful the SWP only backs one of these armed entities, and not, like the Shachtmanites, both. But perhaps it’s only a matter of time…
Zaid on said:
Mark, I think it is unfair to single out a specific organization when most of the British left has got it so catastrophically wrong over reason events in the Middle-East.
One real problem is not that johng’s views are shaped by Ripping Yarns (that would not be ideal but it would be a big step forward) but that he does not actually have views at all. People like him, in reality, neither support nor oppose the forces of reaction in Syria. They neither supported nor opposed the Iraq war. On every issue they simply argue a point of view they have been instructed by others to argue. That is one reason it’s difficult to have a constructive discussion – to convince johng he’s wrong, you have to change the minds of those he regards as his leadership, and he will change his mind immediately.
John on said:
If the objective is to challenge the pro-war establishment’s use of the troops as a sacred cow, then it’s absolutely crucial that we point out the hypocrisy in the way they laud the troops and their courage on the one hand, while on the other attacking the communities from which most of them are from, leaving them at the mercy of charity when they return.
It’s called the politics of class.
Here’s the point at which I stopped taking you seriously, Zaid. You really do the Afghan, Iraqi or any other people on the receiving end of British militarism no favours with this approach. Reactionary ideas dominate in our society when it comes to war and the role of the troops. Resisting them demands more than simplistic and ultra left nostrums that can only succeed in ensuring your splendid isolation.
If you feel unable to engage with mainstream consciousness in an attempt to influence, shape, and penetrate it, your politics is nothing more than a comfort blanket.
I don’t know if you’v ever appeared on radio and found yourself discussing and debating the war with the mothers of serving soldiers. I have. It is not a time for political immaturity. The responsibility of undermining the pro-war soldier worship that is is prevalent in society, especially among working class people, is one you have to take seriously.
So this means refusing to engage with the mass of working class people. I mean how nonsensical is this: ‘make wiser choices about both the issues you raise and the people with which you raise them.’
This is not something anyone who mixes or associates with working class people to any great extent could come up with.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
Well, johng is an SWP member or supporter, so mentioning the SWP is relevant. Other groups may have as bad a line, and the AWL has an even worse one, which is why I slipped mention of the Shachtmanites in there. Yes, a good part of the British left has a terrible line on imperialist machinations in the Middle East, but either I don’t know much about their line (like the SP) or I do, as in the case of Workers Power, but the relevant group is too insignificant to be worth mentioning. The SWP is a relatively large duck in the small British left pond and I am familiar with its line.
I have noticed that some of the small, more ortho-Trot groups often have a better line than larger ones. The World Socialist Website often hits the nail on the head in its international analysis, and so I frequently cite it approvingly.
More generally, I think the 21st century left is adrift, and this is just one of several morbid symptoms of the drifting. I don’t think forces openly armed and funded by imperialism would have had quite the same sort of left fan club three or four decades ago, although perhaps re Afghanistan the pro-Mujahedin tendencies among some Trots in the 1980s were a pointer to future developments.
Vanya on said:
#161 The SWP isn’t an ‘orthodox’ trotskyist group.
I say this merely for clarity and not because I am a trot (I no longer consider myself one).
‘Orthodox trotskyism’ implies support for Trotsky’s position that the USSR continued to be a ‘workers’ state’(albeit degenerated) after the consolidation of Stalin’s regime, and particularly that it was not ‘state capitalist’ or as Schachtman (and his latter day supporters in the AWL) would have it, bureacratic collectivist’.
The AWL and the SWP both supported the forces fighting the PDPA government and its Soviet allies btw. The former did so at the very moment they were equivocating in their support for the Palestinians, citing the rise of Hamas islamism generally in the Palestinian territories as part of the reason.
Vanya on said:
#162 That doesn’t mean that the ‘orthodox trotskyist’ groups supported the USSR in Afghanistan. There were a variety of positions.
Some opposed it full stop, some took the view that the intervention was wrong but that once they were there it was necessary to defend their continued presence as withdrawal would make matters worse, while a minority (mainly the Sparts) supported the intervention enthusiastically.
jack ford on said:
Meanwhile Paddy Pantsdown states that the war in Afghanistan is lost and we should pull out with all possible speed. It would appear that the Taliban have won. Some of us predicted the Afghan war would be a disaster years ago.
If the Westerners do pull out expect Karzai to be on the first private jet to Dubai to spend more time with his offshore bank account. If he stays chances are he’ll be strung up from the lampposts along with the rest of his cronies.
Vanya on said:
#164 Yes I saw the headline in the Times.
Ashdown of course is ex-special forces, and the combination of that with his status as former leader of the junior coalition government party (which supported the Afghan invasion) hopefully makes his intervention another small nail in the coffin of imperialism.
jim mclean on said:
jack ford,
Aint going to happen, China has already secured most of the important mineral rights for which they have offered security co-operation. Karzi is now Beijing’s man and they will give him unprecedented aid.
Jellytot on said:
@166 China is also concerned that any future Taliban regime would lend support to Xinjiang separatists; the Xinjiang U.A.R. having a land border with Afghanistan.
Mark Victorystooge on said:
I know the SWP isn’t ortho-Trot. That is my point. Cliffites (and Shachtmanites) have substantially revised Trotskyist doctrine, which explains some of their twists and turns. Whereas ortho-Trots have dropped much less of the doctrine, which IMO makes it much harder for them to go on the pro-imperialist sprees that the bureaucratic collectivists or state capitalists have shown themselves capable of.
stuart on said:
I guess you have your own personal definition of ‘pro-imperialist sprees’. The position taken by the SWP in Afghanistan at the time of Russian occupation was to oppose imperialism on both sides. Shachtmanites tended to see ‘bureaucratic collectivist’ states as being worse than western capitalism.
Vanya on said:
#169 Clearly you’re right about definitions.
The CPC developed the view that the USSR was “social imperialist” flowing from their state capitalist analysis.
For a period that went full circle into the idea that the USSR was in
fact worse than US imperialism, and akin to fascism.
This was followed by those Maoist groups that supported the official Chinese line.
At the very least, Afghan Maoists opposed both the PDPA government and particularly the Soviet intervention.
Notably the courageous womens’ organisation RAWA came from this tradition.