Bolshevik & Menshevik

Bolshevik (pronounced bohl-shuh-vik, bol-shuh-vik or buhl-shi-vyeek (Russian))

(1) A member of the more radical majority of the Social Democratic Party, 1903–1917, advocating, inter alia, the immediate and forceful seizure of power by the proletariat (in Russia and in some factions, beyond); after 1918, a member of the Russian Communist Party.

(2) In the West, historically (mostly early-mid twentieth century), a disparaging or contemptuous term used to refer to an extreme radical or revolutionary (often lowercase).  Applied loosely, it was used (even neutrally) to refer to any member of a Communist party.

(3) In the West a term, sometimes humorous, used as an adjective (often as bolshie) applied to anyone deliberately combative or uncooperative and strident or assertive in their actions or expression of view; used especially where there was a perception of behavior of attitude in conflict with socially constructed expectations (women, nuns etc).

Circa 1915: From the Russian большеви́к (bolʹševík), from большинство́ (bolʹšinstvó) (majority) (those in the majority (Majoritarians)), the construct being bólʾsh(iĭ) (larger, greater (comparative of bolʾshóĭ (large) and thus the sourced of bolʾshinstvó (majority)) + -evik (one that is (a variant of –ovik, the noun suffix)).  The adjective bol'shiy (greater), comparative of the adjective bol'shoy (big, great) is probably most familiar from the famous Bolshoi Ballet and was from the Old Church Slavonic boljiji (larger), from the primitive Indo-European root bel- (strong), source also of the Sanskrit balam (strength, force), the Greek beltion (better), the Phrygian balaios (big, fast), the Old Irish odbal (strong), the Welsh balch (proud) and the Middle Dutch, Low German & Frisian pal (strong, firm).  The popular contraction in the West (and one now remote from its party-political origins) should always be spelled bolshie.  Bolshevik & Bolshevist are nouns & adjectives, Bolshevism is a noun and Bolshevistic an adjective.  The noun plural is Bolsheviks (Bolsheviki in the Russian which is pronounced buhl-shi-vyi-kyee).

Norman Mailer (1923–2007) and bolshie woman Germaine Greer (b 1939) at the Town Bloody Hall debate between the author and a panel of feminists, 30 April 1971, The Town Hall, New York City.  Both were well chosen, Greer was the author of The Female Eunuch (1970) which remains one of feminism's seminal texts and Mailer regarded (fairly or not) as a misogynist and one who received a suspended sentence for (twice) stabbing the second (the artist Adele Morales (1925–2015)) of his six wives.

In the twentieth century, “bolshevik” was often used as a term of disparagement, often from establishment figures disturbed by challenges to the status quo, subversive types like TS Elliot (1888-1965) and James Joyce (1882-1941) both called literary bolsheviks and some painters wore “artistic bolshevik” as a badge of honor; later, there would be feminists who proudly described themselves as “bolshie women”.  Winston Churchill (1875-1968; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) abhorred communism and not infrequently referred to the new order in Moscow as the “Bolshevik baboons” and was supportive of a multi-national military intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918-1920) but was also, strategically, a realist.  His biographer recounted how he note there were:

“…nearly half a million anti-Bolshevik Russians under arms, and the Russians themselves planned to double this figure.  If we were unable to support the Russians effectively, it would be far better to take a decision now to quit and face the consequences, and tell these people to make the best terms they could with the Bolsheviks.”

So it transpired and the small foreign forces were withdrawn but he always made clear that as Minister for War, he did this out of military necessity and not any lack of conviction that the communists should have been overthrown, telling a press conference in Washington DC in 1954 that had he “…been properly supported in 1919, I think we might have strangled Bolshevism in its cradle, but everybody turned up their hands and said, ‘How shocking!’”

Menshevik (pronounced men·she·vik, men-shuh-vik or myin-shi-vyeek (Russian))

A member of the faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party opposed to the Bolsheviks; inter alia, they advocated a gradualist approach to the attainment of socialism through parliamentary government and cooperation with bourgeois parties.  By 1918, the remaining members had been absorbed into the Communist Party of Russia, formed that year.

