Ralph Miliband and the Daily Mail..

[Bronco]

So I dunno how many people have followed this, been pretty big new in the UK. Basically the Daily Mail wrote an article labelling Ralph Miliband as "The man who hated Britain" mainly cos of an entry in his diary when he was 17 during WWII when he said the Englishman is the worst nationalist and that he almost wants them to lose the war.

Anyway Ed went crazy about it, demanded an apology, the Mail refused and said it stood by every word but now everyone is saying how disgusting it is that they slandered a dead man, and one who actually 'loved his country' and served it - he was in the navy for a couple of years during the war

And I just find the whole thing pretty silly so wanted to have a moan about it. You can read the article here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html) and my main problems are that it's pretty poor journalism, it has a flimsy basis, and completely misunderstands socialism. But everyone's reaction to it has been almost as annoying as the article itself, all this faux outrage and self righteousness where it's so disgusting to criticise someone because they're dead and served in the navy, even though Ralph was obviously a very high profile Marxist academic not just some private individual who's life they have inappropriately probed into. And especially irritating is all the rhetoric about how "this is a man who fought for Britain, he loved this country!!!!", as though Ralph was some proud patriot taking up arms in defence of great britain and as if being unpatriotic and anti-nationalist is the worst thing you could possibly be accused of

This was Ed's reply to it btw: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2439593/Why-father-loved-Britain-Ed-Miliband.html

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I'm not big fan of people who sign up to join the Navy, and I regard WWII as being as much of an imperialist war as WWI, and I really do want Britain to be destroyed (by the revolting working class rather than the German Army) and I'm sure if I read any Ralph Milliband now I'd puke (though I thought him rather good in my callow youth), but really, anyone that is attacked by the Daily Mail has my sympathy.

[ed miliband]

nah, really don't care. ralph, his sons, his acolytes and theirs, are no less enemies than the daily mail for me. to hell with the lot of them.

[ed miliband]

but yeah, the reaction of the british left, to claim that patriotism and socialism can and should go hand in hand, makes me sick.

[ed miliband]

also, it's kind of testament to how shit a "marxist", "communist" or "socialist" ralph miliband was that the only dirt they can find on him is from a diary he wrote aged 17.

[human strike]

I for one am angered by Ed Miliband's smearing of his own father as "patriotic". Has he no respect for a dead Marxist? I say we hold a protest outside Mr. Miliband's house until he makes an official apology.

Ralph Miliband famously predicted the Labour Party would betray the working class, and he produced two sons to prove it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't get the whole 'I want to destroy Britain' idea, or 'yeah I don't give a shit' sort of thing.

I mean yeah, on the face of it, that sounds really radical and rebellious, but let's take a minute to actually examine what is meant by this.

Destroy Britain in terms of, as a legal entity, being a country? Sure. In fact, definitely, because that goes hand in hand with statehood, which i'm sure a lot of us on the left can agree is mutually exclusive to a socialist society.

But, destroy Britain as a nation of people? That's a pretty ugly concept. Now of course, nation and nationalism are two words that sound the same, but in fact the concept of nation is quite far-reaching. Most people who invest in nationalist ideas conflate the idea of nation with the idea of of homogenous culture and ethnic identity, and more importantly also with the idea of country and state.

The idea of nation can also mean something much more heterogenous, and much more malign, and even positive. Tracking Britain's history back to 1066, we can see that between then and now, the history of the 'British nation' can be shaped in terms of an evolving culture; an evolution based on the struggles of the exploited - the struggles of the peasantry in the 14th century, the struggles of the new working class in the new towns and cities from the 18th century to the present day, the cultural assimilation of various waves of migrants over the course of the past millennium, and so on.

To want to destroy this is pretty reductionist. At its core, it befits an attitude that culture does not matter, that history does not matter, that the evolution of different groups of people does not matter, that the only thing that matters is narrow economism, and one's own ideas of political revolution.

It's a shame that people tend to conflate almost anything to do with 'culture' as nationalism, and thus seek to destroy said culture and said identities. If we ever want to be able to have a discussion about the British people without invoking backwards and hateful ideas of empire and nationalism, if we ever want to be able to have a discussion about culture without being forced to choose between the idea of 'supporting migration for economic benefits' and the hateful, nationalist ideologies of the right, then we actually need to embrace the idea that cultural heterogeneity exists across the globe, that it is a fluid concept (unlike what those on far-right think), and that it is something worth exploring, and defending.

