My name is Marc Mulholland. I am a Fellow (lecturer and tutor) in the History Faculty of Oxford University. My College is St Catherine's. I come from Ireland.

This is a blog relating to my book published in 2012 by Oxford University Press, Bourgeois Liberty and the Politics of Fear: From Absolutism to Neo-Conservativism.
Now on sale here and here. If you want 20 per cent off the price, I can arrange that! Send me a message or leave a comment, and I'll tell you how.

The thesis my book is examining was rather pithily summarised by Leon Trotsky in 1939: "Wherever the proletariat appeared as an independent force, the bourgeoisie shifted to the camp of the counter-revolution. The bolder the struggle of the masses, the quicker the reactionary transformation of liberalism." [Context is here]

However, my book isn't a defence of Trotskyism, or indeed any particular ideology. It's a study of an idea that took shape in Left, Right, and Centre variations.

This blog has tid-bits not included in the book, and other thoughts that occur.

You can see book details at the
OUP website.

Tuesday, 9 October 2012

The Revolutionary Ethic

Here's Sir James Mackintosh’s riposte to Edmund Burke's counter-revolutionary tract, Reflections on the Revolution in France:
Has any moralist ever pretended that we were to decline the pursuit of a good which our duty prescribed to us because we foresaw that some partial and incidental evil would arise from it? (Vindiciae Gallicae, 1791)
Nicely put. It's an understanable ethic of the revolutionary, recognisable from the Jacobin, through the Bolshevik, to the Neo-Conservative. I certainly wouldn't demur on principle. It does, however, rather leave open accepting all kind of 'incidental evils', or collateral damage as we now might say.

Friday, 5 October 2012

How to Get a Free Book

If anyone is connected to a journal, and would like to review my book, Bourgeois Liberty and the Politics of Fear, drop me a line and I can ask OUP to send you out a copy for free (except for the price of reading & reviewing it, obvs).*

Also, I could do this kind of thing, but I think I had better not. But if you would like to post up a warm Amazon review, I'd be far from complaining.

* This offer does not apply to anyone who hates me and wishes me excoriation and public humiliation.

Thursday, 4 October 2012

First, Short Draft of my Book.

Well, today's 4 October 2012, and my book Bourgeois Liberty and the Politics of Fear: From Absolutism to Neo-Conservatism is officially published. Yay!!!

It's had a long gestation. In fact, the first inkling of a serious work emerged way back in 2006 when I delivered a professedly light-hearted talk to St Catherine's John Simopolous Dinner.

This is a bi-annual event designed to get students and tutors of the college chatting to each other across disciplinary boundaries. Over posh grub, students of all the subjects we teach are commingled - so a Historian sits beside a Chemist, a Lawyer beside a Physicist. You get the picture.

Someone gives a brief talk relevant to their specialism, but accessible to everyone. It was my turn to give this talk, and I came up with an ironic discussion of what George W. Bush owed to revolutionary Marxism.

Only gradually thereafter did I decide that, actually, I should write a book on this theme. It's much more of a survey of two centuries, and much less of a jokey riff. Still, I think the original talk can still be found therein.

Anyway, here's the VERY FIRST DRAFT of the book, if you like. It's some 175 times shorter than the final product.

(As a reminder, if you'd like the real thing for 20 percent off, drop me an e-mail, facebook message, of a comment in the blog, and I'll tell you how. It's very easy).

Simopoulos Talk – 16 November 2006

Traditionally, I’m told, the John Simopoulos address is an iridescent display of wit and learning lightly worn. It is supposed to be funny.

Such a higher form of stand-up is beyond my meagre abilities. I propose, therefore, to advance an absurd thesis so that, if you are not inclined to laugh with me, you may at any rate laugh at me.

I shall argue that our world is being run by zealous revolutionaries, a cadre of the insurgent middle class.

Now, the respectable middle classes, it was long remarked – from 1848 to our own time - had abandoned their heroic role as vanguard of the fight for liberalism. As Marx had noted as early as 1848, fear of Red Revolution inhibited the middle classes, led them to collude with reaction, and thus aborted the democratic revolution of that year and since.