1907: From the Russian меньшеви́к (menʹševík) from меньшинство́ (menʹšinstvó) (minority) from ме́ньше (ménʹše), the comparative of ма́лый (mályj) (little), the sense being “those in a minority” (the Minoritarians), the construct being ménʾsh(iĭ) (lesser, smaller (comparative of málenʾkiĭ (small) and thus the source of menʾshinstvó minority)) + -evik (one that is (a variant of –ovik, the noun suffix)).  The source the Russian men'she (lesser), was a comparative of malo (little), from the primitive Indo-European root mei- (small).  Menshevik & Menshevist are nouns & adjectives, Menshevism is a noun and Menhevistic an adjective.  The noun plural is Mensheviks (Mensheviki in the Russian which is pronounced myin-shi-vyi-kyee).

The noun minimalist dates from 1907 in the sense of “one who advocates moderate reforms or policies" and was originally an adapted borrowing of Menshevik; as understood as "a practitioner of minimal art" it dates from 1967, the term “minimal art” being noted first in 1965.  It was an adjective from 1917 in the Russian political sense and since 1969 in reference to art.  It was comrade Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov 1870–1924 and known by his alias Lenin; revolutionary, political theorist and founding head of government (Soviet Russia 1917-1924 and the Soviet Union 1922-1924) who vested Bolshevik (as Bolsheviki meaning Majoritarians or those in the majority) and Menshevik (as Mensheviki meaning Minoritarians or those in the minority).

Comrade Lenin Agitprop.

Lenin was a classic example of a political phenomenon which would so frequently feature in twentieth century revolutionary politics: the middle-class radical.  His intellectual predisposition had already tended that way but it was after the regime in 1886 hanged his elder brother in punishment for his involvement in an attempt to assassinate the reactionary Tsar Alexander III (1845–1894; Emperor of Russia 1881-1894) that his interest shifted from the mostly theoretical.  Apparently somewhat an inept activist in his younger years, he was soon apprehended by the Tsar’s secret police and transported to Siberia where he wrote a treatise on Russian economic development in which he claimed that capitalism was already the country’s dominant mode of production, quite a startling assertion given the state of things.  He found himself on a sounder intellectual footing as a political tactician, his 1902 pamphlet What Is to Be Done? which advocated a rigid centralism in party structure, the vetting of members and a tightly enforced discipline.

Lenin actually borrowed the title from Nikolay Chernyshevsky's 1863 pro-revolutionary novel What Is to Be Done? (1863), a book not without critics but one which exerted a still often underestimated influence on those who would in the years to come build the political movements which culminated in the events of 1917.  It also drew the attention of Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) who in 1886 wrote his own What Is to Be Done? although it’s a work more of moral theology and was published sometimes as (the probably more accurate) What Then Must We Do? and (in English) as What to Do?

Lenin knew what to do.  A brief work of stark clarity, his pamphlet was quite a change from the verbose and discursive stuff of the era and attracted much attention although its uncompromising was too much for many, the second party congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party in 1903 ending in acrimony although Lenin did secure one pyrrhic victory, his faction winning a majority in the congress vote, enabling him to label his group the Bolsheviki (Majoritarians), the opposition responding, with some implied irony, that they were therefore the Mensheviki (Minoritarians).  The Bolsheviki accused the Mensheviki of being anti-revolutionaries and the Mensheviki labelled the Bolsheviki (and especially Lenin) dictatorial and intolerant.  Had the word fascist then existed, both sides would have used it.  As things soon transpired, defections meant Lenin didn’t long have the numbers and the Mensheviki became the majority (although both sides kept their names), prompting Lenin to damn them as usurpers and it was in this spirit the congress ended, the two factions setting up their own newspapers and network of spies, little time devoted to the revolution because of the internecine conflict.  The outbreak of revolutionary protest in 1905 was thus a surprise to both Mensheviki and Bolsheviki and neither side was sufficiently organized to take advantage of the situation which the Tsar’s forces soon suppressed with a mixture of carrot and stick.