In that sense, I think it's pretty pig-headed to just display a general hatred of 'Britain', because there's plenty to love about Britain when you strip it back to its people, its land, its wildlife and elements of its culture, just like one could say about any area of the globe. It's pretty silly to overlook this just because the far-right tries to use such symbols and imagery to stoke up hatred and split communities apart.

[Rurkel]

There's a difference between liking aspects of your national culture and being "patriotic".

Did Ralph Miliband actually wrote "I want to destroy Britain", BTW? The Mail article doesn't quote such a phrase.

[brigadista]

Ed will be cosying up to Harmsworth , Dacre and Murdoch if the other Tories win the next election - bread and circuses

[Hit The North]

also, it's kind of testament to how shit a "marxist", "communist" or "socialist" ralph miliband was that the only dirt they can find on him is from a diary he wrote aged 17.

Well, that's a pretty fucking asinine comment. Of course the Daily Mail weren't interested in taking on R. Miliband's political ideas and the story is a testament to the piss-poor journalism and sickening narrow-minded fuck-headedness of the Daily Mail not R. Miliband's Marxism. Frankly, if this is all you've got to say on the issue then it is a sad reflection on your Marxism. Fuck you if you can't bring yourself to defend a Marxist from the Tory press.

[ed miliband]

Well, that a pretty fucking asinine comment. Of course the Daily Mail weren't interested in taking on R. Miliband's political ideas and the story is a testament to the piss-poor journalism and sickening narrow-minded fuck-headedness of the Daily Mail not R. Miliband's Marxism. Frankly, if this is all you've got to say on the issue then it is a sad reflection on your Marxism. Fuck you if you can't bring yourself to defend a Marxist from the Tory press.

it's not defending a (dead) marxist from the "tory press" (what's that? is the "labour press" any better), in this case, the only person you're defending is ed miliband. if ralph miliband was alive and being hounded you may well have a point, but he isn't, so there's no "defending" to be done.

[Hit The North]

it's not defending a (dead) marxist from the "tory press" (what's that? is the "labour press" any better), in this case, the only person you're defending is ed miliband. if ralph miliband was alive and being hounded you may well have a point, but he isn't, so there's no "defending" to be done.

Perhaps you are right and there is no defending to do. Nevertheless, it puzzles me why you use it as an opportunity to attack a dead Marxist rather than the reactionary anti-working-class Tory wankers who write and read the Daily Mail.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

it's simple - he hates his father. :laugh:

[Blake's Baby]

Ed and Ralph standing on a rickety sky-platform labelled 'Marxism':

'He told me you'd killed my father!'

'No, Ed, I am your father!'

*Dramatic music as Ed throws himself down a big hole marked 'capitulation to the bourgeoisie'.

Or something.

[A.J.]

Does anyone really care what the daily mail has to say about, well, anything?

Someday they'll get theirs.

[human strike]

Well, we have the Daily mail to thank for one thing; sales of Ralph Miliband's books have skyrocketed.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, we have the Daily mail to thank for one thing; sales of Ralph Miliband's books have skyrocketed.

Probably the same publisher...

[ed miliband]

Perhaps you are right and there is no defending to do. Nevertheless, it puzzles me why you use it as an opportunity to attack a dead Marxist rather than the reactionary anti-working-class Tory wankers who write and read the Daily Mail.

i was just responding to the topic at hand.

any marxist worth his or her salt should expect scorn and hate for their views, from the daily mail (or the guardian). ralph miliband had tory mps coming out defending him, saying they were taught by him and he was a decent man with unthreatening views. says it all.


Well, we have the Daily mail to thank for one thing; sales of Ralph Miliband's books have skyrocketed.

why's that a good thing?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

any marxist worth his or her salt should expect scorn and hate for their views, from the daily mail (or the guardian). ralph miliband had tory mps coming out defending him, saying they were taught by him and he was a decent man with unthreatening views. says it all.


Maybe, on a personal level, he was a decent man? Or at least has been made to seem so in comparison to those who post a picture of his grave and post a 'witty' caption about it? I dunno why that's so hard to believe, just because you disagree with his politics.

Besides, he never held a position of power, so I guess they can't lob the usual 'MILIBAND ATE BABIES AND CAUSED ALL THE WORLD WARS' stuff at him.

[synthesis]

in this case, the only person you're defending is ed miliband.

But what about ed miliband?

[Red Commissar]

I dunno, I think this is kind of bizarre for the daily mail to be making this kind of call considering its sympathy with fascists during that period would probably also make it "unpatriotic" by some people's readings.