For much of the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century, it is certainly the case that bourgeois commitment to democracy was markedly attenuated by their fear of the socialist, communist or simply turbulent masses. For a period and for some respectable burghers, even fascism seemed preferable to democracy as a bulwark against communist subversion. During the Cold War, the USA again and again preferred for its client states solidly anti-communist dictatorships to the perils of democratic self-determination.

John F. Kennedy's famous commitment to "support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty" was obviously an argument for supporting despotic regimes and opposing revolutionary movements if doing so furthered the cause of the ‘Free World’ in the global Cold War.

But the story has taken a new turn. The roll-back of popular socialism and the collapse of communism have restored many of the conditions of the French Revolutionary era. As the US Neocons have concluded, democratic revolution can be encouraged in the sure knowledge that socialist revolutionary movements will not be sparked amongst the mobilised working class. From the Philippines to Ukraine, it has been the Statue of Liberty rather than the Red Flag that inspires the masses. We live in a "climate of revolution".

There is something not only revolutionary but even really quite Marxist about Neo-Con language. It’s an almost self-consciously bourgeois Marxism.

On 6 November 2003, for example, George W. Bush, addressed the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) on its twentieth anniversary. No doubt ventriloquising his speech-writer, Bush celebrated the 1982 ‘Westminster Speech’ of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. This speech, Bush said, conjoined US foreign policy in solidarity with ‘revolutionary’ forces subverting communist dictatorships. This is seen by Bush as epochal: the establishment of a kind of Bourgeois Comintern, funded by Washington, rather than by Moscow Gold.

As an aside, a Congressional audit only now being completed has found NED monies set aside for the anti-Castro struggle in Cuba being spent on leather coats and gameboys for the activists. Perhaps not so unreasonable if consumer goods are indeed the artillery of liberal free-market democracy.

The context of the NED’s establishment was a generalised revolutionary crisis (we might say, a bourgeois 1917 – 21): the ‘third wave’ of democratisation beginning with fall of Mediterranean dictatorships in the 1970s, spreading to East Asia, Latin America, the Communist bloc and in the 1990s, Africa. “In the early 1970s”, Bush remarked, “there were about 40 democracies in the world. … As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world … We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy.”

Now, why did this happen? First, says Bush, there was the pre-eminent geo-political position of the US which “created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish”. (This is similar to the logic behind the at times universal solidarity on the left with the USSR against its bourgeois critics; it was objectively the ‘fatherland of international socialism’, its fall would hurl back the world’s socialist movement).

So the USA is the bourgeois Soviet Union. But Bush also identified a ‘revolutionary class’:

“Historians will note”, he argued, “that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights.”

Secondly, he pointed out that this class could act as the vanguard of the ‘nation’. It had been found that “the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations.”

So there is a revolutionary class, whose self-emancipation liberates all society. Non-market economies produce their own grave-digger. But it’s the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat.

The process, Bush argues, is teleological. In China, for example, the Communist leadership had realised that “economic freedom leads to national wealth”. They must inevitably conclude that “freedom is indivisible”. There’s that Marxist notion of total revolution, not reform.

However, if democratisation since the 1970s had been the work of ‘national’ forces, inspired by the example of the US and protected by the over-arching stability of its global hegemony, now America has a “new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East”

This was most evident in the forced regime brought about in Iraq. “The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East”, Bush insisted, “will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.” Indeed: it has been Leninist America’s Soviet-Polish War.

Doesn’t all this sound like a kind of bourgeois Marxism? Even Bush (meaning his speech writer) seemed to see the parallel. The President defined democratic revolution as ultimately the “plan of Heaven” rather than (carefully chosen words) “some dialectic of history”.

Others have been less circumspect: Stephen Schwartz of the US think-tank ‘Western Policy Centre’ has described the neo-conservative strategy in the Middle East as the promotion of “bourgeois revolution.”

Now, however, the United States may be rowing back from the Bush Doctrine of supporting democratic revolution in the Middle East.

President Bush these days is regularly advised by Henry Kissinger, the consummate realist and admirer of Metternich.

