It's not all about Labour politics, this blog.
Reading Tariq Ali's account of his trips to North Korea in June 1970 and 1972, published in this week's London Review of Books, I was struck by how every single communist and radical Ali meets is either despairing, corrupt or evil, and how Ali conspires to ignore this completely.
Consider: We meet a Pakistani communist who lies to Ali to get him to depart for North Korea immediately. You can sense Ali's disdain for the fat, beer swilling apparatchik,
Then, we take a diversion to China, which though despising North Korea, Ali is desperate to see. Of course, in June 1970, though Ali barely mentions it, China is in the backwash of Cultural Revolution and the ascendency of Lin Biao).
After Ali enjoys a nice meal, is delighted by the absence of cars in Beijing streets and observes without comment children bowing to posters of Mao, we meet two connected officers in the PLA, who in June 1970 are taking a trip to a Resort used by top communist officials.
Then, once in PyongYang we meet the wife of Black Panther Leader Eldridge Cleaver (who has been taking money from Kim Il-Sung). As a favour to the Black Panthers, Kim-Il-Sung has apparently imprisoned Cleaver's wife in a hotel room for four months
Then Ali meets a Cuban ambassador who says he's been sent to North Korea as a punishment by Castro for daring to criticise the Government, and who says he would have preferred prison. He's learnt his lesson, he says, and will in future lie cheerfully to save his neck.
On his next visit, two years later. Ali's original interpreter has disappeared, allegedly to go and live in a small town. I think we can guess what this might mean.
Ali meets Algerian and Mozambique communists who tell him they've been bought for a few thousand dollars, and Ali is offered a hefty bribe himself.
The Ambassador from North Vietnam, not, in 1972 a particularly open state (for obvious reasons) tells Ali how awful things are in North Korea.
But what does Ali do?
Does Ali act on any of these insights, or allow his private disgust to impact his public worldview? No.
Indeed, every time Ali meets a senior North Korean functionary his famous obstreperousness disappears, and he is politely passive.
On his first visit Ali takes the opportunity to give the North Koreans a small propaganda victory by delivering a lecture on human rights to American soldiers stationed at the DMZ. On his second, his great protest at the lies paraded before him involves taking conspicuous notes.
Nor, as far as I know, does he return to the west and tell the truth about what he has seen, at least, not for forty years.
It's worth noting here that Ali's approach to history is still extraordinary. The Korean war is entirely America's fault, The only evils Ali sees are committed by Americans, the only atrocities committed or mentioned are American. Even the failure of North Korea to be rehabilitated is due to American self interest.
It is as if the famines of the Great Leap forward never happened, as if North Korea had no jails, as if Stalin had never ordered a bullet for the back of some recalcitrant deviationists neck.
What's more, Ali must know how Communism dealt with dissent. After all, his urge on meeting Kim Il-Sung is to put a bullet in his neck, as if Ali were a Decembrist revolutionary liquidating a deviant. (As any fan of Koestler will know, a bullet in the neck was the favoured execution method in the Lenin-Stalin era.)
Back in 1972, Ali is told the Koreans have changed the topic of the conference he is attending to a celebration of Kim Il-Sung. He first demands to leave, then relents. His protest is to sit on the panel, ostentatiously taking notes then return to the hotel to covertly satirise Kim's vainglory with other communists.
Here we perhaps find a clue to Ali's dislike for North Korean communism under Kim Il-Sung.
For Ali, the problem with North Korea is that it is insufficiently subserviant to Marx and Engels, too ungrateful to the Soviet Union and China.
Yet Ali must also have known the famines, the deaths, the proscriptions, the prisons happened across the communist world.
After all, people keep showing them to him. They tell him they've been imprisoned, or punished for free thnking. They quake at dangerous questions, or quietly warn him how bad things are. They confess to being bought, or are bought. They are cynically corrupt, or cheerfully despairing.
He even knows it himself. His instinctive solution to the problem of Kim Il-Sung, is after all, a political assasination inspired by Leninist terror.
At every turn, it seems, the decay and corruption of the communist world is thrust at Ali, but he chooses instead to grasp the functionaries bouquets, and say nothing.