[human strike]

why's that a good thing?

I'd rather people were reading Ralph Miliband than the shit they usually do.

[ed miliband]

I'd rather people were reading Ralph Miliband than the shit they usually do.

would you rather they read owen jones, too? because there's really very little difference between the two. yes, miliband was a critic of the labour party, but one who also believed the labour party could be elected to government and institute socialism alongside an "extra-parliamentary movement", so... basically what jones proposes then.

[human strike]

would you rather they read owen jones, too?

Why not? I can think his politics are ridiculous and still recognise that his writing is probably still worth reading more than novels about bastardised forms of BDSM.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

The Daily Mail is a seeping, gangrenous boil on the arse of British society that hurls abuse any anything remotely left wing, however bland and innocuous.
This is a story that shows how absurd both the DM and Millibands are; each offering nothing of note politically, but plenty of hot air for the mainstream political and chattering classes to pass amongst themselves.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

would you rather they read owen jones, too? because there's really very little difference between the two. yes, miliband was a critic of the labour party, but one who also believed the labour party could be elected to government and institute socialism alongside an "extra-parliamentary movement", so... basically what jones proposes then.

better than the Daily Mail, no?

[Blake's Baby]

The buzz seems to have died away but the whole thing leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

The Mail looks foolish. So what? It always did. But the British state ... well, we welcome Belgian Lefties (how tolerant we are!) who fight fascism (how brave we are!) and even Tory Prime ministers defend them (how decent we are!) - how is this not strengthenining narratives of British nationalism?

[ed miliband]

Why not? I can think his politics are ridiculous and still recognise that his writing is probably still worth reading more than novels about bastardised forms of BDSM.


better than the Daily Mail, no?

yeah, but neither of these examples work because we can be fairly sure that in most cases, the kind of person the 'scandal' encouraged to pick up a ralph miliband book, would not be found dead reading 'fifty shades of grey' or the mail. and both of you know that.

instead, nice middle-class people who have the paperboy deliver them the guardian each morning, and who receive verso's quarterly catalogue in the post, will now be reading some ralph miliband alongside their will self.


The buzz seems to have died away but the whole thing leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

The Mail looks foolish. So what? It always did. But the British state ... well, we welcome Belgian Lefties (how tolerant we are!) who fight fascism (how brave we are!) and even Tory Prime ministers defend them (how decent we are!) - how is this not strengthenining narratives of British nationalism?

exactly.

but then, people had an opportunity to bash the daily mail (as if that opportunity doesn't exist every day) and verso are selling more ralph miliband books than before, so all cool.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

yeah, but neither of these examples work because we can be fairly sure that in most cases, the kind of person the 'scandal' encouraged to pick up a ralph miliband book, would not be found dead reading 'fifty shades of grey' or the mail. and both of you know that.

instead, nice middle-class people who have the paperboy deliver them the guardian each morning, and who receive verso's quarterly catalogue in the post, will now be reading some ralph miliband alongside their will self.


I dunno, I think you're being a bit over-cynical here. I do take your point that the 'stereotypical' Daily Mail reader might not give a shit and certainly won't become a Marxist or whatever, but I think even if it gets people thinking about the ideas of Ralph Miliband and leftism in general, then that's something positive. Not much in itself, but to a competent, organised and sharp left it would certainly open some doors. So yeah, maybe given the state of the British left, filled with reformists and rape apologists, it won't lead to anything in itself.

[Blake's Baby]

...

but then, people had an opportunity to bash the daily mail (as if that opportunity doesn't exist every day) and verso are selling more ralph miliband books than before, so all cool.

It's not.

'Bashing the Daily Mail' is as British as... the Daily Mail. It's still being part of a lie about British identity - just the 'liberal lie' -as supported by Churchill, Cameron, the Guardian and Milliband - "we're decent and tolerant, bourgeois democracy is good!" - as opposed to the 'neo-fascist' lie of "these immigrant terrorists stealing our jobs and impregnating our white women bring down house prices!" (I paraphrase).

And I'm pretty sure Ralph Milliband's books are shit. I got rid of all my copies 15 years ago and I'm sure I had a good reason because I don't often get rid of books.

[ed miliband]

It's not.

'Bashing the Daily Mail' is as British as... the Daily Mail. It's still being part of a lie about British identity - just the 'liberal lie' -as supported by Churchill, Cameron, the Guardian and Milliband - "we're decent and tolerant, bourgeois democracy is good!" - as opposed to the 'neo-fascist' lie of "these immigrant terrorists stealing our jobs and impregnating our white women bring down house prices!" (I paraphrase).