Just over a year ago, Condoleezza Rice gave a major speech in Cairo signalling the watershed in US foreign policy. Past US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had, she said, achieved neither. Rice added: "We are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all the people."

One year on, though, and back in the Middle East, the US secretary of state is talking less about democracy and more about the "forces of moderation". The forces of moderation, of course, are the pro-western authoritarians; perhaps now even Syria and Iran.

Bolshevik Neo-Conservatism may have run its course: it remains to be seen – to mix my revolutions – what form the Neo-Conservative Thermidor shall take.

To end: I heard at 6.25 this evening, by the way, that the eminent economist and apostle of audacious capitalism – Milton Friedman – has died aged 94. This talk is therefore, I suppose, dedicated to him – if a little ironically.

Marc Mulholland
16 November 2006

Above: Me talking, around 2006.

Wednesday, 3 October 2012

Which Side are you on, Boys?

Eric Hobsbawm's passing away the other day - I wrote at obit over at Jacobin magazine - reminds us of another age. There's plenty we'd do well to regret in Hobsbawm's adherence to the Communist cause. His Cold War politics has little relevance now. However, as Corey Robin wrote sometime back in the London Review of Books, there was a price to pay for its passing:
For all its violence and misery, the Cold War had the virtue of imposing on Western intellectuals, Communist and anti-Communist alike, the duty of historical intelligence. ...  But [with] the collapse of Communism and disappearance of Marxism, [and] with the market – and now religion – displacing social democracy as the language of public life, writers are no longer compelled by the requirements of the historical imagination. Facing a new enemy, which does not make the same demands that Communism once did, today’s intellectuals wave away all talk of ‘root causes’: history, it seems, will no longer be summoned to the bar of political analysis – or not for the time being. Mimicking the theological language of their antagonists, contemporary writers prefer catchwords such as ‘evil’ and ‘Islamo-fascism’ to the vocabulary of secular criticism. Their language may be a response to 9/11, but it is a product of the end of the Cold War. When Marxism was banished from the political scene in 1989, it left behind no successor language – save religion itself – to grapple with the twinned fortunes of the individual and the collective, the personal and the political, the present and the past.
That's very well put. I'm not sure that serious work can avoid much of what made Hobsbawm's work so valuable. It's interesting that his putative successor - and I admire his work, particularly this - is Niall Ferguson. Here's what Ferguson has to say on class analysis:
[Hobsbawm] and I shared the belief that it was economic change, above all, that shaped the modern era. The fact that he sided with the workers and peasants, while I side with the bourgeoisie, was no obstacle to friendship.
 Here's Billy Bragg singing Which Side are You On? Also, have a look at this by Bhaskar Sunkara at Jacobin.

(I wrote my own book, so far as I was able, to avoid 'taking sides' as such. It was written in the History mode: " I [have not] written this book as an exercise in polemic or political advocacy. The models I employ I do so because I find them useful and interesting; they do not imply moral judgements one way or another. I am taking an argument and using it to make one kind of sense of a stretch of modern history.")

Monday, 1 October 2012

Eric Hobsbawm, and the 'Dramatic Dialectical Dance' of History

Eric J. Hobsbawm has died. I've been reading him as long as I was seriously interested in history. His 'Age of ...' series on nineteenth and twentieth century history was a towering achievement. I've read and re-read him countless times.

I quote him in my own book, just published. In his 1962, Age of Revolution, he presented a thesis, in typically pellucid poise. In many respects, my book is an extended commentary on this very passage. I often wondered what he might have made of it. I'll never know now.