Ali saw all this, but somehow chose not to see.
After all, the real enemy, the comfortable, contradictory, hypocritcal west, is what really had to be exposed.
If we can be labelled neo cons surely these idiots can be labelled as neo fellow travellers or neo useful idiots, since they allow their dislike of western democracies to be used as the reason for ignoring the obvious deficiencies of Kim il Sung/Ghadaffi/Saddam/Assad or any other murdering bastard just in the same way that their predecessors did with Stalin.
BTW weren't KGB bullets Koestler referred to in the back of the head rather the neck?
No, I've just re-read darkness at noon, and it's the back of the neck. He understandably dwells on it. The fact it was neck, not head that was the target for the imaginairy bullets of both struck me when reading Ali
Eg
" To sit down and let oneself be hypnotized by one’s own navel, to turn up one’s eyes and humbly offfer the back of one’s neck to Gletkin’s revolver – that is an easy solution."
Sometimes a bullet will richochet off the skull. A bit like cops "eating their gun".
You get to think a lot about these things when New Labour are in power. I think it's the disappointment.
I stand corrected – but the back of the head has entered into general parlance for the KGB's method of despatch. I haven't read Darkness at Noon for many years but I did read Koestler's "Scum of the Earth" last year – which as well as striking me as making a superb film score – also made the point that appeasement is not a phenomenom confined to the left, but also has its adherents on the Right as well – Paul Newman please note.
I'm also aware that Koestler like nearly everyone of substance had his own dark side.
Are most 'people of substance' rapists?
Seamus Milne is still apologising for Stalin. I think one has to put this in context .At that time a supposed equivalence between the SovietUnion and the USA was a commonplace . Today the US Israel and the West a4re under a micrscope not applied to the vile regimes that, for various reasons , they deem to be ok. Look at the way the BBC utterly missed the story in the MiddleEast despite all its self congratulatory expertise . I recall not a word abotu the oppression throughout the arab world whilst we were swamped with the iniquities of democratic Israel.
You and Cameron are mirror images . He sees that throwing money at the problem has failed in the UK and yet persists with itabroad. You see the threat posed by the state abroad but you are blind to it here . Foot Callaghan and all their generation were not so different to Ali . Foot wasin the pay of the KGB , Benn dandled Millibands on his knee and employed your leader.
So it is all about the Labour Party , and its shameful past which , unlike the Conservatives on gay rights and South Africa , it has not admitted to.
Oh, for goodness sake. Foot not that different to Ali? You don't half say some gormless babble sometimes, my old friend. As the KGB smear, not worth deigning to respond. Google is your friend.
Well a KGB agent did say he was paid, one appreciates its not a proven fact but then this was the KGB and you know how absurdly cloak and dagger these spies can be ( Jack JOnes …CND ..clean ? ) . Anyhoo he , and the rest of the Labour Party were , at that time very slow to condemn the Soviet Union and I struggle to see why Foot ends up a National treasure whilst Rothermere's attitude to the Fascists in the 30s wins him eternal infamy ( infamy….. they've..etc.). It seems to me that a ghastly error in the 30s is more forgiveable than a presistent sympathy throughout the post war period into the 70s. As I mentioned Seamus Milne is still at it , but then he hates you Black Labour lot ( Splitters ! )
After all Tony Benn was the conference darling and he very definately had something more East German than West German in mind . Tony benn was Ed Milliband`s guru guide and mentor so its not ancient history and especially not with the Unions lead by Len (in) and paying the bills .Surely this is the sort of thread in Labour thinking you are covertly attacking Hopi ?
Rightly so .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sunday-times-pays-foot-damages-over-kgb-claim-1590325.html
That libel was addressed by Foot while he was alive – and he won.
Can we look forward to a forthcoming piece on Gordon Brown's many trips to Cape Cod and elsewhere in the US (but no doubt choosing not to see the circa 30% of Americans who, it is alleged by some, live on or below the poverty line) and his falling in love with all things American and especially their enthusiasm for light-touch regulation of financial institutions?
