Assessing the theory of a “Revolution of 1959”

Several years ago, I discussed how I had long noticed a shift in the late 1950s from spinners almost always heading the averages and wicket-takers, to pacemen equally consistently doing so afterwards. I called this putative change the “Revolution of 1959” as there were, in an undoubtedly short-sighted manner, changes to pitch covering in county cricket after the financial disaster of 1958.

The change that occurred over county cricket during the late 1950s was noticed to some extent in the press, but Wisden did not seriously note it until after the West Indies beat England in the 1963 series — then for the rest of the twentieth century one sees quite frequent lamentations of the decline of spin bowling in England. It is highly possible though that there is an element of code in these lamentations and that writers like Norman Preston, John Woodcock, Graeme Wright, Robin Marlar and David Green were more concerned to see England win more than to see more spin.

In order to test the hypothesis of a “Revolution of 1959”, I have compiled and tabulated below:

1. the number of spinners amongst the top 30 non-touring bowlers bowling at least one thousand balls in each English season between 1919 and 1999
2. the number of non-touring spinners who took over 100 wickets in each English season between 1919 and 1999
3. the most wickets by a non-touring spinner in each season

High numbers of spinners have been coloured in gold, and low numbers of spinners and of wickets have been shaded in red. Extremely low numbers of spinners and total wickets by the leading spinner have been shaded in dark red. There could be some variations in these figures due to difficulties of classifying many bowlers, especially older ones.

Season	Spinners in top 30	Spinners with over 100 wickets	Most wickets by spinner
1919	13	3	164
1920	18	12	185
1921	14	10	167
1922	12	12	206
1923	13	15	209
1924	12	12	204
1925	13	12	222
1926	15	14	213
1927	14	6	193
1928	15	9	304
1929	16	13	267
1930	17	12	275
1931	14	12	276
1932	17	11	253
1933	15	11	298
1934	11	9	205
1935	11	12	212
1936	11	8	216
1937	13	13	248
1938	13	11	153
1939	12	7	200
1946	20	15	184
1947	17	12	238
1948	20	13	174
1949	16	17	183
1950	18	16	193
1951	15	11	157
1952	15	14	177
1953	17	10	172
1954	15	11	196
1955	15	18	216
1956	18	17	177
1957	14	13	212
1958	12	5	170
1959	11	11	122
1960	9	7	142
1961	9	11	128
1962	8	4	136
1963	12	7	126
1964	12	11	136
1965	6	3	121
1966	10	8	157
1967	9	8	136
1968	7	5	131
1969	8	2	102
1970	7	4	106
1971	15	4	131
1972	10	0	90
1973	7	1	105
1974	6	1	113
1975	11	0	85
1976	13	0	93
1977	7	0	87
1978	5	1	110
1979	6	1	106
1980	9	1	101
1981	6	0	90
1982	7	0	90
1983	7	3	106
1984	8	0	93
1985	3	0	72
1986	6	0	89
1987	4	0	88
1988	1	0	76
1989	3	0	67
1990	3	0	75
1991	6	0	88
1992	6	0	87
1993	5	0	85
1994	2	0	90
1995	4	1	105
1996	3	0	78
1997	4	0	66
1998	2	0	63
1999	4	0	66

If we study the table above, we do see definite evidence of a “Revolution of 1959”. We do see that the number of spinners in the top thirty does fall abruptly between 1956 and 1962, and to a lower level than seen at any point between 1919 and 1956. Moreover, the 1959 season itself saw no spinner take 125 wickets, whereas in every season from 1919 (in fact from 1905) to 1958 at least one spinner took at least 150. There is, indeed, clear evidence that increased pitch covering and other changes like a standardised 75 yard boundary and intensive use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers (which allowed balls to retain shine for much longer, often from one new ball to the next) reduced the influence of spinners in the late 1950s, and that the influence of spin has continuously declined since.

Some scholars have argued that the decline of spin began much earlier — with the response to Bradman’s prolific scoring in 1930. It is true that the unusual postwar predominance of spin occurred because World War II almost completely eliminated a strong England pace attack, and replacement pacemen did not get the training against top opposition during the war they did in Australia. Nonetheless, even between 1934 and 1939, there were never so few spinners in the top thirty as there have constantly been since the beginnings of World Series Cricket in 1977, and the decimated postwar pace bowling recovered before the proportion of spinners plummeted.

