Do subscribe to this and read Paul Kingsnorth’s eloquent defence of the Luddites: they were no technophobes but coherent protestors against the needless subordination of people to machines which has now increased exponentially and disastrously.
Kingsnorth also sees how enclosure in the widest sense is the main driver of the processes of modern capitalist and bureaucratic tyranny. He well grasps just why figures like Cobbett, Ruskin and Chesterton were more radical than Marx in denying its inevitability and rationality.
The relationship of enclosure to empire is perhaps a difficult topic: yes on the whole enclosure and colonisation are continuous and yet without empire wild enclosing and ravaging was often still more uncontained. And older modes of empire sometimes protected the regional.
Just as, for all its imperfections, the EU did far more for eg Cornwall than Westminster is likely to do, even given a need to retain votes.
The Luddites had one of their key centres in Nottinghamshire. The figure of Ned Ludd was specifically linked to that of Robin Hood. I discussed this a bit in my essay in the original Blue Labour collection.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Despite good points this article confuses the need to respect and promote intelligence with Young/Sandel’s critique of the meritocratic neglect of the flourishing of all, the diversity of kinds of ability (not all intellectual) and the need to marry cleverness with honour.
Honour means respect for inherited role not being overridden by the ambition that allowed you to occupy it. Anti-meritocracy may also see some advantages in people inheriting positions of all kinds via birth: it can nurture inherited responsibility and early vocational formation.
Wooldridge is failing to see that despite admitted collapse of channels of aspiration for a working-class few, in general we now have a far greater dominance of an educated elite with typically liberal views that is facing populist resistance from the less educated.
I just read Susan Oothuizen’s brilliant revisionary book: she shows in terms of a longer duree that the English were more Romano-British than we think. But Francis Young’s reserves convince: why the lapse to specifically Germanic paganism? Why diff A-S tribes? Language shift?
And why self-consciousness as Angli? This can’t just be in Bede a Roman ecclesiastical identity as SO suggests if that very allegiance was still under dispute amongst the ‘English’ in Northumbria?
And given the lapse in ‘England’ to paganism (not in greater Wales) doesn’t that mean we can’t quite dismiss the Gildas-Bede story of British apostasy/Germanic-Scandinavian pagan invaders? They were biased yes, but why did they hold their biases?
‘The actual central ground in Britain combines left wi g economics with right wing cultural values. Starmer’s problem is that he is unable to adopt either of these positions, let alone both’.
Gray goes onto point out that Corbyn’s economics was popular, it was his lack of patriotism that was unpopular. And that actually the Tories are finding it easier to veer towards some of that economics (just inventing money) than Labour is, for fear of being seen as irresponsible
He gives a fair account of everything, including my improvised Cambridge paper of Sept 2019. He worries about my (Cusan) suggestion that Trinitarian and other theological concepts break the LNC such that a Trinitarian ontology reveals an experienced world beyond our logical grasp
But when he says that negative theology transgresses the Law of Excluded Middle though not the LNC I’m not sure that’s true if one takes the former in the most rigorous sense?
This very short article by Jeremy Cliffe is the best thing I have ever read on Brexit and the EU. It pivots on the contrast between Delors’ and Thatcher’s authentically provincial Christian visions and suggests the battle in Britain between the two is not over.
Thatcher: Protestant believer in the totally free market and absolutely sovereign centralised nation state. Delors: Catholic believer in third way personalism, corporatism and federalism. Individualism versus relational love. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy.
The article useful gives the lie to the idea that the Catholic vision of the EU has altogether vanished even though it is weakened. Delors wanted a social dimension to the free market and single currency and yet lexiteers laughably insist the EU is more neoliberal than the U.K.!
Andy Beckett’s version of ‘Englishness’ sounds just as dreadful as the tabloid version he rightly rejects. Just what is English about this vacuous mixture of ‘diversity’ and commercial music? Nothing. Why not instead recall that Vaughan Williams was a socialist?
Back in profounder contemporary reality we find for example a female black composer identifying with and blending with her own Caribbean legacy a genuine English/British folk tradition. But white liberals sustain Blair’s tawdry obsession with the trashy.
On the other hand Blair’s taking seriously of both crime and patriotism shows that it is just untrue, as Beckett claims, that Labour cannot outplay (for good or ill) the Tories in these areas when they are linked to economic concerns.