Here is the passage:
The main shape of French and all subsequent bourgeois revolutionary politics were by now clearly visible. This dramatic dialectical dance was to dominate the future generations. Time and again we shall see moderate middle-class reformers mobilizing the masses against die-hard resistance or counter-revolution. We shall see the masses pushing beyond the moderates’ aims to their own social revolutions, and the moderates in turn splitting into a conservative group henceforth making common cause with the reactionaries, and a left wing group determined to pursue the rest of the as yet unachieved moderate aims with the help of the masses, even at the risk of losing control over them. And so on through repetitions and variations of the pattern of resistance - mass mobilization - shift to the left - split-among-moderates-and-shift-to-the-right - until either the bulk of the middle-class passed into the henceforth conservative camp, or was defeated by social revolution. In most subsequent bourgeois revolutions the moderate liberals were to pull back, or transfer into the conservative camp, at a very early stage. Indeed in the nineteenth-century we increasingly find … that they became unwilling to begin revolution at all, for fear of its incalculable consequences, preferring a compromise with king and aristocracy.
No twentieth-century Communist lacks the burden of historical baggage. But Hobsbawm was a great, great historian. I fear we shall not see his like again.

Get in Touch for a Book Bargain!!!

Though official publication date is this Thursday, my book Bourgeois Liberty and the Politics of Fear is now available from the Oxford University Press website. If you'd like to buy it there for no less than 20 percent off, drop me an facebook message, email, or comment at my blog, and I'll tell you how. It's easy!

Then you can sit in cafes debating the book.

Saturday, 29 September 2012

Fifty Years Ago: The Ulster Covenant and the Green-Orange Talks

It's the 100th anniversary of Ulster Day, when much of protestant Ulster pledged against Home Rule for Ireland. Many thousands are marching today in Northern Ireland to commemorate the event.

Here's a little article by me on the 50th anniversary of Ulster Day, back in 1962:

The fiftieth anniversary of the 1912 Ulster Covenant was welcomed with solemn commemoration and massive popular celebration. It also saw a remarkable and little remembered attempt to grasp the nettle of Ulster’s divided society: ‘The Orange-Green Talks’ of 1962-3.

By 1962 the IRA’s ‘BorderCampaign’ had clearly run into the sand. The opposition Nationalist Party drifted directionless. Sill, all was not rosy for Ulster Unionism. Stormont’s attempts to wring more funds from the British exchequer were going badly. Unemployment in Northern Ireland hovered around 8 percent, a disastrous total when Great Britain still basked in the great post-war boom.

The Ulster Unionist Party comfortably won the Stormont general election held in May 1962. But this masked a severe slippage in the Unionist vote. The Northern Ireland Labour Party vote reached 26 percent, 16 percent higher than in 1958, and they came close to the Unionist total in Belfast.

Commemoration of the Ulster Covenant, therefore, was not simply a sacred duty for the Unionist Party. It was also a welcome distraction. The Ulster Government set 29 September as the official day of commemoration, and Governor Lord Wakehurst, for the Crown, declared it a public holiday. Organisation for the day was put in the hands of an Ulster Covenant Jubilee Committee, made up of the Ulster Unionist Council, local Unionist Associations, and the Orange Order. A glossy 69 page souvenir booklet was published, and a historical documentary for television broadcast produced.

Lord Brookeborough addressed a Banquet dinner at Belfast City hall on the evening of 28 September. His emphasis was on Northern Ireland’s economic anxieties and its dependence upon the Union:

In common with all our fellow British citizens, we are standing at the gate of the unknown. Whether in or out of the Common Market our trading patterns will be in the future subject to far-reaching change. There are two vital factors which will govern our future wellbeing – our continued existence as part of the United Kingdom, and the resolution, resource and energy which we ourselves apply to our own local problems.

Major demonstrations were held on 29 September in Belfast, Castledawson, and Ballymena. Special trains and coaches brought in Orange members from across the six counties, also from Dublin, Cork, Cavan and Donegal. It was estimated that 100,000 marched. The procession in Belfast, from Carlisle Circus to Balmoral Showgrounds - marched past at eight deep – twice that normal for the Twelfth – and took two hours pass. Historical UVF  battalion flags were held aloft and orange rosettes worn.

At Balmoral the famous 1912 Union Flag, the largest in existence, was unfurled by Brookeborough. The crowd took a re-dedication oath that included an echo of the Gettysburg Address: “that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that Government of the Ulster people, by the Ulster people, for the Ulster people, within the United Kingdom shall not perish from the earth.”

