Living Marxism: Difference between revisions

'''''Living Marxism''''' ('''''LM''''') was a British magazine originally launched in 1988 as the journal of the British [[Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1978)|Revolutionary Communist Party]] (RCP). ItThe wasmagazine laterattracted rebrandedattention for denying both the [[Rwandan genocide]] and [[Bosnian genocide]]. Rebranded as '''''LM''''' in 1992, andit ceased publication in March 2000 following a successful libel lawsuit brought by [[ITN]] over Living Marxism's criticism of ITN's coverage of the Bosnian war.<ref name="BBC-15-March-2000">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/677481.stm "ITN wins Bosnian war libel case"]. ''BBC News''. 15 March 2000</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Wells|first=Matt|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/mar/31/medialaw.media|title=LM closes after losing libel action|work=The Guardian|date=31 March 2000|accessdateaccess-date=9 July 2016}}</ref> It was promptly resurrected as ''[[Spiked (magazine)|Spiked]]'', an [[online magazine|Internet magazine]].

The spirit of ''LM'' is to go against the grain: to oppose all censorship, bans and codes of conduct; to stand up for social and scientific experimentation; to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs. These are basic human values that cannot be compromised if we are ever going to create a world fit for people.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20000607160440/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM97/index.html Welcome to the new-look LM -– the big-mouthed, broad-minded magazine that will shout what others don't dare to whisper], LM issue 97, February 1997</ref>}}

Views expounded with regularity in ''LM'' included "[[Culture of fear|fear culture]]", for example by questioning the then media coverage of [[AIDS]] as a predominantly homosexual disease in the West. Its critique covered media coverage in Africa and the developing world in the context of Western intervention, underdevelopment and poverty. It debated environmentalist claims that limiting [[Consumption (economics)|consumption]] was a [[Progressivism|progressive]] view. The magazine raised concerns about the left's rejection of scientific thought and critique, especially of medicine, biotechnology and nuclear physics. ''LM'' writers critiqued the media portrayal of the civil wars in [[Rwandan Civil War|Rwanda]] and [[Bosnian War|Bosnia]] by questioning the use of the term "[[genocide]]" to describe the conflicts.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM85/LM85_Rwanda.html/ |title= Massacring the truth in Rwanda cn|date=November December 1995 |first= Fiona |last= Foster |work= Living Marxism |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20010521175331/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM85/LM85_Rwanda.html/ |archivedate= 21 May 2001 2020}}</ref>

{{quote| The lesson I would draw from my visit is that we must reject the term ‘genocide’'genocide' in Rwanda. It has been used inside and outside Rwanda to criminalise the majority of ordinary Rwandan people, to justify outside interference in the country’scountry's affairs, and to lend legitimacy to a minority military government imposed on Rwanda by Western powers.}}

It has been statedsuggested by environmentalists such as [[George Monbiot]]<ref>Monbiot, George (9 December 2003). [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/09/highereducation.uk2 "Invasion of the entryists"]. ''The Guardian'' (London).</ref> and [[Peter Melchett]] that the group of writers associated with ''LM'' continue to constitute aan ''LM'' network pursuing an ideologically motivated "[[Anti-environmentalism|anti-environmentalist]]" agenda under the guise of promoting [[humanism]].<ref>Melchett, Peter (19 April 2007). [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_melchett/2007/04/farming_for_the_future.html "Clear intentions"]. ''The Guardian'' (London).</ref><ref>[http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39 Profiles: Martin Durkin], [http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_intro.html LobbyWatch]. Retrieved 17 April 2007.</ref> Writers who used to write for ''Living Marxism'' reject this as a "[[McCarthyite]] [[conspiracy theory]]".<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3132/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070528170133/http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3132/ |url-status= dead |archive-date= 28 May 2007 |date=25 April 2007 |title= Humanising politics—that is my only agenda |first= Brendan |last= O'Neill |work= Spiked Online}}</ref>

In theFebruary first issue where the journal was renamed ''LM''1997, editor [[Mick Hume]] published an article by German journalist [[Thomas Deichmann]] which claimed that [[ITN]] had misrepresented the Bosnian war in its coverage in 1992. The publishers of ''LM'', Informinc (LM) Ltd., were sued for [[libel]] by ITN. The case initially caused international condemnation of ITN as one of ''LM''{{'}}s critics, the journalist [[George Monbiot]], who wrote in ''Prospect'' magazine: {{quote|Some of the world's leading liberals leapt to the magazine's defence: [[Harold Evans]], [[Doris Lessing]], [[Paul Theroux]], [[Fay Weldon]] and many others condemned ITN's "deplorable attack on press freedom". The [[Institute of Contemporary Arts]], bulwark of progressive liberalism, enhanced LM's heroic profile by co-hosting a three-day conference with the magazine, called "Free Speech Wars". With the blessing of the liberal world, this puny iconoclastic David will go to war with the clanking orthodoxies of the multinational Goliath.<ref name="Monbiot">{{cite news |url =http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1998/11/01/far-left-or-far-right/ |title=Far Left or Far Right? |date=1 November 1998 |first= George |last= Monbiot |work= [[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect]] |location =London}}</ref>}}

