THE LAST DITCH

When I was a naive youth of sixteen years, my headmaster called my father in for a discussion. I had been suspended from school for distributing revolutionary materials on the premises. I was the Vice Chairman in Wales of a Marxist-Leninist school students organisation; an offshoot from a Maoist splinter group several splinters removed from the party then recognised by Moscow as "the" Communist Party in Britain. Even by the 1970s, every creature with any aspiration to humanity had already left that.

The world seemed so unfair and I wanted to do all in my power to change it for the better. As a young male, of course, I vastly over-estimated that power. It's amusing now, but that miscalculation is a feature not a bug in humanity's software; a key engine in human progress. Young men are meant to be unrestrained by any sensible appreciation of their limits – even their mortality. We would all be living miserably in caves without that irrational self-belief.

I also wanted to be liked; not an easy thing for a bright, unsporty, boy in a bog-standard comprehensive. My peers – by and large – were reliably anti-intellectual. Loudly proclaiming my intent to build a better world was my alternative to being the class clown. As a means of endearing myself, revolutionary communism was a limited success. It did attract Mrs P., who told me later that – though she had no appetite for revolutionary violence herself – she thought "at least he's thinking, not like the other boys." Who knew?

Called into the interview with a headmaster who was as much a better chap than I thought at the time as my embarrassed dad, I asked defiantly what was wrong with wanting the world to be a better place. The answer, of course, is nothing – as long as your proposed solutions do not involve, as mine did, violence. I don't think it's too much to say that I was a little bit crazy at that point. I am not much embarrassed by that. Most 16-year old boys are crazy about something. Girls, football, drink or drugs perhaps. Politics was an odd choice from such a menu of delights, but there you are.

Over the years that followed, I progressed from believing myself capable of setting a path for all humanity to a more realistic appreciation of my limits. Most days, for most of my adult life, I was doing well if I could see a way forward for my clients, for myself and – in consultation with my wiser other half – for my family. People don't become older and wiser because they become more intelligent. The young man I am remembering was a lot sharper than I am now. We become wiser because all our mistakes teach us that a young man's boundless self-belief is a bit barmy and very dangerous – to himself and others. 

So what then to make of those who never lose that belief? Every politician who proposes the use of limitless state power to shape the actions of his fellow-humans is as barmy as that young man of long ago, without the excuse of youth. The ones who try to use it to shape their fellow-humans' speech or even thoughts are, in fairness to the young me, a lot barmier. They must know, in their hearts, that they are prone to mistakes in their own lives. What kind of insanity makes them think they can tell others how to live?

11 responses to “The madness of youth writ old”

  1. corncrake Avatar

    It is the creed they live their lives by – “Do as I say, not as I do!”

    Like

  2. Fred Thrung Avatar
    Fred Thrung

    Nah. The politicians are not barmy – just power mad. I’ve been there (including at school), and looking back I felt mightily embarrassed from my late 20’s. But the politicos genuinely feel they are better than us hoi polloi. And they don’t acknowledge mistakes like the rest of us do.

    Like

  3. Diogenes Avatar
    Diogenes

    It’s the seduction of noble cause corruption.
    One minute you’re saying to a young fellow… “Excuse me, do you realise that by wearing sportswear as your daily attire you are often assumed to be a halfwit.”
    Next minute you’re banning JJB Sport for the common good.
    It’s pure arrogance.

    Like

  4. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    It’s also Authoritarianism isn’t it?. Most of these “fixes” they want involve imposing some solution on people, underneith it all by some sort of force, who are seen as somehow too stupid, contrary or ignorant to actually want it or be willing to have it themselves.. for their own good, naturally.