Bowling versus the strong counties in 1922

After having done tables of bowling against the “strong” counties of the “Big Six”, Essex and Hampshire for 1920 and 1921, I have now done the same for the 1922 season.

This was the fourth-last full season with no official international series, and the third-last after 1925 and 1970 (when the “Stop the Seventy Tour” movement prevented the scheduled South Africa tour) with no touring team whatsoever. Apart from a hot and dry period at the end of May and the beginning of June, the weather was cool and wet — similar to 1920.

My analysis of the results for 1920 and 1921 suggest that the radically different Australian pitches undoubtedly account for the majority of the failure of English spin bowlers there. With the several failed pace bowlers, my reasoning is less clear, although a definite contribution from weak batting can be detected in cases like Abe Waddington, who looked as much less good bowler when his analyses are restricted to bowling against the “Big Six”, Essex and Hampshire.

As for 1920 and 1921, in the table below spin bowlers are shaded in gold, and only bowlers who bowled minimally 1,000 balls (166.4 overs) against the “strong” counties have been included.

Bowling in 1922 Against Strong Counties (Qualification 1,000 Balls):

		O	M	R	W	Average	5 w/i	10 w/m
T.L. Richmond	Nottinghamshire	463.5	116	1,259	79	15.94	8	2
C.W.L. Parker	Gloucestershire	609.2	196	1,316	79	16.66	6	3
R. Kilner	Yorkshire	488	183	796	47	16.94	5	2
Mr. A.E.R. Gilligan	Sussex	452	78	1,180	68	17.35	5	0
G.C. Collins	Kent	327.4	49	943	53	17.79	5	1
G.G. Macaulay	Yorkshire	340.4	87	775	42	18.45	2	0
E. Robinson	Yorkshire	298.1	109	527	28	18.82	1	0
F. Barratt	Nottinghamshire	476.1	124	1,177	62	18.98	4	0
M.W. Tate	Sussex	505.2	149	1,086	56	19.39	4	0
Mr. G.M. Louden	Essex	207.1	44	546	28	19.50	3	0
Mr. E.R. Wilson	Yorkshire	170	73	258	13	19.85	1	0
A.S. Kennedy	Hampshire	587.2	158	1,557	78	19.96	8	1
A. Waddington	Yorkshire	400.1	90	975	48	20.31	5	3
L.W. Cook	Lancashire	600.1	143	1,343	65	20.66	5	0
Mr. J.S.B. Gentry	Surrey	241	82	434	21	20.67	0	0
J.V. Murdin	Northamptonshire	224.5	39	664	32	20.75	3	1
J.R. Gunn	Nottinghamshire	184.4	58	381	18	21.17	0	0
W. Rhodes	Yorkshire	341	126	635	30	21.17	0	0
A.P. Freeman	Kent	618.1	147	1,694	80	21.18	6	3
G.S. Boyes	Hampshire	331.5	77	976	45	21.69	5	1
Mr. G.T.S. Stevens	Middlesex	233.1	40	769	35	21.97	4	1
Mr. J.C. White	Somerset	459	142	1,034	46	22.48	3	1
F.J. Durston	Middlesex	348	99	884	39	22.67	1	0
J.W. Hearne	Middlesex	383.1	62	1,142	50	22.84	4	2
Mr. P.G.H. Fender	Surrey	643.1	131	1,857	80	23.21	6	1
Mr. N.E. Haig	Middlesex	538.2	164	1,163	49	23.73	2	0
Mr. W.T. Greswell	Somerset	326.2	101	721	29	24.86	1	0
H.E. Roberts	Sussex	249	48	687	27	25.44	1	0
E.H. Bowley	Sussex	294	56	714	28	25.50	0	0
R.K. Tyldesley	Lancashire	335.4	75	913	35	26.09	1	0
S.J. Staples	Nottinghamshire	398.3	123	915	35	26.14	1	0
C.H. Parkin	Lancashire	577.3	155	1,401	53	26.43	3	0
T.F. Shepherd	Surrey	311.3	82	771	29	26.59	2	0
A. Morton	Derbyshire	313.2	83	727	27	26.93	2	0
F.E. Woolley	Kent	571	176	1,385	51	27.16	3	1
P.T. Mills	Gloucestershire	353.2	81	927	34	27.26	1	0
E.G. Dennett	Gloucestershire	304	61	852	31	27.48	2	0
C.N. Woolley	Northamptonshire	205	56	475	17	27.94	1	0
W.E. Astill	Leicestershire	527	135	1,471	52	28.29	3	0
Mr. J.W.H.T. Douglas	Essex	464.3	70	1,501	51	29.43	2	1
G.R. Cox	Sussex	382.2	101	771	26	29.65	1	0
C.F. Root	Worcestershire	268.2	60	780	25	31.20	1	0
Hon. F.S.G. Calthorpe	Warwickshire	358.4	76	1,091	34	32.09	3	0
W.J. Abel	Surrey	210	56	546	17	32.12	0	0
Mr. J.G. Dixon	Essex	278.5	41	913	28	32.61	1	0
A. Skelding	Leicestershire	261.2	40	825	25	33.00	2	0
E. Robson	Somerset	309.1	89	798	24	33.25	0	0
Mr. H.A. Gilbert	Worcestershire	366.4	80	1,118	33	33.88	2	0
G. Geary	Leicestershire	307.5	79	826	24	34.42	0	0
W. Bestwick	Derbyshire	208.3	50	589	17	34.65	1	0
H.A. Peach	Surrey	471.3	133	1,121	32	35.03	1	0
J.G. Bessant	Gloucestershire	247.2	27	947	27	35.07	1	0
J.A. Newman	Hampshire	404.1	86	1,359	38	35.76	2	1
W.E. Benskin	Leicestershire	224	34	790	21	37.62	0	0
Mr. J.J. Bridges	Somerset	349	60	1,089	28	38.89	2	0
C.V. Tarbox	Worcestershire	190.3	23	774	19	40.74	0	0
Mr. L.C. Eastman	Essex	217.2	46	693	16	43.31	1	0
A. Nash	Glamorgan	226.2	49	625	14	44.64	1	0
H. Howell	Warwickshire	354.5	45	1,132	25	45.28	1	0
W.G. Quaife	Warwickshire	203	24	692	15	46.13	0	0
Mr. J.C. Clay	Glamorgan	171	18	662	11	60.18	0	0
C.A.G. Russell	Essex	167	29	484	8	60.50	0	0
W.H. Ashdown	Kent	196.1	31	631	8	78.88	0	0