And I'm pretty sure Ralph Milliband's books are shit. I got rid of all my copies 15 years ago and I'm sure I had a good reason because I don't often get rid of books.

dude, i know sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet, but surely you could tell, given my tone throughout the thread, that that sentence was entirely sarcastic? haha, i agree with everything you've said.

[Blake's Baby]

No, sorry.

I thought you and the Boss had switched identities or something.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A couple of quotes from Ralph Miliband's book, The State in Capitalist Society:


[T]he press may well claim to be independent and to fulfil an important watchdog function. What the claim overlooks, however, is the very large fact that it is the Left at which the watchdogs generally bark with most ferocity, and that what they are above all protecting is the status quo.

Many ‘popular’ newspapers with a mass circulation are extremely concerned to convey the opposite impression and to suggest a radical impatience with every kind of ‘establishment’, however exalted, and a restless urge for change, reform, progress. In actual fact, most of this angry radicalism represents little more than an affection of style; behind the iconoclastic irreverence and the demagogic populism there is singular vacuity both in diagnosis and prescription. The noise is considerable but the battle is bogus.


The first and most important of these constraints is that newspapers are part of capitalist enterprise – not only business but big business… a second important constraint is that newspapers are part of the world of business in a different sense as well, namely in the sense that they depend on the custom of advertisers.

Proprietors may or may not choose to exercise direct influence on their newspapers; and the direct influence of advertisers may not in any case be substantial. But the fact that newspapers are an intrinsic part of the world of business fosters a strong climate of orthodoxy for the people who work in them. So does the concern of editors and senior journalists to maintain good relations with government and ministers, civil servants, and other important people in the political and administrative establishment.

These constraints, however, do no great violence to the people actually in charge of newspapers and occupying influential positions in the journalistic hierarchy, simply because most of them, notwithstanding the unbuttoned and ‘populist’ style which much of the newspaper world affects, share the assumptions and outlook of the world of business and government. The overwhelming chances are that they would not come to occupy the positions they hold if they did not… Anyone looking at the daily press in Britain must be struck by the diversity of format, style, and contents of newspapers. But in terms of important political assumptions and positions, the impression of diversity is superficial: the reality of it is an underlying uniformity of anti-socialist commitment, hardly relieved by the occasional (or even the regular) contribution of someone of a left-wing disposition – the tribute which underlying conservatism pays to superficial diversity.

To be perfectly frank, neither of those quotes would look seriously out of place on this forum, whatever incorrigibly irrelevant ideologues might have to say. In which case, the fact that more people are reading stuff like this is cause for celebration, albeit a very small one. Also it seems that enough people are looking for the PDF online for it to turn up as a search suggestion in Google, which might be indicative that people are genuinely interested in its contents, more than they are in giving Verso money.

So, I have to wonder how you nay-sayers imagine that people get radicalised. Do you think that people suddenly out of the blue decide, on a random whim, to become revolutionary communists? Does exposure to socialist discourse count for nothing? I don't think it's good enough to simply assume that the immiseration of the proletariat is by itself a sufficient condition for left radicalisation, and the state of the left in the UK is I think rather too poor for us to start getting overly choosy over exponents.

The Daily Mail has inadvertently created the tiniest of gaps in the armour of the dominant narrative; but this armour is self-repairing and without a radical left that is at least willing to try to force it wider and actually shed some light on the rotten edifice that is capitalism in the UK, it will be a missed opportunity. Sometimes I get the impression that there are some on the radical left who actually seem to prize their irrelevance and inability to offer the working class anything other than meaningless gestures and recycled rhetoric.

I for one hope those impressions are mistaken, that there is something more worthwhile than a pig-headed desire for ideological purity at work.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, sorry.

I thought you and the Boss had switched identities or something.

Ed Miliband will never become my boss!

[Anti-Traditional]

Surprised nobody's commented on how surreal it is to find 'ed miliband' commenting in this thread.

[blake 3:17]

Milliband was a Zionist.

[A.J.]

I dunno, I think this is kind of bizarre for the daily mail to be making this kind of call considering its sympathy with fascists during that period would probably also make it "unpatriotic" by some people's readings.

If you think the Daily Mail's sympathy with continental European fascism is something specific to the 1930s you should perhaps take a look at this article from just last year....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2132611/French-elections-2012-Marine-Le-Pen-responsible-vote-France.html

:scared: