Diane Abbott suffering from Foot-in-Mouth disease (again)

NorthernMonkey Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:20:28 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Was I the only one who was completely gobsmacked last night when Diane Abbott said on 'This Week' that she was a fan of Chairman Mao despite the fact that it had just been pointed out to her that he was responsible for the deaths of millions and was one of the world's most brutal dictators?

Diane's logic was that he was still essentially good because he ended feudalism. Hmm.



Naturally, Portillo and Andrew Neil were stunned by this remark, as was I.

You can watch the latest programme here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/default.stm

I lost all respect for Abbott when she ranted against Blair for his choice of school for his children, to only then go on to send her own kids to private school.

But this is the tip of the iceberg and she has a continuous habit of embarrassing the Labour party.

It's bad enough that there seems to be a fair number of Castro lovers in the party, but when members (and indeed Labour MP's) are expressing admiration for Chairman Mao, you know something is seriously wrong with their principles.

tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Diane Abbott suffering from Foot-in-Mouth disease (again) | 3 comments (3 topical)

Re: Diane Abbott (#1)

by doctordunc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:59:54 PM GMT


You've rather misrepresented Diane there.  She didn't answer the question at all well, but then the issue was being dealt with on such a trivial level by the guest and Neil (dictator bling?) that it was quite hard to participate in a serious discussion.  The question was not, 'do you support Chairmoan Mao?' but 'why are people outraged by people dressing up like Nazis but not by people having Little Red Books?' - which is actually a fairly stupid question.  Diane did NOT say she was an admirer of Mao.  Furthermore, Portillo was making sweeping statements which needed to be discussed seriously, not just trotted out as if at a debating society (you would not have been able to tell, from his short-hand, that the majority of those millions died in a famine; a famine undoubtedly caused by the policies of Mao's government, and the secrecy of it - but nevertheless different to the people tortured and gunned down by Pinochet whom he was comparing favourably to Mao).

I could obviously suffer a bit of foot-in-mouth disease here myself if I'm not careful, but I think it is important that such things are considered.  The idea of deciding who 'the worst' dictators are/were is an idiotic one (though Portillo and Neil tell us it was Mao and Stalin); there is nothing to be gained by such gruesome arithmatic.  The reason why people can be happy to read a 'Little Red Book' (or wear a Che Guevara t-shirt, I suppose) while still being aware of atrocities is because of a (difficult, controversial, problematic) separation of words and deeds, intentions and outcomes, etc.  Nazism was a bloody, repulsive reality based on a bloody, repulsive theory.  Much of the ideology of Maoism (we can debate how flawed it may have been, etc.) was 'good'.  Much of what Mao fought against was itself bloody and repulsive.

Portillo made the connection with Pinochet (and was rather offensively dismissive of the true horrors of that regime built on torture): the question of Thatcher's relationship with Pinochet, I suppose, can be viewed in a similar way.  She is able - somehow - to seperate the torture and the horror from the economic policy and see Pinochet as a 'good'.

This is a VERY interesting debate - but it is not the debate that was had on This Week last night; and Diane really had a choice between saying nothing (while some fairly stupid things were being said by the others) or attempting to answer a direct question.  She did the latter - rather unsuccessfully - but she did not do as you charge.


Re: Diane Abbott (#2)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM GMT

I absolutely disagree that much of the ideology of Maoism was 'good'.

The reason why people can be happy to read a 'Little Red Book' (or wear a Che Guevara t-shirt, I suppose) while still being aware of atrocities is because of a (difficult, controversial, problematic) separation of words and deeds, intentions and outcomes, etc.


I'm disappointed by this. It sounds as though you're saying that because Mao (and to an extent Castro) didn't intend in the beginning to kill so many, that somehow that makes their leaderships more acceptable. Where as Hitler always knew from the start what he was going to do, so therefore his dictatorship is much worse. This is flawed logic, and morally wrong.

The deaths experienced under Mao were not just the tens of millions who died because of the famine that he created after the 'Great Leap Forward'. But he also ordered many executions of counter-revolutionaries (800,000 were killed this way according to the US State Dept.) and Mao himself admitted to killing 700,000 each year from 1949-1953. And at least 1.5million people were sent to his 'Reform through Labour' camps.

He also persecuted another 500,000 who spoke out against communism after he initially 'let a hundred flowers bloom'. Not to mention the millions of 'intellectuals' that were persecuted and imprisoned during the 'Cultural Revolution'.

All in all, an abhorrent period in history caused by a truly evil man and a desperate ideology. If Diane Abbott can forgive all that because he 'ended feudalism' then that is shameful.


[ Parent ]

Re: Diane Abbott (#3)

by doctordunc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:17:13 PM GMT

I absolutely disagree that much of the ideology of Maoism was 'good'.

I'm sure you do, but I trust you would acknowledge that the ideology was not one of mass murder, and that somebody could be a supporter of the ideology and horrified by much of the practice (indeed - and perhaps this is the point - it would be almost impossible to support both the ideology and the practice, other than through the most tortuous logic).

I'm disappointed by this. It sounds as though you're saying that because Mao (and to an extent Castro) didn't intend in the beginning to kill so many, that somehow that makes their leaderships more acceptable.

We're both finding ourselves disappointed!  I would have thought it was obvious that any leadership responsible for the deaths of millions of people (and I stated my awareness of that responsibility in my post) would not be acceptable to me on any level.  Perhaps I needed to make that clearer, but I didn't realise it needed saying.  Furthermore, by pointing out that most of the 60 million people Portillo referred to died in famine, I did not in any way suggest that the others were not killed by direct persecution and execution.  If it seemed like I were playing down the atrocities, I can only apologise - but I really don't think it should have seemed that way.

I don't play games of 'which dictator is the worst'.  I don't think the study of the 'truly evil man' is a particularly useful way to gain historical insight (though I know people do make interesting studies of it).  

If somebody wrote a piece of political philosophy that you agreed with every word of, and then went on to do something you abhorred, would you then disagree with the philosophy, or would you just - heartbroken and disappointed as you would be - seperate them, continue to be inspired by the words, but be a constructive but honest critic of the man/woman?  I think the intellectually honest answer has to be the latter.

The terror didn't make 1917 wrong.  (You may well think 1917 was wrong for other reasons, but it is not rendered wrong by subsequent events, only consequent ones).

And finally, Diane Abbott did not say she could 'forgive all that because he ended feudalism'; she said that 'some people' thought he did more good than bad, and then tried to clarify that by suggesting they thought that he had laid the groundwork for a modern China.  She didn't actually say whether she agreed with these people (such as Will Hutton) or not.

I don't normally jump to Diane's defence - I disagree with her on quite a few points and apart from anything else she is very able to defend herself; but to accuse someone of being an apologist for a dictator is a serious thing (and after the number of unjust accusations over the years that I've been an apologist for Saddam, the Taleban, Milosevic, etc. I tend to be roused by the topic!)




[ Parent ]

Diane Abbott suffering from Foot-in-Mouth disease (again) | 3 comments (3 topical)