The table above shows some improvement in averages amongst the pace bowlers. Amongst bowlers above medium pace, only Durston or Howell averaged under 20 against the strong counties in either 1920 or 1921. Both failed severely against Australia both at home and abroad, but McLaren’s England Eleven performed in such as way as to imply that these were in no way the best existing bowlers for facing the Australians. During the 1922 season George Louden, rated by some critics as the best bowler England possessed in 1921, was so rated much more firmly after his seven for 84 on a perfect Oval pitch against the wonderful Surrey batting. Louden’s figures are less outstanding than I expected. Maurice Tate, who originated his fast-medium style with pace off the pitch in this season, is already more highly placed than i expected.

George Collins, a fast-medium bowler who was the only real support for Freeman and Woolley, is surprisingly the leading non-spinner here — although his figures are substantially (not so much as the 1923 Wisden implied) due to his flukish 16 for 83 against Nottinghamshire at Dover in August. Tich Richmond — who headed the averages against strong counties — was a sensitive and small figure who in this season bowled with an amount of spin observers say he never equalled later as he put on weight. Surrey, however, did knock off Richmond on a good Trent Bridge wicket where Fender took nine for 146. Roy Kilner — in 1924/1925 unusually successful for an English spinner in Australia — was rated by critics as the best professional bowler in England. Contrariwise, Harry Howell, the leading paceman in the 1921 table, was hopeless against the strong counties apart from his 6 for 7 in Hampshire’s amazing debacle at Birmingham when they were bowled out for 15 — which observers say could have been all out for 7.