Whether the revolution was to be in than hands of the Mensheviks or Bolsheviks was decided in the war-time chaos of 1917.  Without the war, the Tsarist regime might have endured but when in February it became clear the army were either unable or unwilling to act against the strikes and demonstrations, it became apparent to all the Tsar must abdicate which he did on 15 March (under the Gregorian calendar or 2 March under the Julian calendar then used.  The “administration” which formed in the wake of the revolution (of which the Mensheviks were a part) was from the start beset with problems, some of its own making and few were responsive to the methods adopted, the factionalized and quasi-democratic structures adopted ill suited to deal with the multiple crises of the time.  Strikes and other industrial disruptions may not have made the subsequent Bolshevik insurrection inevitable but the failure to extricate Russia from the war and the not unrelated shortages of food and medical supplies probably did.  What’s remembered as the October revolution (on 7 November (Gregorian calendar) or 25 October (Julian calendar)) was organized by the Bolshevik party and, having seized power, it wasn’t for decades relinquished.  Were there any doubt about the methods and morality of the Bolsheviks, the tsar and his family, under house arrest since March 1917, were on 16 July 1918 murdered although historians continue to debate whether Lenin personally ordered the shootings, documentary evidence impossible to assess because comrade Lenin order it all burned.

Corrupt

Corrupt (pronounced kuh-ruhpt)

(1) Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked; willing to act dishonestly for personal gain; willing to make or take bribes; morally degenerate.

(2) Debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil.

(3) Of a text, made inferior by errors or alterations.

(4) Something infected or tainted; decayed; putrid; contaminated.

(5) In digital storage (1) stored data that contains errors related to the format or file integrity; a storage device with such errors.

(6) To destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc, especially by coercion, bribery or other forms of inducement.

(7) Morally to lower in standard; to debase or pervert.

(8) To alter a language, text, etc for the worse (depending on context either by the tone of the content or to render it non-original); to debase.

To mar or spoil something; to infect, contaminate or taint.

To make putrid or putrescent (technically an archaic use but there’s much overlap of meaning in the way terms are used).

(11) In digital storage, introduce errors in stored data when saving, transmitting, or retrieving (technically possible also in dynamic data such as memory).

(12) In English Law, to subject (an attainted person) to corruption of blood (historic use only).

(13) In law (in some jurisdictions) a finding which courts or tribunals can hand down describing certain conduct.

1300–1350: From the Middle English verb corrupten (debased in character), from the Middle French corrupt, from the Old French corropt (unhealthy, corrupt; uncouth (of language)) from the Latin corruptus (rotten, spoiled, decayed, corrupted (and the past participle of corrumpō & corrumpere (to destroy, ruin, injure, spoil (figuratively “corrupt, seduce, bribe” (and literally “break to pieces”)), the construct being cor- (assimilated here as an intensive prefix) + rup- (a variant stem of rumpere (to break into pieces), from a nasalized form of the primitive Indo-European runp- (to break), source also of the Sanskrit rupya- (to suffer from a stomach-ache) and the Old English reofan (to break, tear)) + -tus (the past participle suffix).  The alternative spellings corrumpt, corrump & corroupt are effectively all extinct although dictionaries sometimes list them variously as obsolete, archaic or rare.  Corrupt and corrupted are verbs & adjectives (both used informally by IT nerds as a noun, sometimes with a choice adjective), corruptedness, corruption, corruptible, corruptness, corrupter & corruptor are nouns, corruptest is a verb & adjective, corruptive is an adjective, corrupting is a verb and corruptedly, corruptively & corruptly are adverbs; the most common noun plural is corruptions.  Forms (hyphenated and not) such as incorruptible, non-corrupt, over-corrupt, non-corrupt, pre-corrupt & un-corrupt etc are created as needed.

The verb corrupt in the mid-fourteenth century existed in the sense of “deprave morally, pervert from good to bad which later in the 1300s extended to “contaminate, impair the purity of; seduce or violate (a woman); debase or render impure (a language) by alterations or innovations; influence by a bribe or other wrong motive", reflecting generally the senses of the Latin corruptus.  The meanings “decomposing, putrid, spoiled”, “changed for the worse, debased by admixture or alteration (of texts, language etc) and “guilty of dishonesty involving bribery" all emerged in the late fourteenth century.  The noun corruption was from the mid-fourteenth century corrupcioun which was used of material things, especially dead bodies (human & animal) to convey “act of becoming putrid, dissolution; decay”.  It was applied also to matter of the soul and morality, it being an era when the Church was much concerned with “spiritual contamination, depravity & wickedness”.  The form was from the Latin corruptionem (nominative corruptio) (a corruption, spoiling, seducing; a corrupt condition), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of corrumpere (to destroy; spoil (and figuratively “corrupt, seduce, bribe”.  The use as a synonym for “putrid matter” dates from the late 1300s while as applied to those holding public office being tainted by “bribery or other depraving influence” it was first noted in the early 1400.  The specific technical definition of “a corrupt form of a word” came into use in the 1690s.  The adjective corruptible (subject to decay or putrefaction, perishable) was from either the Old French corroptible or directly from Late Latin corruptibilis (liable to decay, corruptible), from the past-participle stem of corrumpere (to destroy; spoil (and figuratively “corrupt, seduce, bribe”.  In fourteenth century English, it applied first to objects and by the mid fifteenth to those “susceptible of being changed for the worse, tending to moral corruption.  The more blatant sense of “open to bribery” appears in the 1670s.

