Christmas 2024

           Happy Christmas everyone!

Politics/ Philosophy: Anarchism

 Anarchism means literally, “No government”. Anarchists agree with the list assessment of human equality and rights proposed by liberals and socialists, but regarded all governments and all attempts to govern as fundamentally wrong. They believe that the state is always by its nature oppressive, distorting social relationships, and that we would be better off without it. They strongly disagree with the notion that the fundamental human motivation is Possessive Individualism, seeing it as a perversion brought about by the current social and economic structure. Instead, anarchists are generally optimistic about human nature, believing that without the distortions caused by government, we would live together in peace and co-operation (in absolute contrast to Thomas Hobbes's more pessimistic assessment!). They are also hostile to any form of centrally organised religion. Anarchist ideas derive more from Rousseau than from any of the other major political philosophers.

  For anarchists, the goal is to create a society without any imposed economic or political compulsion, in which class divisions no longer exist, or at least cease to matter; since only then will humans really be free. They may be divided on the question of private property; some accepting it on a small scale, though hostile to large enterprises involving the employment of other people; but others maintaining that all goods should be held in common. They tend to be “simple lifers”, aiming at self-sufficiency as far as is possible, thus cutting out the need for any commerce above the most basic level. 

  I do not see how anarchists can accept the notion of economic Progress, and the key anarchist writers ignore the question entirely. They would presumably follow Rousseau in thinking that the only valid form of government would be that of the peasants meeting under the village tree. Russian anarchists idolised the village community, the “mir” which worked by cooperation rather than Possessive Individualism, but were often deeply disillusioned by the poverty and gross ignorance and superstition they found when they actually went among the peasants. But, with the world’s natural resources being so unevenly distributed, it is difficult to see how any community, no matter how simple its lifestyle, can survive without extensive trade, which must undermine the whole system. (Rousseau, logically, entirely disapproved of international trade as leading only to “luxury” and corruption, and also of cities, of which he disapproved) 

 

  It is only to be expected that there is no single anarchist creed, but instead a number of attitudes held in common. Anarchist theories first emerged with the French Revolution, with writers such as Proudhon and William Godwin. At much the same time, there were various attempts to set up “drop-out” communities in America, on anarchist lines, beyond the reach of government. (only the ones based on religion endured any length of time!)

   The major difference between various anarchist theories involved the use of violence. Some, such as the Russian Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) advocated peaceful co-operation, and pointed out that Possessive Individualism had no relevance in the wilds of Siberia, where there was limitless natural resources but such a harsh climate that people could only survive by cooperation rather than competition. Others, most famously, Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76) preached individual terrorism against current state power. Later versions of this emerged with the “Anarcho-syndicalism” of Georges Sorel (1847-1921), advocating the use of a general strike to bring down the government, and the “Situationists” of the 1960s, who sought to provoke the police into acts of violent repression in order to discredit them.

   Marx was at pains to expel the anarchists, especially Bakunin, from the “First International” of the world socialist movement (1869-70), and was himself denounced by Bakunin for his dictatorial tendencies.

  Anarchism as a political movement was strong in early 20^th-century Spain, where the trades unions were often anarchist in their views, and much of the revolutionary violence in the early stages of the Spanish civil war was carried out by anarchists rather than Marxist socialists.

  Around the start of the 20^th century there were a number of high-profile political assassinations carried out by individual anarchists, such as Elizabeth, wife of the Emperor Franz Josef of Austria (1898), King Umberto of Italy (1900) and President William McKinley of the USA (1901); but the main centre of anarchist violence was Russia. The “People’s Will” group managed to blow up Tsar Alexander II in 1881, and Lenin’s elder brother Alexander Ulyanov was hanged in 1887 for his part in an unsuccessful plot to kill the next Tsar, Alexander III. There were several political murders in the revolutionary chaos of 1905, and during the revolution of 1917-18 the most numerically powerful group was the anarchist-inclined peasant-based party called the Socialist Revolutionaries. But they lacked an organisational structure, and Lenin was able to exclude them from any political power. The aged Kropotkin strongly disapproved of the Bolshevik revolution, but he was such a respected figure in Russia that Lenin thought it best to leave him alone. Any remaining SRs were killed off by Stalin in the 1930s.

Random snippets of information, by Peter Shilston

 George III's secret love!

There was a rumour going round in the 1780s that the king, on a visit to Cheltenham, had met and fallen in love with a beautiful Quaker girl. This charming story appears to have no foundation in fact, but on our own recent visit to the town I found this coloured print in the mueum. The woman in the background is Queen Charlotte, looking suitably alarmed.

England: Tewkesbury

Tewkesbury Abbey is surely the most spectacular parish church in Britain! 

The abbey as we see it now was built by the early Norman kings in the 12th century

The manor of Tewkesbury was inherited in the early 14th century by Hugh le Despenser, the notorious favourite of king Edward II, who was brutally executed when the king was overthrown and murdered in 1347. Later, it was inherited by Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, known as "Warwick the Kingmaker" after he famously changed sides in the 15th  century Wars of the Roses bewteen the rival houses of York and Lancaster.  

