Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Arab socialism

Many will be surprised to find me uttering a good word for socialism. Yet there is one aspect of this amalgam that it is our misfortune - and the misfortune of the Middle East - to have lost.
I am referring to the movement known as Arab socialism, a political ideology that combined Pan-Arabism and socialism. The term "Arab socialism" was coined by the Syrian Christian Michel Aflaq, the principal founder of Ba'athism and the Arab Ba'ath Party, in order to distinguish his version of socialist ideology from the international socialist movement.
Socialism was a major component of Ba'athist thought, and it featured in the party's slogan of "Unity, liberty, socialism/” However by using the term Arab socialism Aflaq did not mean socialism as the term is normally employed in the West; his version equated socialism with Arab nationalism.
The socialism envisaged in the party's constitution of 1947 and in later writings up to the establishment of the United Arab Republic, is moderate and shows little formal impress of Marxism.
In 1950 Aflaq defined socialism as "not an aim in itself, but rather a necessary means to guarantee society the highest standard of production with the farthest limit of cooperation and solidarity among the citizens ... Arab society ... needs a social order with deeper foundations, wider horizons, and more forceful realization than moderate British socialism."
The cardinal difference between Arab socialism and communism was, according to Aflaq and Ba'athist thinkers in general, the central role allocated to nationalism.
In other words, the movement sought to give Arabs a sense of unity and pride without basing these things on religion.
If Arab socialism was a good thing, as I think it was, what happened to it? For one thing, it came to be identified with the leadership of Gamal Albdel Nasser in Egypt, and over time he let the country run down. Saddam Hussein's expropriation of it also tarnished the movement Then there was the opposition of the United States and the Western powers, who mistakenly saw the movement as in league with the Soviet Union.

Monday, September 07, 2015

Following the law

Apparently the Kentucky judge who sentenced Kim Davis to do jail time for refusing to issue marriage licenses  is not entirely sympathetic to same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, he has faithfully adhered to one of the cornerstone principles of our law: "Dura lex sed lex." (The law may be harsh but it is the law.) This principle goes back at least as far as the legal theorist Burchard a thousand years ago, and possibly even earlier to Socrates.

When I made this observation on Facebook a few days ago, a friend commented as follows:  
"Antigone had a different idea.  Also Thoreau.  Also Gandhi.  Also Martin Luther King."

In fact, examples noted constitute a weighty challenge. First, I offer a general comment; then in the following paragraph I address the question of Sophocles' Antigone, the first major landmark in the tradition of resistance. In my view the precept Dura Lex Sed Lex makes no special claim for the morality of the existing body of laws. It simply asserts that this is the way things work. It may well be that we should oppose some particular law as unjust, even though pro tem it remains in force. Or the comment could be more general (the Latin is ambiguous): law is a body of constraints that is inimical to the flourishing of free spirits, but that is the price we pay for affirming the principle of the rule of law.

  • In Sophocles' play, Creon, the ruler of Thebes, was justified in issuing the edict which deprived funeral rites to Polyneices, who had led a foreign army to lay siege to his own city. Creon, as head of the state, viewed exemplary punishment as appropriate. For her part, Antigone, the sister of the deceased rebel. had a right to assert that in defying Creon's edict she was loyal to an unwritten law which had a higher sanction. "The unwritten and unfailing laws of the gods" must override Creon's pronouncement, which is merely the utterance of a human ruler. The laws of Antigone "live forever, were not born today or yesterday, and no-one knows whence they sprang." As Victor Ehrenberg remarks: "[t]hese famous words, full of emotion and belief, clearly indicate something that is essential, fundamental and universal." Perhaps so. But since the laws Antigone appeals to are unwritten, how can we know that her citation is correct and her interpretation is valid? Based on Mesopotamian examples, and compilations of their own, the Greeks were perfectly familiar with written law, where the text is written down and may be consulted. Not here. Although she appeals to the priests and to immemorial tradition, at base Antigone is simply saying "trust me." Later, under the Stoics and others, the Greeks sought to elaborate something approximating international law. Yet even today this concept of an overarching law that can supersede the laws of nations remains controversial.