Boris Johnson, hair by Ms Kelly Jo Dodge MBE.

Corruption is probably a permanent part of politics although it does ebb and flow and exists in different forms in different places.  In the UK, the honors system with its intricate hierarchy and consequent determination on one’s place in the pecking order on the Order of Precedence has real world consequences such as determining whether one sits at dinners with the eldest son of a duke or finds one’s self relegated to a table with the surviving wife of a deceased baronet.  Under some prime-ministers the system was famously corrupt and while things improved in the nineteenth century, under David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922) honors were effectively for sale in a truly scandalous way.  None of his successors were anywhere near as bad although Harold Wilson’s (1916–1995; UK prime minister 1964-1970 & 1974-1976) resignation honors list attracted much comment and did his reputation no good but in recent years it’s been relatively quiet on the honors front.  That was until the resignation list of Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) was published.  It included some names which were unknown to all but a handful of political insiders and many others which were controversial for their own reasons but at the bottom of the list was one entry which all agreed was well deserved: Ms Kelly Jo Dodge, for 27 years the parliamentary hairdresser, was created a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE) for parliamentary service.  In those decades, she can have faced few challenges more onerous than Boris Johnson’s hair yet never once failed to make it an extraordinary example in the (actually technically difficult) “not one hair in place” style.

A corrupted fattie

Corrupt, a drug addict and a failure: The Führer and the Reichsmarschall at Carinhall, next to a stature of a beast of the field.  Hitler once told a visitor; “You should visit Göring at Carinhall, a sight worth seeing.”

Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945 and Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) was under few illusions about the sentence he would receive from the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) and resented only the method of execution prescribed was to be "hanged by the neck until dead".  Göring thought that fit only for common criminals and as Germany's highest ranked soldier, he deserved the honor of a firing squad; the death of a gentleman.  In the end, he found his own way to elude the noose but history has anyway judged him harshly as richly deserving the gallows.  He heard many bad things said of him at the trial, most of it true and much of it said by his fellow defendants but the statement which most disappointed him was that Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had condemned him as “corrupt, a drug addict and a failure”.  Once that was publicized, he knew there would be no romantic legend to grow after his execution and his hope that in fifty years there would be statutes of him all over Germany was futile.  In fairness, even in that he’d been a realist, telling the prison psychologist the statutes might be “…small ones maybe, but one in every home”.  Hitler had of course been right; Göring was corrupt, a drug addict and a failure but that could have been said of many of his paladins and countless others in the lower layers of what was essentially a corrupted, gangster-run state.

Corruption is of course though something bad and corrosive to the state but other people's corruption in other states can be helpful.  In 1940, after the fall of France, the British were genuinely alarmed Spain might enter the war on the side of the Axis, tempted by the return of the Rock of Gibraltar and the acquisition of colonial territory in North Africa.  London was right to be concerned because the loss of Gibraltar would have threatened not only the Royal Navy's ability to operate in the Mediterranean but also the very presence of the British in North African and even the supply of oil from the Middle East, vital to the conduct of the war.  Indeed, the "Mediterranean strategy" was supported strongly by German naval strategists and had it successfully been executed, it would have become much more difficult for the British to continue the war.  Contrary to the assertions of some, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) did understand the enormous strategic advantage which would be achieved by the taking of Gibraltar which would have been a relatively simple undertaking but to do so was possible only with Spanish cooperation, the Germans lacking the naval forces to effect a seaborne invasion.  Hitler did in 1940 meet with the Spanish leader Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975) in an attempt to entice his entry into the conflict and even after the Battle of Britain, Hitler would still have preferred peace with the British rather than their defeat, the ongoing existence of the British Empire better suited to his post-war (ie after victory over the USSR) visions. 