The stained glass windows in the presbytry are 14th century, and according to tradition were given by Despenser's wife. 

 

Warwick was killed at Barnet in April 1431, and less than a month later the Lancastrian cause was catastrophically defeated at the battle of Tewkesbury.

The last abbot of Tewkesbury surrendered to the crown and the abbey was dissolved in January 1540. The intention was to destroy the buildings entirely, but enough money was raised to save the abbey chapel and turn it into the parish church. It was extensively renovated in the 19th century.

There is not a great deal to be seen of Tewkesbury battlefield, but the battle is commemorated in the town with a display of the banners of the lords and knights who fought there.

History/ Politics: How to respond to terrorism

This is the anniversary of the massacres in Israel in 2023, and we are witnessing the Israeli response. It is interesting to consider comparisons with not dissimilar outrages in the past.

After the New York Twin Towers were destroyed in 9/11, the Americans felt a similar outrage and an intense desire to do something in response, which led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This has hardly turned out well, to say the least! Then, almost as an afterthought, it was decided to get rid of Saddam Hussain in Iraq too, thereby (though no-one seemed to think of this at the time) had the effect of getting rid of the Number One enemy of the Iranians; the consequences of which are still with us.

In summer 1914, the Austrian government was justifiably outraged by the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and resolved to destroy the state of Serbia, which appeared to bear some responsibility for the killing. The result was the First World War, devastating much of Europe and preparing the ground for even more destruction in the Second.

By comparison, this is also the 40th anniversary of the Brighton bomb, when several people were killed or crippled and the I.R.A. came within an ace of killing Mrs Thatcher and her entire cabinet. It is interesting to see how the British government responded to this outrage - or, more pertinently, did NOT respond. We did NOT target the Sinn Fein leaders with assassination, did NOT shell the Bogside after ordering civilians to evacuate the area, and did NOT bomb I.R.A. bases in the Irish Republic. Looking back, I have wondered why not; and have come up with the following possible reasons for this restraint.

     It was believed that such actions would be morally wrong

     It was believed they would be politically counterproductive

     The Americans wouldn't have let us

     - and there is a fourth possible reason, whch I shall discuss later 

After the October 2023 massacre, by contrast, the Israelis did conclude that bombing of Gaza and Lebanon and the assassination of Hezbollah leaders was both morally right and strategically valuable, regardless of how many civilian casualties might result, and the Americans, after some initial doubts about the bombing, let them go ahead. At the time of writing, the bombing of Iraq looks likely to go ahead. This is where the fourth possible reason comes in, which is as follows:

    When all is said and done, the Irish are white people, whereas the Palestinians, Syrians and Iraquis are not. Surely no-one believes the Israelis could behave like this if they were attacking white people?(See also, how the Israelis will be permitted to bomb Iraq, whereas the Ukrainians are forbidden to bomb Russia)

Results of the contrasting policies: British restraint has led to peace in Ulster: Israeli responses look to continue war in the region for the foreseeable future. We can only hope that the long-term consequences do not resemble those of 1914.  

  

Wales: The Ladies of Llangollen

The "Ladies of Llangollen" were two Irish aristocrats, Lady Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, who were determined to live together. In 1778 they escaped from their disapproving families and fled to north Wales, where they bought a cottage in charming scenery in the hills above Llangollen and lived there, along with their Irish servant Mary Caryll, until their deaths fifty years later. They extended the property, created a garden and a dairy, and collected old stained glass and oak panelling and carvings, which they stuck on every available space. They preferred to appear in public dressed entirely in black, like clergymen.

  The story of the Ladies had much appeal in the dawning age of Romanticism  Their renown spread far and wide: they were visited by a host of luminaries from Byron and Walter Scott to the Duke of Wellington, and Queen Charlotte persuaded King George III to grant them a government pension to relieve their debts. Whether they had an active lesbian relationship or were only close friends remains a matter of speculation. 

Their home, Plas Newydd, is open to the public and is well worth a visit!

England: The Unitarian chapel in Shrewsbury

 This building in Shrewsbury High Street is one of the few remaining Unitarian chapels in the couuntry.

Unitarians believe in God, but see Jesus as a moral example rather than a divine being. They were once a very influential sect, particularly important in scientific education, which was generally neglected by the main schools and universities in earlier centuries. Charles Darwin's family were Unitarians, and he would have worshipped here as a boy, as comemmorated by this memorial 

Inside, there is no altar; instead a pulpit for preaching takes the central place

On the wall above is the coat of arms of King George I. This is because the building was ransacked and seriously damaged by Jacobite rioters in 1715, and the King, who had only come to the throne in the previous year, ordered the town to rebuilt it at their own expense. One of the brass plates below it records how the poet Coleridge once preached here, and so impressed the congregation that he was offered a permanent salaried position - which, however, he turned down!