    Reflection suggests a modification of these observations about Antigone's assertions.  In the Greek text she does not use the common word for law, nomos, but nomima, observances, so that she is referring to the age-old deposit of custom or tradition, and not to an alternative system of law which can be invoked to ride herd over the transient enactments of Creon.  Her assertion then may be regarded as conservative. the application of her conscience, far from being bold and revolutionary, is in obeisance to tradition.  And tradition can be just as oppressive if not more so, than legal enactments in the proper sense.  Still, Antigone's arguments may have given impetus to a later tradition of defiance of laws perceived as unjust in the name of individual conscience.  

    Yet there is another, more sobering consideration.  Let us suppose that the confrontation with Creon had gone differently.  In this rewriting Antigone simply says that it is duty to her family that causes here to bury her slain brother.  To this assertion Creon replies: "I am sorry, my dear, but this cannot be allowed because I must adhere to the Unwritten Law, which stipulates that the preservation of the state is the supreme good.  As even barbarians in Italy recognize, "Salus populi suprema lex est."  It is for this high and unanswerable imperative that you are condemned."  In other words, tyrants can invoke the Unwritten Law principle to justify their arbitrary actions.

    The expression "agrapta nomima," unwritten stipulations, occurs in other texts of the period, and a fuller examination, not offered here, would suggest further nuances.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Socialism is hard to define

A friend recently praised Bernie Sanders for making the term "socialism" respectable. 

But what has he really accomplished in this realm? There is no universally accepted definition of socialism. At its core should be the idea of social control of banks and basic industries - what the British Labour Party used to embrace as Clause Four. But that is no longer the rule in the UK, though the concept may be revived. 

Once upon a time, Stalinism was accepted as socialism in pure form. And, partly as a result of conservative propaganda, adoption of a single-payer system of medical care is stigmatized as "socialism," when it is not. They do not have socialism in any serious sense in Scandinavia, merely mitigated capitalism. 

Socialism then is an essentially contested concept, a chameleon that in common usage means many different things.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Changing demography

New York City, where I have lived most of my life, seems to be a multicultural city that works. The borough of Queens boasts more than 200 nationalities. The excellent staff of my building is made up of Dominicans, African Americans, a Filipino, and a Russian.
Sometimes I wish that people in Europe, who are not doing so well with the challenge of integration, could learn from our example. (Well, there are plenty of people in the US who could learn too.)
Yet what is the outlook twenty or so years down the road, when we are told that we will become a minority-majority country? I am not so much concerned about the people themselves - we have proved that they can do all right - but about politicians who find it hard to resist herding individuals into ethnic blocs. While I have no respect whatever for Republicans these days, the Democrats seem to be looking forward to an era in which we will in fact be divided into ethnic blocs, our disputes brokered by politicians. Maybe this will not happen - but the possibility needs to be reckoned with.
This leads to another question: at what point have we in Western societies decided to change our demographic configuration through immigration?  
Without endorsing Trump's nativist extremism, it seems that there is a real problem here.  Of course big business wants lots of immigration, legal or illegal, in order to provide docile workers.  With typical shortsightedness these moguls care nothing about the longterm consequences.  The problem is less serious in the US, where we have long deal with these issues, than in Western Europe.  The Europeans must also deal with the fact that many of the new immigrants are Muslim, with a large continent included therein that is hostile to Western pluralism and freedom of expression.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Islamic art in museums

This morning NPR broadcast an interview with the curator of the recently reopened and enlarged Islamic art galleries in the south wing of the Metropolitan Museum here in NYC. She acknowledged the omission of Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country, which is documented only elsewhere in the Museum (chiefly with works of Buddhist and Hindu provenance). 

A more serious omission is the obscuring of the fact that some of the art actually displayed is not of Muslim origin but is at best "Islamicate," being made by Christian and Jewish craftspeople. As everyone knows, or should know, the Jews have been expelled from the Arab Islamic countries, with the Christians now following them in the current program of ethnic cleansing. 