Om the whole, the table does suggest some improvement in pace bowling — though probably slight — vis-à-vis 1920 and 1921.

What is notable is the inconsistency of the bowlers at the top of table, as noted for Howell. In fact, apart from Kilner and Rockley Wilson no bowler averaged under 20 against the “strong” counties in both 1920 and 1921. This does imply that even the best regular English bowlers were not of inherently high quality, although the relatively small sample size (numbers of overs) is certain to make bowling records more erratic, especially with the variety of pitches found without covering.

What is also somewhat notable is that bowlers from the weakest counties look, in general, to have gained falser reputations than bowlers from not merely “strong” but also mid-table counties like Sussex or Somerset. This is notable for Howell in 1920 and 1922, and also Billy Bestwick of Derbyshire, who despite being the worst “rabbit” with the bat of his generation and equally awful as a fieldsman, was apparently considered for England in 1921.

‘Russia Against Modernity’ — a different perspective on the war against Ukraine

Alexander Etkind’s Russia Against Modernity examines the Putin regime and his war against Ukraine in a totally new light for me

Although in recent years I have come to believe that the super-rich petrostates of the Persian Gulf are an overlooked threat to the planet’s climate, Alexander Etkind’s Russia Against Modernity, published last year and which I am reading in the Bailleau Library, shows that the problems of the Gulf petrostates are actually more widespread than I had assumed from merely studying their basic distinctive features. This study is one that has increasingly occupied my attention as more and more evidence of runaway climate change with no sign of increasing pressure on undoubtedly culpable super-rich Gulf royal families, nor even academic assessment of the role they have played blockading change ever since the Kyōtō Protocol. The Al Saʿud are the richest family in the world and the Al Thani, Al Ṣabaḥ, Al Nuhayan and Al Maktum must be close rivals. I have come to understand that, for Austrian School economists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, these tax-free petromonarchies are the best political model available because they extract no wealth from capitalists, earn their money like a business would, and given them absolute freedom as to their workers’ wages and working conditions, whilst denying their workers any human rights.

It was nonetheless surprising to read that the Russian regime of Vladimir Putin, whom many observers consider the most powerful man in the world, has the similarities with the Muslim petromonarchies that it does. Etkind in Russia Against Modernity notes that the growth of Russian oil exports under Putin has allowed rents to account for half of Kremlin revenue, and that it has a flat income tax and no inheritance tax — a policy far beyond even the US under the Republican Party. What is most startling is that he believes that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has as its goal stopping the decarbonisation of Europe. Etkind believes that if Europe decarbonises completely it will constitute both an example for the rest of the world and eliminate Putin’s primary revenue stream.

The most important thing about Russia Against Modernity is that it puts a whole new perspective upon a war that is commonly viewed as aiming to re-established the old Stalinist-type USSR. What Etkind does not understand, though, is that any effort to contain the hegemonic petrostates and settler colonies who form the new global elite is in a sense a struggle against modernity itself. Much more than Ron Rogowski understood a third of a century ago, the top one percent or so in the petrostates and the settler colonies monopolise their nations’ wealth gains of the past half-century of sustained globalisation. What Etkind does note, though, is how these elites have united against the rest of the world to blockade overdue transitions from fossil fuels. However, he still lacks the historical perspective needed to understand how this system was created and why — because the global super-rich were seeking an alternative to a tax state that they, in a topsy-turvy manner, viewed as parasitic on them.

Even with these real deficiencies, Russia Against Modernity was an interesting read for me today. One can learn a fair bit that is not discussed in the news or in conventional analyses of Putin and his war against Ukraine.

Bowling versus the strong counties in 1921

Last March I wrote and briefly analysed a table of first-class against the “strong” counties (the “Big Six” plus Essex and Hampshire) in order to see how much English bowling in the 1920 season was affected by the extremely poor batting of the weak counties, and how much it was affected by the radical difference between English and Australian pitches.

