The.Economist.2007-02-10 (966424), страница 25
Текст из файла (страница 25)
In 2005 unions accounted for57% of Labour's donations. In the first nine months of last year their share had risen to 78% and thelatest figures, from the Electoral Commission's register of donations, suggest that it is now running atnearer 90%.According to Sir Hayden's calculations, between 2002 and 2005 a £50,000 cap on donations would haveleft Labour with £6.4m a year less (because much of its money comes in large chunks from the bigunions), but the Tories with a reduction of only £1.7m. Given recent trends—not just Labour's growingreliance on the unions but also the Conservatives' success in raising £50,000 sums from hundreds ofaffluent supporters—the Tories' proposed cap might squeeze them even less and Labour more.In hock and in troubleGordon Brown, whose problem it will become, is a cautious man.
If the parties can't agree a deal on futurefunding, much though he might like to, he won't risk driving through a big and electorally unpopularincrease in taxpayer subsidies for them. Instead, he will try to reduce some of the Tories' financialadvantage by imposing much tighter restrictions on spending, both in election campaigns and in marginalseats between elections.But, as the Tories will be quick to point out, Labour will have effectively chosen to remain in hock to theunions. These days they represent little more than a quarter of those in employment—but unionnegotiated settlements cover more than 70% of public-sector employees.
Since Mr Brown's chances ofwinning an election will, to a large extent, hang on his ability to persuade voters that Labour is better atgetting value from public services, that could prove a crippling handicap.Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.About sponsorshipMuslims and socialistsWith friends like theseFeb 8th 2007From The Economist print editionAn odd marriage of Muslims and secular socialists, united against America, is challenged bypundits of right and leftScoopt.comAS GEORGE BUSH prepares to send more troops to Iraq, his critics all over the Western world arebringing more protesters onto the streets—and the range of people who are angry enough to fill the icyair with chants of rage seems broader, and in some ways stranger, than ever.On February 24th, for example, gallery-goers and pigeon-feeders should probably avoid London'sTrafalgar Square, on which tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people will converge from all overBritain, and farther afield, to demand the withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq—and while they are atit, oppose the renewal of Britain's nuclear arsenal.
Tourists who do venture near the square will noticethe odd sociology of the anti-war movement: the unkempt beards and unisex denims of old-time streetfighters rubbing shoulders with the well-trimmed Islamic beards and headscarved ladies.This leftist-Muslim partnership exists not just on the streets, but in the protest movement's heart.Britain's Stop the War coalition, which has organised more than 15 nationwide protests and hundreds ofsmaller events, was largely forged by two small, intensely committed bodies—the far-left SocialistWorkers Party (SWP) and the Muslim Association of Britain, which is close to the international MuslimBrotherhood.
These tiny groups have co-ordinated street protests by up to 1m people.With its combination of an American-aligned foreign policy and a large, angry Muslim population, Britainis an unusual case among Western countries. But in many other places, too, Muslim grievance has beenyoked to a broader anti-capitalist or anti-globalist movement whose leitmotif is loathing of the Bushadministration and all its works.An Italian Marxist involved in the “Social Forum” movement, which organises large, disparate gatheringsof groups opposed to the existing world order, puts it this way.
Almost everybody in the movementshares the belief that “capitalism and militarism” (both epitomised by America) are the main challengesto human welfare. If political Islam can blunt American triumphalism, then so much the better—evenfrom the viewpoint of those who would never dream of donning a headscarf or upsetting a sexualminority.At the micro-political level, co-operation between angry Muslims and secular socialists is not alwayssmooth.
In Britain, one of the offspring of the anti-war alliance has been the Respect Party, whichcombines a socialist platform with anti-Americanism and resistance to “Islamophobia”. But if Respect hasremained small, that is partly because its core constituents are viewed warily, even within the Islamicleftist fraternity. Many Muslim activists dislike the “control-freak” tactics they associate with theBrotherhood and its offshoots—and on the political left, the Respect Party has been eschewed by Greensand other radicals because of grandstanding by its SWP core.And inevitably the partnership between secularists and Muslims faces hard moments. In Britain and theNetherlands, young Muslim activists (perhaps influenced by lefty comrades) have questioned their elders'harsh views on homosexuality—but they do not always win the argument.