The most striking platform speech was made by Senator Sir George Clarke, Grand Master of the Orange Order, when he called for community reconciliation:

We will have failed our children if we do not ensure the structure and policies that will bring a calmer climate in politics - and perhaps in its wake, peace in the world. It is our duty as citizens to strive ceaselessly to ensure a better understanding of each other’s problems, not only in our day, but in those of our children.

It seemed an unlikely occasion for extending the olive branch. Why did he do so? Certainly it owed something to an increased awareness of the problem of community relations. Denis Barrett and Charles Carter had recently completed their landmark exposé of Ulster’s deep-seated problems: The Northern Ireland Problem: A study of Group Relations. As Unionists celebrated, this book was being serialised in the Belfast Telegraph.

The fact that a British Minister, R.A.B. Butler, had recently met with a Nationalist Party delegation to hear complaints of discrimination – the first such meeting in 25 years – suggested that Northern Ireland’s dirty laundry risked being exposed to outsiders.

In August 1962, Senator Joseph Lennon, a leading Nationalist, in a speech to an Ancient Order of Hibernian’s rally, had proposed to meet Sir George Clark for talks. “Such discussions,” he believed, “should go far towards dispelling the clouds of bitterness which for so long have darkened politics in this area and could do much to bring in the light of toleration and mutual respect.” To general surprise, Sir George Clark had agreed to private but formal discussions “relating to the good will of Ulster’s people.”

Within a short time, however, dissent bubbled up. Norman Porter, previously an Independent Unionist M.P. for Clifton, doubted that his side could possibly benefit: “I cannot see any value in having the talks, because the only basis on which the Nationalists will have negotiations is of them gaining something and us losing something.” Nevertheless, Clark did meet Lennon, in secret, on 18 October 1962.

In January 1963 the Orange Order appointed representatives to meet with Lennon, along with Stormont MPs Eddie McAteer and Cahir Healy of the Nationalist Party. Orange representatives were Clark, H. Burdge (Grand Secretary), Rev. Brown (Grand Chaplain) and Richard Thorton.

By February 1963, however, it was clear that fundamental problems had arisen. A five point agenda submitted by the Nationalist delegation included references to discrimination in employment and housing. It was thought by the Grand Lodge that to discuss such allegations would be to admit their basis in fact. This was deemed unacceptable. Further discussions between Clark and Lennon in June 1963 failed to cut the Gordian knot.

Shortly after this failed summit, an ultimatum was sent to the Green representatives. The Orange delegation refused to discuss any agenda without a prior formal recognition of the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland state. This the Nationalists refused.

All the while Unionist leaders had stayed silent, and now the process was allowed to peter out. The attempt at reconciliation from the traditional bastions of sectarian community organisation had failed. Indeed, it had barely registered in political life.

Things had changed, however. In March 1963, Terence O’Neill had become Stormont Prime Minister. He was determined to improve community relations. The failure of the ‘Orange-Green Talks’, however, showed only too clearly that he had a mountain to climb.

Friday, 28 September 2012

Berlin and the Nazis - Richard Evans Article

Richard J. Evans has an extremely interesting article in the New Republic. He's not keen on the book he is reviewing - Hitler's Berlin by Thomas Friedrich. Basically, Evans's says, Berlin never was Hitler's city. It was not enthusiastic about Hitler, nor Hitler for it.

When, in July 1932, the Nazis won 37.4 percent of the vote in national Reichstag elections, making them the largest party in the country, Berlin remained resistant. The combined support of the Communists and Social Democrats in the capital was almost double that of the Nazis. In the November 1932 Hitler's party lost two million votes, while in Berlin its support dropped to 721,000 votes. At the same time, the Communists increased their support in the capital to 861,000, with the Social Democrats coming in at 647,000 votes. When Hitler came to power, he laced Berlin with torture and execution chambers to stamp out opposition.

Hitler despised the capital as degenerate and internationalised. He ambition was to re-model it entirely, and re-name it Germania. One can see why he had little compunction in seeing Berlin crushed under the hammer of the Red Army in 1945. He suicide there seems more like an gesture of spite and contempt for the city of his death, than as an act of homage.

Evans' article has a particularly fine comparison of Berlin and Munich in the post-Great War years. Well worth reading