1920/1921 was notable in that at Test level that winter in Australia, English bowling proved dreadfully weak, despite the fact that the county averages suggest English bowling to be strong. This contrasts strongly with the late 1940s or late 1980s when comparably weak English bowling was accurately captured by county figures (in the late 1980s, of course, one would need to exclude overseas fast bowlers less affected by rigged conditions via covering).

My analysis of the results for 1920 bowling against the “strong” counties suggests that the failure of English spinners in Australia was due to inability to cope with radically different pitches on which it was much more difficult to spin the ball, whereas the leading pacemen possessed Wisden’s archetypal “false reputations” from bad batting of the weak counties.

In this post I will do the same for the 1921 season, to see to what extent the trends noted for the 1920 season were persistent. Given that the 1921 season was exceptionally dry — which as the last two Tests demonstrated enormously helped the touring Australians — one might expect that the spin bowlers would show less effect from pitches than in the wetter season of 1920 because conditions were generally less favourable. With the pace bowlers, one would not expect any significant difference.

In the table below spin bowlers are shaded in gold, and as for 1920 only bowlers who bowled minimally 1,000 balls (166.4 overs) against the “strong” counties have been included, with the exception of Cecil Parkin who was England’s most successful bowler in the Tests and really needed to be included.

Bowling in 1921 Against Strong Counties (Qualification 1,000 Balls or 1 Test):

			O	M	R	W	Average	5 w/i	10 w/m
Mr. E.R. Wilson	Yorkshire		223.1	103	333	28	11.89	2	0
A. Morton	Derbyshire		189.2	64	372	26	14.31	3	1
W. Rhodes	Yorkshire	1	544.4	185	1,079	64	16.86	4	0
C.H. Parkin	Lancashire	4	107.2	20	352	20	17.60	2	1
F.E. Woolley	Kent	5	568.4	180	1,380	75	18.40	7	3
Mr. C.S. Marriott	Lancashire		170.4	53	353	19	18.58	1	0
R. Kilner	Yorkshire		220	81	388	20	19.40	1	0
E.H. Bowley	Sussex		169	34	530	27	19.63	0	0
H. Howell	Warwickshire	1	271.1	57	755	38	19.87	3	0
Mr. J.C. White	Somerset	1	334.2	105	656	32	20.50	4	1
Mr. H.A. Gilbert	Worcestershire		273	60	696	33	21.09	4	1
G.G. Macaulay	Yorkshire		348	74	933	44	21.20	2	1
E.R. Remnant	Hampshire		204	49	573	27	21.22	2	0
T. Rushby	Surrey		262.1	79	582	27	21.56	2	0
Mr. N.E. Haig	Middlesex	1	595.1	168	1,510	69	21.88	5	0
F.J. Durston	Middlesex	1	563.5	126	1,580	72	21.94	5	2
Mr. J.W.H.T. Douglas	Essex	5	325.2	58	998	45	22.18	4	2
J.W. Hearne	Middlesex		267.4	58	773	34	22.74	1	0
A.P. Freeman	Kent		444	106	1,300	57	22.81	3	0
H.W. Lee	Middlesex		285.2	67	845	37	22.84	0	0
C.W.L. Parker	Gloucestershire	1	393	136	895	37	24.19	3	1
L.W. Cook	Lancashire		738	163	1,800	73	24.66	4	0
A.S. Kennedy	Hampshire		753.4	172	2,004	81	24.74	5	0
W.E. Astill	Leicestershire		444.3	105	1,190	48	24.79	4	0
A. Shipman	Leicestershire		195	16	746	30	24.87	2	0
G. Geary	Leicestershire		169.4	27	424	17	24.94	2	0
J.W. Hitch	Surrey	1	336	64	900	36	25.00	1	0
W. Bestwick	Derbyshire		242.4	50	706	28	25.21	3	0
A. Waddington	Yorkshire		334.5	68	1,018	40	25.45	3	0
H.A. Peach	Surrey		319	88	795	31	25.65	0	0
E. Robson	Somerset		238.2	61	652	25	26.08	2	1
Mr. V.W.C. Jupp	Sussex	2	428.3	88	1,365	52	26.25	4	1
Mr. P.G.H. Fender	Surrey	2	537.5	93	1,881	70	26.87	5	1
M.W. Tate	Sussex		452.1	118	1,209	44	27.48	2	0
E.G. Dennett	Gloucestershire		367.5	85	996	35	28.46	2	0
P.T. Mills	Gloucestershire		299.5	85	801	28	28.61	0	0
Hon. F.S.G. Calthorpe	Warwickshire		331.2	77	889	31	28.68	0	0
T.L. Richmond	Nottinghamshire	1	603.5	92	1,985	69	28.77	2	1
Mr. A.E.R. Gilligan	Sussex		429.5	66	1,434	49	29.27	3	0
J.A. Newman	Hampshire		631.4	119	1,994	68	29.32	5	1
F. Barratt	Nottinghamshire		467.2	121	1,254	42	29.86	4	0
A.L. Howell	Warwickshire		170	14	630	21	30.00	1	0
J.H. King	Leicestershire		235	35	741	24	30.88	0	0
W.E. Benskin	Leicestershire		246.2	23	900	29	31.03	2	0
F.A. Pearson	Worcestershire		240	48	808	26	31.08	2	0
J.R. Gunn	Nottinghamshire		386	108	937	30	31.23	1	1
G.C. Collins	Kent		287.2	32	959	30	31.97	1	0
W.J. Fairservice	Kent		396.5	85	1,034	32	32.31	1	0
J.D. Tyldesley	Lancashire		350.2	36	1,267	39	32.49	0	0
G.R. Cox	Sussex		380.3	105	948	27	35.11	0	0
S.J. Staples	Nottinghamshire		464.5	107	1,382	39	35.44	2	0
Mr. J.G. Dixon	Essex		356.5	42	1,348	37	36.43	2	0
C.N. Woolley	Northamptonshire		276.3	59	774	20	38.70	0	0
Mr. G.A. Rotherham	Warwickshire		321	47	1,007	26	38.73	0	0
R.K. Tyldesley	Lancashire		297	54	873	22	39.68	1	0
W.G. Quaife	Warwickshire		261.1	32	882	21	42.00	0	0
A.E. Thomas	Northamptonshire		312	74	853	18	47.39	0	0
T.F. Shepherd	Surrey		167.2	33	503	7	71.86	0	0
J.V. Murdin	Northamptonshire		281.5	28	1,173	15	78.20	1	0

