Not untypical I know, but Ken Livingstone's new project, Progressive London is hosting a conference and on the invited platform is Professor Eric Hobsbawm. For those who are unaware, Hobsbawm is basically an apologist for Stalin.
Johann Hari, who's writing I usually vehemently disagree with - has called Hobsbawm "the David Irvine of the left." Meanwhile, in an interview with BBC, Hobsbawn himself said that he thought the death of 15 to 20 million people would have been worth it if the Stalinist dream had been created at the end.
What is it about Livingstone enjoying the company of dictators, homophobes, and apologists for brutal murderous regimes?
Hat Tip: Croydonian
6 comments:
What is it about Livingstone enjoying the company of dictators, homophobes, and apologists for brutal murderous regimes?
Simple...
He's a cunt.
It isn't quite fair to call Hobsbawm the David Irving of the Left. There are some parallels - the absolute refusal to see ill in their beloved dictators, their absolute arrogance and belief in their own rightness, and the inadequate referencing systems used in their work.
However, I would point out that Irving was not broken for any of those, serious though they are - he was brought down because he was proven in court to have falsified his data, repeatedly and to an enormous extent. And that is something Hobsbawm, a man who was in his day even more controversial than Irving and possessed of many and egregious faults, has never been accused of doing.
It's a pity that doubtful comparisons with David Irving obscure the real point of this article - that Hobsbawm is a dangerous lunatic who ought not to be allowed a platform - because it's one I agree with. Another Marxist historian once said to me that he was the worst possible advert for the left wing, particularly left wing historical writing. He seems to lack any sort of critical faculty, especially where his beloved Stalin is concerned, and is possessed of a burning hatred of the United States, one that extends far beyond reasonable suspicion of some of its more doubtful actions. Livingstone ought to have his head examined if he thinks this man should be allowed to speak at anything.
A pedant speaks. Johann Hari has it wrong. David Irvineis an engineer and professional blackjack player (wikipedia) I assume he means David IRVING. There are just no subs about when you need them....
Leninspart is what the left commonly refer to as a useful idiot.
The most irritating thing about Frogspawn and his ilk is that if they were to turn in the rubbish they spout as an undergraduate History paper they would get a pretty poor mark indeed. Instead, like a kind of academic Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards - so awful in his chosen field yet watchable because of it - he gets all the publicity.
"Johann Hari, who's writing I usually vehemently disagree with - has called Hobsbawm "the David Irvine of the left."
Is this some sort of joke?
Post a Comment