Palace knights Tony Blair

[french frank]

Speaking as a far-leftist & Corbynista, I wouldn't sign the petition, since as I implied in my previous post on this thread, it's not as though getting knighted means anything or is some valid form of recognition.

(To the bit about it not being a valid form of recognition). If one has genuinely 'deserved' it, one doesn't need it. There are more things to dance up and down in rage/indignation about.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes - as his award was in the personal gift of The Queen rather than through the usual honours system I can just see her revoking it due to a few thousand Corbynistas and other far leftists signing a petition.

So, B, you must have signed it then!

[Serial_Apologist]

Speaking as a far-leftist & Corbynista, I wouldn't sign the petition, since as I implied in my previous post on this thread, it's not as though getting knighted means anything or is some valid form of recognition.

Have to admit, that thought hadn't occurred to me.

[Joseph K]

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2003/nov/27/poetry.monarchy

[RichardB]

Speaking as a far-leftist & Corbynista, I wouldn't sign the petition, since as I implied in my previous post on this thread, it's not as though getting knighted means anything or is some valid form of recognition.

Indeed - it's the kind of thing that gets given to that kind of people so Blair being "honoured" is par for the course, it was only a matter of time, also fitting that it happened under a Tory administration.

[french frank]

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/20...oetry.monarchy

Everybody has their own response to such things. Should I be offered an honour, my feelings are that I would turn it down whatever it was. But I can say that because I haven't achieved anything of any note so I won't be offered anything. But I might take a certain (private) satisfaction in thinking maybe I did do something worthwhile with my life.

On BZ, I don't think I (could) share the resentment black people have against empire, colonialism and all the results of that, not because I'm white but because I accept that history is history and the only thing people can ever do for their forebears' judged misdeeds is try to make amends. I'm convinced that whatever system we have in place, there will always be an 'establishment' and what ever good intentions it may start out with it will degenerate into the privileged and the underprivileged. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist.

[RichardB]

On BZ, I don't think I (could) share the resentment black people have against empire, colonialism and all the results of that, not because I'm white but because I accept that history is history

- but the point here is that the history in question is still being suppressed. For a more extreme example look at the way so many on the right in the USA are opposed to children being taught the truth about the genocide and slavery in their country's history (aka "critical race theory"), but the situation is not so different in the UK. So any "honour" that contains the words "British Empire" carries that denial with it. Why doesn't the "establishment" see that at the very least it would be a good idea to change those names?

I don't agree that there always has to be an "establishment" There are plenty of examples of systems of social organisation through geography and history which haven't involved one. See Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything for an extensive survey of them. Here are a few words from its closing pages:

When, for example, a study that is rigorous in every other respect begins from the unexamined assumption that there is some ‘original’ form of human society; that its nature was fundamentally good or evil, that a time before inequality and political awareness existed’ that something happened to change all this, that ‘civilization’ and ‘complexity’ always came at the price of human freedoms, that participatory democracy is nature in small groups but cannot possibility scale up to anything like a city or a nation state.

We know, now, that we are in the presence of myths.

I wouldn't expect you to be convinced by any of the arguments in this book, should you read it, but as long as there are intelligent, well-informed and optimistic people taking an opposite view to the pessimistic one that human nature is inherently selfish and unchangeable, I'll be throwing my lot in with them, such as it is!

[french frank]

Why doesn't the "establishment" see that at the very least it would be a good idea to change those names?

I was thinking of that already and wondering what they might - and will, I hope - replace it with.

I don't agree that there always has to be an "establishment" There are plenty of examples of systems of social organisation through geography and history which haven't involved one. See Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything for an extensive survey of them. Here are a few words from its closing pages:

As I said, 'perhaps I'm a pessimist' indicating, I hope, that I believe things may indeed turn out differently from what I expect.

I wouldn't expect you to be convinced by any of the arguments in this book, should you read it, but as long as there are intelligent, well-informed and optimistic people taking an opposite view to the pessimistic one that human nature is inherently selfish and unchangeable, I'll be throwing my lot in with them, such as it is!

As might be inferred from my previous comment, expectations may turn out to be unfulfilled!

[Serial_Apologist]

Everybody has their own response to such things. Should I be offered an honour, my feelings are that I would turn it down whatever it was. But I can say that because I haven't achieved anything of any note so I won't be offered anything. But I might take a certain (private) satisfaction in thinking maybe I did do something worthwhile with my life.

On BZ, I don't think I (could) share the resentment black people have against empire, colonialism and all the results of that, not because I'm white but because I accept that history is history and the only thing people can ever do for their forebears' judged misdeeds is try to make amends. I'm convinced that whatever system we have in place, there will always be an 'establishment' and what ever good intentions it may start out with it will degenerate into the privileged and the underprivileged. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist.