    Like

  5. Cascadian Avatar
    Cascadian

    Donald Rumsfield was ridiculed for his analysis of problems when he used the term “unknown unknowns”, what you have described is the untested certainties of youth full of unknown unknowns (or in the case of communism, unknown cover-ups).
    To people with very little world experience and a following of fawning contemporaries this becomes “unknown but certain” because everybody is immersed in the group-think, especially it seems if they studied PPE. Unless there are strong personalities nearby willing to disabuse people of their untested beliefs then disaster is guaranteed to ensue, but usually far enough down the road when the project has been handed to the bureaucracy to implement and any negative impacts can be blamed on poor implementation.
    One can understand how poor decisions get made in wartime, but most poor decisions in peacetime seem to me to be based on malice or dogma.
    This problem very much argues for (perhaps) older and wiser politicians with life experience and who have actually worked in the private sector, current reliance on untested university drones has been disastrous. eg camoron, milliband, obama, turdeau in Canada.

    Like

  6. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Perhaps you still are a Communist, to some extent – just one who has forgotten that the capitalist system was founded on the basis of (and relies upon to continue) the control of government by the interests of capital.
    There are, it seems to me, two flavours of Libertarian. The first, rather like classes and think that they can have them without the state. The second believe that we can reach something aproximating the communist utopia spontaneously – through individual’s moral behaviour rather than polticially engineered change – that, in fact, it is only the state which is making people bad.
    I have some sympathy with both of these views (I like the idea of a class system based on who gives the best dinner parties, is kindest etc.) but my main question is this – If every man refused to fight, if every man spontaneously decided to be good, there would be no war – but since they do fight – is there no institutional/governmental arrangement which could make people kinder? I’m not convinced that there isn’t.

    Like

  7. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    Mark, Capitalism does not rely on government. It is perfectly able to function without govenmrnt, but it probably needs simple laws.
    I am not meaning to be insulting but I just don’t think you understand libertarian thinking at all, I mean have no clear idea at all you do from what you say.
    It is simple laws and contracts and self interest should on average produce, not a utopia, but a less/least objectionable outcome.
    Like simple rules govern complex behaviours, say with flocking? There is also a moral aspect behind the idea and a dislike of compulsion. But it is not necesary everyone signs up to them, most probably would given time tho.
    There is no compulsion not to fight, just not to start it. It is in the general interest to resist (fight against) it.
    Personally I think there probably needs to be some agency to organise and coordinate that resistance. within the society and against external forces. and an accepted agreed structure for that to operate within. It would not necesarily need to be permanent.
    As for your last (rhetorical?) question? I very much doubt it and if you had any idears yourself I am sure you would have shared them.

    Like

  8. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    If you look at the period before capitalism, the late middle ages, early modern period, production was controlled by guilds of workers. What happened to allow capitalism to establish itself?
    Firstly in the Italian city states and then later in England, northern europe, the merchant class took over the government and used the power afforded to them by this to take over control of production.
    Capitalism doesn’t require government to function? We can say the same about communism if we have particuarly good imaginations.
    Certainly the capitalist system as it currently is requires the government to continue to survive – you might imagine a better system based on something else – fine – I don’t think you’ll bring it about without paying attention to government, without using government to lay the ground for our improved system.

    Like

  9. Tom Avatar

    You make the assertion that capitalism is enabled by government. I rather see it as being perverted by it. I am no defender of capitalists when they corrupt governments to trample on freedom. I applaud capitalists only when they operate in free, competitive markets.
    ” …is there no institutional/governmental arrangement which could make people kinder? I’m not convinced that there isn’t.”
    I think we need you to do another guest blog post on that question, which I find fascinating. I cannot imagine how to “make” people be kind and I shiver at the euphemism involved in that question. You are becoming adept at disguising proposals to use force.
    It seems immensely, dangerously naive to me. But I would love to hear it articulated. You still have your blogging rights here. Will you develop this thought, please?

    Like

  10. james higham Avatar

    So what then to make of those who never lose that belief? Every politician who proposes the use of limitless state power to shape the actions of his fellow-humans is as barmy as that young man of long ago
    It’s an extension, is it not? Nice piece, Tom.

    Like

  11. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    OK!

    Like

Leave a reply to Moggsy Cancel reply

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.

Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.

He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that

“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

Latest comments
  1. Lord T's avatar
  2. tom.paine's avatar
  3. Lord T's avatar
  4. tom.paine's avatar
  5. Lord T's avatar