The article "The picture that fooled the world" argued that ITN's footage in which an emaciated Bosnian Muslim man stood behind a barbed wire fence was designed to portray a Nazi-style extermination camp while Deichmann claimed: "It was not a prison, and certainly not a 'concentration camp', but a collection centre for refugees, many of whom went there seeking safety and could leave again if they wished".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM97/LM97_Bosnia.html|title=LM 97: The picture that fooled the world|date=10 November 1999|publisher=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19991110185707/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM97/LM97_Bosnia.html|archive-date=10 November 1999}}</ref> However, an examination of the substance of this case by a professor of cultural and political geography at [[Durham University]] argues that the key claims made by Deichmann and ''LM'' are "erroneous and flawed".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.david-campbell.org/photography/atrocity-and-memory/|title=Atrocity and Memory|publisher=DavidCampbell.com}}</ref>

The libel case went against ''LM'' and in March 2000 the magazine was forced to close.<ref>{{cite webnews |title=Munira Mirza, revolutionary conservative |url=https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/06/27/munira-mirza-revolutionary-conservative |websitenewspaper=[[The Economist]] |accessdateaccess-date=30 June 2020 |date=27 June 2020}}</ref> Reporters [[Penny Marshall (UK journalist)|Penny Marshall]] and Ian Williams were each awarded £150,000 over the ''LM'' story and the magazine was ordered to pay £75,000 for libelling ITN in a February 1997 article.<ref name="BBC-15-March-2000"/>

Looking back Hume commented in ''[[The Times]]'': {{quote|Would I do it again? We could have got out of the case by apologising, which seems to be the fashionable thing to do. But I believe in the unfashionable freedom to state what you understand to be true, even if it causes offence. I would do almost anything to avoid ever again setting foot in Court 14. But some things really are more important than a mortgage.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article419696.ece |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110523235709/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article419696.ece |url-status= dead |archive-date= 23 May 2011 |title= The day I faced being a £1m bankrupt |date=7 March 2005 |first= Mick |last= Hume |newspaper = The Times |location =London |accessdateaccess-date=14 April 2007}}</ref>}}

In contrast, Professor Campbell of [[Durham University]] summarised his study of the case as follows: <blockquote>[A]s strange as existing British libel law is, it had an important and surprisingly beneficial effect in the case of ITN vs LM. The LM defendants and Thomas Deichmann were properly represented at the trial and were able to lay out all the details of their claim that the ITN reporters had "deliberately misrepresented" the situation at Trnopolje. Having charged 'deliberate misrepresentation', they needed to prove 'deliberate misrepresentation'. To this end, the LM defendants were able to cross-examine Penny Marshall and Ian Williams, as well as every member of the ITN crews who were at the camps, along with other witnesses. (That they didn't take up the opportunity to cross-examine the Bosnian doctor imprisoned at Trnopolje, who featured in the ITN stories and was called to testify on the conditions he and others suffered, was perhaps the moment any remaining shred of credibility for LM's allegations evaporated). They were able to show the ITN reports to the court, including the rushes from which the final TV stories were edited, and conduct a forensic examination of the visuals they alleged were deceitful. And all of this took place in front of a jury of twelve citizens who they needed to convince about the truthfulness of their allegations.

They failed. The jury found unanimously against LM and awarded the maximum possible damages. So it was not ITN that bankrupted LM. It was LM's lies about the ITN reports that bankrupted themselves, morally and financially. Despite their failure, those who lied about the ITN reports have had no trouble obtaining regular access to the mainstream media in Britain, where they continue to make their case as though the 2000 court verdict simply didn't exist. Their freedom of speech has thus not been permanently infringed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.david-campbell.org/2009/11/14/chomskys-bosnian-shame/|title=Chomsky's Bosnian shame -– David Campbell|date=14 November 2009|publisheraccess-date=16 November 2009|archive-date=19 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019101209/http://www.david-campbell.org/2009/11/14/chomskys-bosnian-shame/|url-status=dead}}</ref></blockquote>

* [[Fiona Fox (UK press officer)|Fiona Fox]]