The Führer and the Caudillo at the French railway station in Hendaye, near the Spanish–French border, 23 October 1940.

Franco however was a professional soldier and knew Britain remained an undefeated, dangerous foe and one able to draw on the resources both of her empire and (increasingly) assistance from the US and regarded a victory by the Axis as by no means guaranteed.  Additionally, after a bloody civil war which had waged for four years, the Spanish economy was in no state to wage war and better than most, Franco knew his military was antiquated and unable to sustain operations against a well equipped enemy for even days.  Like many with combat experience, the generalissimo also thought war a ghastly, hateful business best avoided and Hitler left the long meeting after being unable to meet the extraordinary list of conditions demanded to secure Spanish support, declaring he'd "sooner have three teeth pulled than go through that again".  Franco was a practical man who had kept his options open and probably, like the Duce (Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943)) would have committed Spain to the cause had a German victory seemed assured.  British spies in Madrid and Lisbon soon understood that and to be sure, the diplomatic arsenal of the UK's ambassador to Madrid, Sir Samuel Hoare (1880-1959), was strengthened with money, the exchequer's investment applied to bribing Spanish generals, admirals and other notables to ensure the forces of peace prevailed.  Surprising neither his friends or enemies, "slippery Sam" proved adept at the dark arts of disinformation, bribery and back-channel deals required to corrupt and although his engaging (if unreliable) memoirs were vague about the details, documents provided by his staff suggest he made payments in the millions at a time a million sterling was a lot of money.  By 1944, the state of the war made it obvious any threat of Spanish belligerency was gone and he returned to London.

The dreaded corrupted FAT

Dating from the mid-1970s, the file allocation table (FAT) is a data structure used by a number of file systems to index and manage the files on storage devices.  First associated with 8 inch (200 mm) floppy diskettes, it became familiar to users when introduced by Microsoft in the early days of PC (personal computer) operating systems (OS) and was used on the precursors to the PC-DOS & MS-DOS OSs which dominated the market during the 1980s.  Over the years there have been a number of implementations, the best known of which are FAT12, FAT16 & FAT32, the evolution essentially to handle the increasing storage capacity of media and the need to interact with enhancements to OSs to accommodate increasing complexities such as longer file names, additional file attributes and special files like sub-directories (now familiar as folders which technically are files which can store other files).

A FAT is almost always stored on the host device itself and is an index in the form of a database which consists of a table with records of information about each file and directory in the file system.  What a FAT does is provide a mapping between the logical file system and the physical location of data on the storage medium so it can be thought of as an address book.  Technically, the FAT keeps track of which clusters (the mechanism by which the data is stored) on the device are linked to each file and directory and this includes unused clusters so a user can determine what free space remains available.  Ultimately, it’s the FAT which maintains a record of the links between the clusters which form a file's data chain and the metadata associated with each file, such as its attributes, creation & modification timestamps, file size etc.  In the same way that when reading a database a user is actually interacting primarily with the index, it’s the FAT which locates the clusters associated with a request to load (or view, delete etc) a file and determine their sequence, enabling efficient read and write operations.  The size, structure and complexity of FATs grew as the capacity of floppy diskettes and then hard disks expanded but the limitations of the approach were well-understood and modern operating systems have increasingly adopted more advanced file systems like NTFS (New Technology File System) or exFAT (Extended File Allocation Table) although FAT remains widely used especially on lower capacity and removable devices (USB drives, memory cards et al), the main attraction being the wide cross-platform compatibility.

A corrupted image (JPEG) of Lindsay Lohan.  Files can be corrupted yet appear as correct entries in the FAT and conversely, a corrupted fat will usually contain may uncorrupted files; the files are content and the FAT an index.

The ominous sounding corrupted FAT is a generalized term which references errors in a FAT’s data structure.  There are DBAs (database administrators) who insist all databases are in a constant state of corruption to some degree and when a FAT becomes corrupted, it means that the data has become inconsistent or damaged and this can be induced by system crashes, improper shutdowns, power failures, malware or physical damage to the media.  The consequences can be minor and quickly rectified with no loss of data or varying degrees of the catastrophic (a highly nuanced word among IT nerds) which may result in the loss of one or more files or folders or be indicative of the unrecoverable failure of the storage media.  Modern OSs include tools which can be used to attempt to fix corrupted FATs and when these prove ineffective, there are more intricate third-party products which can operate at a lower level but where the reported corruption is a symptom of hardware failure, such errors often prove terminal, thus the importance of data (and system) backups.