While figural arts were not forbidden by Islam (except in mosques and other sacred spaces) artists were assigned a low status. Hence the task fell largely to people of other heritages - just as wine, for example continued to be made and sold by Christians. Moreover, it is not always realized that there was a vibrant Jewish art tradition that flourished in figural mosaics and frescoes executed in synagogues right up to the time of the Islamic conquest.

Sunday, August 02, 2015

Le Corbusier's alleged fascism

We generally assume that modern art and architecture, as they became consolidated in the 20th century, are part of the enlightenment project for human advancement. If these figures have any political leanings, they will be on the left. Alas, there is no consistent pattern. 

As the recent blockbuster show of Futurism at the Guggenheim Museum showed, this movement allied itself with Mussolini's fascism, a connection that lasted until the end of the regime. Moreover, the architect Terragni, one of the outstanding modernists, is best known for his construction of the Casa del Fascio in Como. 

This background should be considered in relation to three new French books, alleging Le Corbusier's fascism. I have been looking at these books, and they all seem to be rush jobs, and hard to read. Still, the evidence seems largely circumstantial, based in part on personal links with eccentric figures such as Dr. Pierre Winter.

 Moreover, if Le Corbusier were such a right-winger, he would not have done some of his most impressive work of the thirties in the USSR. In truth he seems to have been an opportunist, willing to work for anyone who would hire him, with patrons as varied as the Catholic Church, the Indian state under Nehru, and the United Nations.

The French tend to treat Le Corbusier as the one and only leader in modern architecture. In fact he belonged to a larger group of figures, identified with the International Style and mainly originating in Germany. These figures do not have clean hands either. During WWI Gropius fell for the notion that the Jews had betrayed the Reich - though he later corrected himself. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, arguably an even greater architect than Corbu, lingered in Germany for several years after Hitler's takeover, in the hope that he would get the commission for the Reichsbank building. In short, context is needed.

Paris (AFP) - Revelations that one of the world's most famous modern architects, Le Corbusier, was a "fascist" with links to France's WWII collaborationist...

Saturday, July 11, 2015

"Politically Correct"

Sometimes we hear that the concept of “political correctness” (or PC) is a mere chimera invented by conservatives to vilify the left. This claim is not factual, because the origins of the concept are clearly on the left.

In the early-to-mid 20th century, deployment of the expression "politically correct" was part and parcel of the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine. What it actually consisted of was the subject of an extended three-cornered debate among formal Communists (members of the Communist Party, CP), Trotskyists, and Socialists. As it was generally employed, however, the phrase served as shorthand for the Communist party line, which stipulated "correct" positions on many issues. Of course the party line was always changing so that yesterday's political correctness became incorrect. A good example is the CP line on the Nazi regime. Up to August 23, 1939, the Nazis were fascist beasts; after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreemen they became de facto allies of the Soviet Union, with the two countries in accord as to the decadence of the Western democracies. Two years later, in June 1941, the line changed again when Hitler invaded the USSR.

According to Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance."

In the 1970s, the New Left purloined the term political correctness from the old left. For example, in "The Black Woman: An Anthology" (1970), Toni Cade Bambara maintained that "a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too." Sometimes the expression was used ironically or in a jocular fashion, but everyone who adopted it took the underlying idea seriously. There were correct thoughts and incorrect ones. I remember this miasma personally when the neo-Marxist wave briefly swamped gay liberation in the early seventies. Those were trying times, Yet the history is not assisted by the claim that PC is merely an opportunistic conservative device. It was the left that invented and promoted this misleading concept.

Whatever ones view about the particular issues, two things are wrong with the concept of political correctness. 1) It posits certainty about issues that are generally contestable, locating the source of this certainty in some particular political party or tendency. 2) In practice it is strangely variable. Here is an example from my own experience. In the 1970s trans people, especially drag queens, were anathema in mainstream gay-liberation circles. We were told in no uncertain terms that these individuals were simply mocking women. They were enacting a spectacle of misogyny, and that was all there was to it. That was the view that was politically correct in those days. 

Now in the 21st century, though, matters have come full circle, and trans people are in the forefront of a new and more flexible definition of gender. That is the new political correctness on this issue. I take no view about the merits of these opinions: I am simply exhibiting the instability of the “correct” view.