Why pick on Gordon Brown you ask – it's a fair point, far too many of our politicians get seduced into looking uncritically over the Atlantic rather than the Channel or North Sea for their political inspiration. Is it perhaps 'cos they speak a form of English over there?
No, because that would be silly. I criticise him lots, but Brown has spent a lot of time talking about the failures, as well as the successes, of US capitalism, as any reading of his works wills how you.
It's not for what he said or wrote but for what he did or failed to do that I judge him harshly.
I judge just as harshly the idea that idea that America, for all it's manifold flaws, inequalities and hypocricises, should not inspire at least a measure of admiration when placed in the context of the awfulness of the alternatives the 20th Century offered. Of Imperialism, Fascism, Communism, only American social capitalism was both economically successful, and found ways to address the most heinous of it's flaws (Race, to take just one example).
America has been less successful on poverty than many European states, and I don't think anyone thinks it's perfect (not least but criticism is part of their political culture), but to compare admiration for America to a quietitude before Norht Korean autocrats.. well. A joke, I hope.
Many a true word has been spoken in attempts at slight jests and/or gentle baiting.
And at least in Tariq Ali's favour is that he didn't bully or cajole his way towards the levers of power but confined himself to making a living saying and writing things that many recognised as somewhat silly…
I'm really glad you posted the link to the article and I really think people should read it themselves. By taking things out of context, by ignoring certain things and exagerating others you've given a really innaccurate view of what Ali actually wrote.
It feels, to me, that you're just desperate to fit him into the cliche of delusioned fellow traveller. In fact there's very little in that article or indeed in Ali's career in general to support such a simplification. Not saying he's perfect and I don't always agree with him but his thinking and writing on the Left, neoliberalism, Pakistan, Islam etc are far more complex and intelligent than you give him credit for.
By all means dislike his politics and question his judgements but this kind of dissmisal is lazy and not particularly constructive.
As Lawrence says above you have distorted what Ali wrote; it's quite clear from the piece that Ali was not any kind of fellow traveller with North Korea – he just took the opportunity when it presented itself to visit the country. Christopher Hitchens did this many times in his career and I don’t see you criticising him for this. Ali was not a member of either the Communist Party of Great Britain or Pakistan, but a well known Trotskyism. He took it as read that he didn't need to make a denunciation of Stalinist regimes of the sought you want him to have made. It's also hard to see what would have been the point of doing so.
As Lawerence says above you have distorted what Ali wrote; it's quite clear from the piece that Ali was not any kind of fellow traveller with North Korea – he just took the opportunity when it presented itslef to visist the country. Ali was not a member of either the Communist Party of Great Britian or Pakistan, but a well known Trotskyist. He took it as read that he didn't need to make a denunciation Stalinist regimes of the sought you want him to have made. It's also hard to see what would have been the point of doing so.
One little oddity in the article needs clatification. At one point Tariq mentions Japanese navy participation in the Korean War. I have never heard of this, and as the Potsdam Treaty restricted Japan to only having 'self defence forces' (the name used to the present day) they would be banned from offensive operaitons (even under the aegis of the UN). I guess the US used Japanese ports and possibly even captureed Ja\panese WW2 ships, but the Japanese Navy ? I think not,unless sonebody can prove otherwise
Hopi, either you missed the whole point of the article, or you have made a pretty poor attempt at entirely mis-representing Ali. How you can read this and think that Ali is an apologist for the North Koreans is beyond me.
"I was struck by how every single communist and radical Ali meets is either despairing, corrupt or evil, and how Ali conspires to ignore this completely." He hardly ignores it, he features about 7 people in the whole article and shows them all to be idiots in support of his main thesis (i.e. North Korea is mad). He doesn't 'ignore this completely' – it's sort of the main purpose of the bleeding essay.
"Does Ali act on any of these insights, or allow his private disgust to impact his public worldview? No." So Ali was supposed to stop being a Trot because North Korea (which he doesn't support, doesn't believe represents his world view and doesn't really have much to do with Trotskyism) is an awful hell-hole?