The grey area between corruption and "just politics"

As an adjective, corrupt is used somewhat casually to refer to individuals or institutions thought to have engaged in practices leading to personal gain of some sort (not necessarily financial) which are either morally dubious or actually unlawful and a corrupt politician is the usual example, a corrupted politician presumably one who was once honest but tempted.  The synonyms of corrupt are notoriously difficult to isolate within set parameters, perhaps because politicians have been so involved in framing the definitions in a way which seems rarely to encompass anything they do, however corrupt it may to many appear.  The word dishonest for example obviously includes those who steal stuff but is also used of those who merely lie and there are circumstances in which both might be unlawful but wouldn’t generally to thought corrupt conduct except by the most morally fastidious.  The way politicians have structured the boundaries of acceptable conduct is that it’s possible to be venal in the sense of selling patronage as long as the consideration doesn’t literally end up as the equivalent of cash in the pocket although such benefits can be gained as long as there’s some degree of abstraction between the steps.

Once were happy: Gladys Berejiklian and Daryl Maguire, smiling.

In Australia, news the New South Wales (NSW) Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) had handed down a finding that former premier Gladys Berejiklian (b 1970; NSW Premier (Liberal) 2017-2021) had acted corruptly was of course interesting but mystifying to many was that despite that, the commission made no recommendation that criminal charges be considered.  It transpired that was because the evidence Ms Berejiklian was required to provide to the ICAC wouldn’t be admissible in a court because there, the rules of evidence are different and a defendant can’t be compelled to provide an answer which might be self-incriminating.  In other words a politician can be forced to tell the truth when before the ICAC but not before a court when charged.  That’s an aspect of the common law’s adversarial system which has been much criticized but it’s one of the doctrines which underpins Western law where there is a presumption of innocence and the onus of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution.  Still, what unfolded before the ICAC revealed that Ms Berejiklian seems at the least to have engaged in acts of Billigung (looking the other way to establish a defense of “plausible deniability”).  How corrupt that will be regarded by people will depend on this and that and the reaction of many politicians was to focus on the ICAC’s statement that criminal charges would not be pursed because of a lack of admissible evidence as proof that if there’s no conviction, then there’s no corruption.  Politicians have little interest in the bar being raised.  They were less forgiving of her former boyfriend (with whom she may or not have been in a "relationship" and if one did exist it may or may not have been "serious"), former fellow parliamentarian Daryl Maguire (b 1959, MLA (Liberal) for Wagga Wagga 1999-2018).  Despite legal proceedings against Mr Maguire being afoot, none of his former colleagues seemed reluctant to suggest he was anything but guilty as sin so for those who note such things the comparative is “more corrupt” and the superlative “most corrupt”, both preferable to the clumsy alternatives “corrupter” & “corruptest”.

The release of the ICAC’s findings came a couple of days before the newly created federal equivalent (the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)) commenced operation.  Although the need for such a body had be discussed for decades, it was during the time the government was headed by Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022) that even many doubters were persuaded one would be a good idea.  Mr Morrison’s background was in marketing, three word slogans and other vulgarities so it surprised few a vulgarian government emerged but what was so shocking was that the pork-barreling and partisan allocation of resources became so blatant with only the most perfunctory attempts to hide the trail.  Such conduct was of course not new but it’s doubtful if before it had been attempted at such scale and within Mr Morrison’s world-view the internal logic was perfect.  His intellectual horizons defined by fundamentalist Christianity and mercantilism, his view appeared to be that only those who voted (or might be induced to vote) for the Liberal & National Parties were those who deserved to be part of the customer loyalty scheme that was government spending.  This tied in nicely with the idea those who accept Jesus Christ as the savior getting to go to Heaven, all others condemned to an eternity in Hell.  Not all simplicities are elegant.