What is striking is that spinners who failed entirely against the Australians are in fact more prominent at the top of this table than they were for the 1920 season. This does imply that even in such an exceptional English summer as that of 1921, spin bowlers bowled under conditions entirely unlike those in Australia. However, one could argue that — for English spinners — Parkin, Rockley Wilson and especially Kilner were not by any means awful in Australia, and that the results reflect relatively little. Further argument in favour of this is that I had doubts over whether to colour certain players in gold, because many old English “spinners” were actually bowlers of virtually medium pace who did not rely on flight.

England’s weakness in pace bowling is particularly apparent here. Only Harry Howell, whose record in 1920 suggested he was flattered by bowling against many awful batting sides, averaged under 20 against “strong” counties. The key pace bowlers who defeated the Australians late in the season, Michael Falcon and C.H. Gibson, again bowled too little for inclusion, as did George Louden who was viewed by several Australian batsmen as the best bowler they played against. In fact, although Douglas and Louden were almost certainly the best opening attack in county cricket, they were in harness just three times in Essex’ 26 games — two losses against Middlesex and a win against Gloucestershire. The fact that these amateurs were tested so poorly clearly shows serious problems, although it was plain that none of them would ever be able to tour Australia.

One year too soon — and where the socialists have been wrong for half a century

Today, after yesterday reading a depressing forecast of hot and dry weather for the next week, and after a windy and unpleasantly grey afternoon that left me hoping for some rain whilst a “medium” possibility existed in the BOM forecast, it has come to me that the runaway climate change I had predicted almost exactly one year ago is now with us.