One idea that has long been put forward by socialists is that under a less constantly pressurised economic system than the one that we have, people anywhere in power, from CEOs to line managers, foremen and women, police and armed forces chiefs, judges, magistrates and political representatives, should be elected at the grass roots level - in workplaces and constituencies. This would be for given terms, and subject to recall should they be failing in delivering, rather than appointed. The proviso being that the elected person should be given an initial learning period. This would serve (a) to do away with entrenched establishments; and (b) to draw "ordinary people" into participating in the processes of decision-making that determine not just their own concerns and interests but those of their wider community, instilling a greater and above all more informed sense of personal responsibility than the present fragmented approach does. Discussion around the suitability of this or that person would be part of an ongoing integrated collective debate over social and economic priorities as a whole.

Examples of this way of going about organising society are legion: to take one non-controversial example, the principles initially applied in the running of community forests in rundown post-industrial edgeland zones which were carefully drawn up in contitutions, but unfortunately were dropped in most cases after a few years for reasons of failing to meet funding deadlines; but that says more about overarching economic pressures than in principle impracticability.

[RichardB]

One idea that has long been put forward by socialists is that under a less constantly pressurised economic system than the one that we have, people anywhere in power, from CEOs to line managers, foremen and women, police and armed forces chiefs, judges, magistrates and political representatives, should be elected at the grass roots level - in workplaces and constituencies.

Paradoxically, the present situation makes the desirability of that more clear, in so far as it seems hardly possible that any more or less functional human being couldn't do a better job at prime minister than the current individual. I wonder though, since we're in highly hypothetical territory, whether elections are a radical enough solution when it comes to political representatives, since they introduce a competitive dimension, which then rewards those who are better at getting the job rather than doing it (see previous sentence). As I've said here before, if the random choice method works for jury service why shouldn't it be used more widely?

[Serial_Apologist]

Paradoxically, the present situation makes the desirability of that more clear, in so far as it seems hardly possible that any more or less functional human being couldn't do a better job at prime minister than the current individual. I wonder though, since we're in highly hypothetical territory, whether elections are a radical enough solution when it comes to political representatives, since they introduce a competitive dimension, which then rewards those who are better at getting the job rather than doing it (see previous sentence). As I've said here before, if the random choice method works for jury service why shouldn't it be used more widely?

Indeed so. Which is behind the rationale for giving the electee a given period of office, subject to recall within a "reasonable" timescale for learning the job and building a support team. The main objections to this will probably be argued to be circumstances of emergency, when principles and practices would of sheer necessity have to be suspended. But one sees that many of the emergencies afflicting populations today are, historically and currently, the consequence of wrong decisions forced under pressures endemic to the existing politico-economic model of which the likes of Tony Bliar are among the chief beneficiaries.

[RichardB]

But one sees that many of the emergencies afflicting populations today are, historically and currently, the consequence of wrong decisions forced under pressures endemic to the existing politico-economic model of which the likes of Tony Bliar are among the chief beneficiaries.

Exactly. Under a more democratic system mistakes would no doubt be made, but it's hard to imagine they would be as disastrous for as many people as the mistakes (or are they?) made under the current way of doing things.

[french frank]

As I've said here before, if the random choice method works for jury service why shouldn't it be used more widely?

But how widely? As a system, it works in narrow contexts: 12 people assessing the guilt or otherwise of one other person based on evidence presented. How far could you take that idea? On the other hand, the idea that those who get elected are not always the best people for the job is one that is widely held.

You mentioned Graeber and Wendover some time ago and I followed that up at the time. I may have been too swift in slightly mistrusting any writings where the authors demonstrate the validity of ideas which chime with those which they already hold. I have ordered a copy and shall make up my own mind (not espousing any particular ideas on the subject) though Wikipedia is quite informative in suggesting that while the work is considered 'exhilarating' and thought provoking, it is still somewhat hypothetical. I shall have the possibility of judging that for myself.

[RichardB]

But how widely? As a system, it works in narrow contexts: 12 people assessing the guilt or otherwise of one other person based on evidence presented. How far could you take that idea?

Obviously not as far as randomly choosing people to take charge of hospitals or airports!

I may have been too swift in slightly mistrusting any writings where the authors demonstrate the validity of ideas which chime with those which they already hold.

But then there is the question of why they held those ideas in the first place - not for no reason connected with the subject matter of the book, clearly! Also, any kind of science begins, as you'll know, with the framing of a hypothesis. I'm not saying that Graeber and Wengrow have all the answers to the questions they're investigating, and indeed the lack of answers is one of its weak points, as several sympathetic critics have pointed out. I have the feeling that would have been reserved for a second volume, which I guess with Graeber's death we aren't going to get. The point was to open out discussion about what the possibilities for a future society might be, by pointing at the much greater diversity in past forms of social organisation than most people are aware of. Which, whatever shortcomings the book might have, is an important thing for thinkers to be doing.

[Stanfordian]

If Henry Kissinger can have a Nobel Peace Prize I guess Blair can have a knighthood. These are the kinds of accolades war criminals get when they're on the winning side.

I was sickened by the news of Blair receiving a knighthood. If fact the whole honours system saddens me.