In the Netherlands, a Turkishborn Islamist, Haci Karacaer, tried to build bridges with the leftists (and gay-rights advocates) of theDutch Labour party, only to be ostracised by fellow Muslims.Just as Britain is the heartland of the leftist-Muslim partnership, it is also the main locus of a sharp andtrenchant critique of political Islam. At its toughest, the argument of a new school of anti-Islamistleftists—mainly rehearsed on the internet—is that parts of the international left are now making ascolossal a mistake as they did over Soviet or Chinese communism.
They have let hatred of America andcapitalism blind them to darker forces.Two sorts of people have stressed this point: European ex-Marxists, embarrassed by their errors overStalin, and dissident ex-Muslims from the Islamic world who have fled to the West and fear their hostswill “go soft” on their persecutors.Last year's row over the publication in Denmark of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad prompteda manifesto against the “new totalitarianism” of Islamism whose 12 signatories were in one or other ofthose categories. The five French-based signers included Bernard-Henri Lévy, a smooth Parisian pundit,and Philippe Val, an editor who faces a lawsuit from Muslims over the drawings.The foundational texts of Britain's “anti-Islamofascist” movement include the Euston manifesto, so calledbecause of the drafting sessions in a bar near a London station.
This spoke of a threat from Islamism tocauses that leftists hold dear, such as equality between sexes and sexual orientations. It denounces“disgraceful” alliances with “illiberal theocrats”.Many European leftists see things quite differently, viewing Islamism as a potential ally against theAmerican demon, and this has real consequences. In Italy, for example, the coalition headed by RomanoProdi, the centre-leftist prime minister, is under strain because its most left-wing parties are reluctant tovote more money for the American-led fight against Afghanistan's Taliban. One party, CommunistRefoundation, dreams of an Afghan peace conference with the Taliban taking part.The pundits who discuss these matters in cyberspace roll their eyes at such “appeasement”. Take thechief drafter of the Euston text, Norman Geras, a Manchester-based political scientist who grew up inwhite-ruled Rhodesia and still calls himself, with qualifications, a Marxist.By studying the rise of Nazi Germany, Mr Geras says, he realised both the power and the limits of Marxistideas: they help explain the economic forces that brought Hitler to power, but cannot explain certain“egregious forms of evil”—such as the regime of Saddam Hussein, whose downfall was an absoluteimperative.Nick Cohen, a peppery writer for Britain's centre-left media, has put flesh on the Euston manifesto'sbones by listing the sins of the Islamic-leftist compact.
Political Islam, he says, is not just a disaster formany causes (like feminism and gay rights) that the left cherishes; it also overturns the Enlightenmentidea that diversity of opinion is desirable.Paul Berman, a professor at New York University, is one of several Americans of liberal background whohave joined the British denunciation of Islamofascism.
He says the left's refusal to take sides in theinternal battles of Muslim countries (between dissidents and oppressors) reflects an “angelic blindness”which mistakes violent reactionaries for charming exotica.Such words will be shrugged off by those who see America as the main global foe. But there is a newvoice in America's internal debate which might, in an odd way, embolden those who want social liberalsand centre-leftists to lead the charge against Islamist authoritarianism.Dinesh d'Souza, an Indian-born writer and hero of America's political right, uses a new book—with theprovocative subtitle “The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11”—to argue that America's“progressives” are not just soft on political Islam, they have positively encouraged it.By being decadent in its behaviour and thinking, America's liberal elite has given ground to selfappointed foes of decadence, such as the political Islamists, Mr d'Souza says; and he sees an antidote inAmerican-style religious conservatism.Here's a prediction.
Most people on the Western liberal left will shrug off the call by Messrs Geras, Cohen,Berman and Lévy to “wake up” to the threat of Islamism. But Mr d'Souza will appal them so much thatsome may make a sudden dash for the barricades and join the fight against all theocracy, including theAmerican sort.Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.
All rights reserved.About sponsorshipGifted childrenBright sparksFeb 8th 2007From The Economist print editionNot everyone's a genius, but don't say so in front of the childrenBY the time Laszlo Polgar's first baby was born in 1969 he already had firm views on child-rearing. Aneccentric citizen of communist Hungary, he had written a book called “Bring up Genius!” and one of hisfavourite sayings was “Geniuses are made, not born”.An expert on the theory of chess, he proceeded to teach little Zsuzsa at home, spending up to ten hoursa day on the game.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
