Mick Hume and social change

Philip Ferguson plf13 at student.canterbury.ac.nz
Sun Sep 28 15:58:44 MDT 2003

Mick Hume in 'Spiked' article:

>"There is no going back to the left v right politics of the past, and
nor should we want to attempt it. Today's debates will necessarily be
conducted in a new political language, with people divided along new
lines (perhaps between those who advocate change and those who are
uncomfortable with it)."

This is a great example of the vacuousness of 'Spiked' and the old
LM/British RCP crew (with whom I used to be very friendly in their
better days).

'Advocating change', by itself, is neither good nor bad.  It all depends
on *what change* is being advocated.  Moreover, it is rather more
difficult to see how a division of the world between people who
'advocate change' and people who oppose 'change' could possibly develop
into anything progressive and liberating for humanity.

To function, human society has to produce goods and services.  And the
people who produce the goods and services are the working class.  So you
actually can't change society for the better, or not in any fundamental
way, and you certainly can't develop a new society, without the working
class as social agent.

Of course, the beauty of Hume's division between advocates and opponents
of change is that it can mean anything to anyone, and therefore allow
you to look like some infant terrible (although a rather middle-aged
infant) while being on a nice little earner from the 'Daily Telegraph'
and 'Times'.

'Oily' is the right word for these people.  'Beneath contempt' is also a
phrase that springs to mind.

Philip Ferguson

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list