"Indeed, every time Ali meets a senior North Korean functionary his famous obstreperousness disappears, and he is politely passive." What did you expect him to do? Start a revolution? Tell the Koreans that he thinks their leader is a bit nutty? Christ, he was in North Korea, not North Cheam.
"Back in 1972, Ali is told the Koreans have changed the topic of the conference he is attending to a celebration of Kim Il-Sung. He first demands to leave, then relents." No, he demands to leave, they tell him there is no flight for a week and he stays and refuses to take part in the conference.
"It's worth noting here that Ali's approach to history is still extraordinary. The Korean war is entirely America's fault, The only evils Ali sees are committed by Americans, the only atrocities committed or mentioned are American. Even the failure of North Korea to be rehabilitated is due to American self interest." Did you miss the whole purpose of the article? I.e. North Korea is bad, mad and not very nice?
"I was struck by how every single communist and radical Ali meets is either despairing, corrupt or evil, and how Ali conspires to ignore this completely." He hardly ignores it, he features about 7 people in the whole article and shows them all to be idiots in support of his main thesis (i.e. North Korea is mad). He doesn't 'ignore this completely' – it's sort of the main purpose of the bleeding essay. "
Yes, it is the whole point of the essay. WRITTEN 40 YEARS LATER. Sorry, but the intervening decades mean more than the late life recollections.
"Does Ali act on any of these insights, or allow his private disgust to impact his public worldview? No." So Ali was supposed to stop being a Trot because North Korea (which he doesn't support, doesn't believe represents his world view and doesn't really have much to do with Trotskyism) is an awful hell-hole?
Oh, I don't know. If The North Koreans offered me bribes to help me with my work, I'd kind of wonder if I was generally in the right area or not, and I'd wonder what exactly I was doing to tell the world that North Korea had nothing to do with me at all.
"Indeed, every time Ali meets a senior North Korean functionary his famous obstreperousness disappears, and he is politely passive." What did you expect him to do? Start a revolution? Tell the Koreans that he thinks their leader is a bit nutty? Christ, he was in North Korea, not North Cheam."
A cutting remark. Of course, Ali has devoted his career to exposing the hypocrisies and horrors that places like North Cheam represent. So perhaps some equivalent response would be useful. Perhaps he could have returned, and penned a furious phillippic. Instead, he did nothing, either in Korea or at home, for forty long years.
"Back in 1972, Ali is told the Koreans have changed the topic of the conference he is attending to a celebration of Kim Il-Sung. He first demands to leave, then relents." No, he demands to leave, they tell him there is no flight for a week and he stays and refuses to take part in the conference."
If by "takes no part", you mean "Sits on the Platform, taking notes" then yes, he took no part. I'm sure his hosts were distraught that the famous Tariq Ali voiced a silent, unknowable protest in his own mind.
"It's worth noting here that Ali's approach to history is still extraordinary. The Korean war is entirely America's fault, The only evils Ali sees are committed by Americans, the only atrocities committed or mentioned are American. Even the failure of North Korea to be rehabilitated is due to American self interest." Did you miss the whole purpose of the article? I.e. North Korea is bad, mad and not very nice?"
Did you miss the frankly bizarre historical justification for North Korea's invasion, the one sided accounts of war atrocities, the strange diversion into untrue allegations of Chemical weapons, and the final conclusion that America allowed North Korea to survive for it's own dastarfly ends?
Hopi
I listened to the Guardian Politics podcast, featuring your good self.
At the end you were all asked to indicate the route forward (iirc) As I undertood it Seamus Milne would pump up growth via state expenditure, and the "Blue Labour" contribitor wanted regulation of banks etc. I don't think you got a proper chance to answer, but you were more sympathetic to the latter generally
Yet none of you had anything to say about innovation, small business (where most of the jobs will come from), entrepreneurship. Who is going to put the energy into the British economy? There seemed to be an implicit assumption that it will just happen and Labour will not have to get its hands dirty tackling the issues involved with sme's. It will take more than easier borrowing conditions from the banks
I am increasingly exasperated with the narrow focus of the Left.