You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Overrated: Seumas Milne
 

Milne was so proud of his 2002 review that he repeated the same arguments, indeed repeated whole chunks word for word, in another Guardian piece in 2006. This time those he accused of distorting history were Jung Chang and Jon Halliday for their critically-acclaimed biography of Mao, and the Council of Europe for condemning the crimes of Communist regimes: "For all its brutalities and failures, Communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality."

Milne's columns are fixated with blaming the US and its subalterns the UK and Israel for all the ills of the world. Within two days of 9/11 he managed to condemn the US for bringing the attacks upon itself: "It has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it...any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process...seems   almost entirely absent."

Where does this perspective come from? Earlier this year, Milne addressed a public meeting in London on the subject of "What is Imperialism?" His answer: "Under modern capitalism, imperialism in essence is the use of force and coercion in all its forms ... to extort profits above what can be obtained through ordinary commercial exchange." His analysis is a rather old one: it is that of Lenin in his 1916 pamphlet Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. From this, all of Milne's analysis flows — all those opposing US imperialism and "barbarism in the service of Western corporate power" are to be supported. "Resistance" — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel — is being mobilised through Islam; Hugo Chávez is the great hope for South America; even China is praised as a bulwark against US power.  Milne has a soft spot for China: its economic reform "echoes but goes well beyond the concessions to capitalism in the Soviet new economic policy of the 1920s .. the leadership's attempt to reduce inequality, move back towards freer health and education, improve conditions for migrant workers ... are seen by some ... as signs of a resumption of reform scoialism". In Milne's world, those who still claim to espouse Lenin must be on the right side of history.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
but but but
November 4th, 2011
5:11 PM
nice once Daulat you useless twerp.

Daulat Ram
October 2nd, 2011
6:10 AM
The simple truth is that neither the heroes of the Left or of the Right were saints. The best of the Left stood for some great ideals, but the worst of them betrayed those ideals. The difference I suppoe is that the Left at least had ideals to betray, while the Right had none. Stalin betrayed communism, but Hitler and Churchill fulfilled the elitist ideology of their tribe.

Daulat Ram
October 2nd, 2011
6:10 AM
Milne says: "If Lenin and Stalin are regarded as having killed those who died of hunger in the famines of the 1920s and 1930s, then Churchill is certainly responsible for the four million deaths in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943." This seems a valid point. How can it be OK for Churchill to starve Indians? I hold Stalin to be a mass killer without excuse but the work of reputed and fiercely anti-Soviet historians like Timothy Syder, based on the archives made available after the Soviet collapse, show that he killed far less people than Hitler.

mark mcfarland
September 10th, 2011
3:09 PM
John Steffan should read the article. Godwin's Law refers to last straw sniping when all your argument lies in tatters around you. MM doesn't fall foul of Godwin's Law at all; his point is more subtle, to invoke the reader's imagination to celebrations of Hitler's industrial prowess or Mussolini's ability to make the trains run on time. Milne's hideousness is that he does precisely that on a regular basis by invoking the triumphs of leftist monsters such as Lenin and Stalin. The monsters of the 20th century - left and right - they are all the same.

Erica Blair
September 9th, 2011
10:09 PM
I'm afraid you have fallen into an heffalump trap. The original 'Harry Steel' was one Fergus Nicholson, but one of his Straight Left acolytes adopted the moniker and went on to use it for the name of his blog. The blog in question? Harry's Place!

Steffan John
September 7th, 2011
10:09 PM
You got into Godwin's law in the second paragraph, so I didn't bother to read the rest as I knew you lost the argument - as eloquently pointed out by one of your fine colleagues. /node/2387

Shaun Harbord
September 6th, 2011
6:09 PM
"Straight Left celebrated Stalinism. Don't take my word for it....." I can assure you that I won't take your word for it after a hatch-job article like the one you wrote. I am well aware from my own reading that some nutters on the Left celebrated Stalinism, Pol Pot, Mao and every other 20th century monster and, sad people,small-minded and thankfully small in number, they probably still do but that does not excuse your sloppy journalism in your 'profile' of Milne. To respond as you do suggests that you must be very worried indeed.

Michael Mosbacher
September 5th, 2011
7:09 PM
Shaun Harbord - anyone is free to look up Seaumas Milne's original Guardian pieces and in my view most fair minded readers would conclude that I have in no way misrepresented Milne. Also, if anything my comment "Seumas Milne's position is the far-Left mirror of this far-Right scenario" is rather too kind on Mr Milne. The BNP - for all their hideousness - at least shamefacdely and dishonestly deny that their ideology has any association with Nazism, or indeed fascism in general. Straight Left celebrated Stalinism. Don't take my word for it - read the rest of the far-left press and see how they regard Straight Left.

Shaun Harbord
September 4th, 2011
8:09 PM
"Yet Seumas Milne's position is the far-Left mirror of this far-Right scenario." Such simplictic linkage grossly distorts Milne's positions and reflects only on the writer's poverty of argument. Anyone who reads Milne's articles will recognise that distortion and treat Michael Mosbacher with contempt. Really, if Standpoint's way of "arguing" is to simply defame and distort - it happened last month in even cruder fashion with Jacqueline Rose - then you must be very afraid.

JoshT
September 1st, 2011
5:09 PM
I've always found him to be an ill-educated fool. He chastises all those who compare Stalinism to Nazism. Stalin killed more people for a start. He had longer to do it because he killed all of his opponents. His crimes were hidden for so long because he killed the intelligentsia. Thank God himself for Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whom Milne no doubt regards as a kulak class traitor.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.