There was — I kept looking and looking all night — no rain anywhere in sight, and the forecast is getting hotter and hotter day by day with no sign of rain, although it is pointless to look for it! Although Melbourne had 0.2 millimetre of rain on the first day of this month — actually this rain fell in July but was counted in August — it is virtually certain that there will be no further rainfall this month. I made a safe bet of $100 with my mother than there will be no rain for the rest of this month, but almost certainly it will be much, much, much worse. Turning on the tap always makes me realise that Melbourne’s dams will be dry before any significant rain ever occurs again! One cannot — must not —make less dire or less gloomy predictions for the rest of this year, or next, or the year after that, or ever.

The solution to runaway climate change has been, as documented by groups like Socialist Alternative, the former Democratic Socialist Party, and the present Socialist Alliance and Red Flag Magazine alongside such ecosocialist writers as Richard Seymour and Richard Smith, known for a very long time. It is the expropriation of the corporate polluters’ present profits and accumulated wealth without the tiniest compensation and the transfer of every cent to rapid decarbonisation. As early as 1990, this was envisioned in Environment, Capitalism and Socialism. Experiencing worse and worse climate change both locally and globally makes me more and more convinced the ecosocialists are fundamentally correct that there can be no solution to or even amelioration of the climate crisis without total expropriation of the global capitalist elite. It is also clear to me that education on environmental issues could be made much plainer, simpler and more truthful if this were clearly understood at school, where teachers invariably dodge or minimise or cover up irredeemable flaws in the profit system.

Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a deep flaw in the thinking of the Trotskyists that I feel I have to note. That is their failure to recognise adequately the true culprits behind the inability to counter global warming except in the most farcical way. I myself failed to adequately recognise it for over two decades. The undoubted culprits for runaway climate change are, alongside Australia, the Arab Gulf oil monarchies, the only nations with higher per capita (more accurately, per-citizen) emissions, but who have been even more than Australia, able to totally resist the tiniest calls for environmental justice. Even the tiniest such call would have seen the Gulf States and Australia required to cut emissions by something insignificantly different from 100 percent, alongside less extreme cuts by other supply nations. Once supply is cut off, the profits from unlimited emissions would be eliminated, and a rapid shift towards carbon-free production at a global level become possible.

What is striking on reflection is how little the socialists discuss the Gulf States as culprits when they discuss climate change. They tend to focus upon industrial nations and the pollution from industry, although the Gulf States — like Australia today — engage in virtually no local manufacturing, and unlike Australia have never engaged therein historically due to extreme scarcity of labour. (Actually, the very absence of manufacturing serves to eliminate the one thing, an activist and concentrated working class in the tradable sector, capable of restraining greenhouse gas emissions). Moreover, the core Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qaṭar and the United Arab Emirates are much larger total emitter than the EU or Japan, and remain larger even if measured cumulatively since the preindustrial era. Ever since the 1973 oil crisis the power of Gulf lobby groups has most likely blocked or radically slowed shifts to non-polluting energy sources, even in resource-poor Europe and Japan. Despite this undoubted power, the radical left parties so essential to merely ameliorating climate change tend to see even Saudi Arabia as a product of Western imperialism. Actually the Al Sa^cud — today the richest family in the world — established itself as ruler in the Arabian Peninsula in the middle eighteenth century and has almost continuously ruled most of that region since (there was a break between 1891 and 1902.) Moreover, the Al Sa^cud has always aimed to expand its rule in the name of puritanical “Wahhabi” Islam, which eliminates the most basic human rights and — I hope to discuss this later — establishes exactly the type of state the global capitalist elites have desired for a long time but never observed.

Despite these fundamental facts, which I intend to discuss more in a subsequent post, socialist groups have never singled out or even called upon the Gulf States for sanctions, although they have unquestionably deserved the harshest and most uncompromising sanctions ever since the Kyōtō Protocol. At that protocol — which if based upon true environmental justice would have called upon the Gulf States (and Australia) to:

1. reduce their emissions to real zero (not just net zero) no later than 2010 and preferably by 2005
2. pay the full costs of climate change everywhere else in the world
3. accept the most uncompromising sanctions if they fail

the Gulf States evaded even attendance and Australia was allowed to increase emissions. In response, socialist groups gave Australia substantial but inadequate attention, and did not discuss how the highest per capita emitters evaded attention let alone just targets, or their ability to inhibit reductions elsewhere in the world by lobbying.