As things stand, such an attitude to public finance (ie treating as much spending as possible as party re-election funds) is not unlawful and to most politicians (at least any with some reasonable prospect of sitting on the treasury benches) should not be thought “corrupt”; it’s just “politics” and in NSW, in 1992 it was confirmed that what is “just politics” has quite a vista.  Then the ICAC handed down findings against then premier Nick Greiner (b 1947; NSW (Liberal) premier 1988-1992) over the matter of him using the offer of a taxpayer funded position to an independent member of parliament as an inducement to resign, the advantage being the seat might be won by the Liberal party in the consequent by-election.  As the ICAC noted, Mr Greiner had not acted unlawfully nor considered himself to be acting corruptly but that had been the result.  Indeed, none doubted it would never have occurred to Mr Greiner that doing something that was “just politics” and had been thus for centuries could be considered corrupt although remarkably, he did subsequently concede he was “technically corrupt” (not an admission which seems to have appealed to Ms Berejiklian).  The ICAC’s finding against Mr Greiner was subsequently overturned by the NSW Court of Appeal.

So the essence of the problem is just what corruption is.  What the public see as corrupt, politicians regard as “just politics” which, in a practical sense, can be reduced to “what you can get away with” and was rationalized by Ms Berejiklian in an answer to a question by the ICAC about pork-barrelling: "Everybody does it".  Of course that's correct and the differences between politicians are of extent and the ability to conceal but her tu quoque (translated literally as "thou also" and latterly as "you also"; translation in the vernacular is something like "you did it too") defense could be cited by all.  The mechanism of a NACC has potential and already both sides of politics are indicating they intend to use it against their political enemies so it should be amusing for those who enjoy politics as theatre although, unfortunately, the politicians who framed the legislation made sure public hearings would be rare.  One might suspect they want it to be successful but not too successful.  Still, the revelations of the last ten years have provided some scope for the NACC to try to make the accepted understanding of corruption something more aligned with the public’s perception.  Anomalies like a minister’s “partner” being a “partner” for purposes of qualifying for free overseas travel (business class air travel, luxury hotels, lavish dinners etc) yet not be defined a “partner” for purposes of disclosing things which might give rise to a possible conflict of interest for the minister is an example of the sort of thing where standardization might improve confidence.  It probably should be conceded that corruption can’t be codified in the way the speed limits for a nation’s highways can but it’s one of those things that one knows when one sees it and if the NACC can nudge the politicians’ behavior a bit in the direction of public expectation, it’ll be a worthy institution.  On a happier note, Mr Greiner went on to enjoy a lucrative corporate career and Ms Berejiklian (currently with telco Optus) is predicted to follow in his tracks although suggestions posted on social media she'd been offered a partnership at PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited) on the basis of her experience making her a "perfect fit for the company" are thought mischievous rather than malicious.

Guy

Guy (pronounced gahy)

(1) In informal use, historically, a man or boy; a fellow.

(2) In modern informal use, in the plural, people (especially if younger), regardless of their sex (although if the group referenced is mixed, it can be used exclusively of males (ie a term such as “guys & girls”).

(3) In historic UK Slang, a grotesquely dressed person; ) A person of eccentric appearance or dress.

(4) A grotesque, deliberately crude effigy of Guy Fawkes, made usually of old clothes stuffed with straw or rags, paraded through the streets and that is burnt on top of a bonfire on Guy Fawkes Day (5 November; the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot); now mostly UK use and often with an initial capita).

(5) A male given name, from a Germanic word meaning “woods” and used mostly in France or Francophone countries (in the French pronounced gahy); the use as a surname began as a patronymic.

(6) A rope, cable, or appliance used to guide and steady an object (widely used in nautical matters but also of radio transmission masts etc) being hoisted or lowered, or to secure anything likely to shift its position.  It’s often use as “guy wire”, “guy rope” etc.

(7) A guide; a leader or conductor (obsolete).

(8) To guide, steady, or anchor with a guy wire (or rope, cable etc) or guys.

(9) To jeer at or make fun of; to ridicule with wit or innuendo.

(10) In live theatre, to play in a comedic manner.

(11) As “give the guy to” a mostly UK slang form meaning “to escape from (someone): or “give (someone) the slip”.

(12) In international standards (ISO 3166-1) as the translingual GUY, the alpha-3 country code for Guyana. (GY the alpha-2).

1300–1350: From the Middle English gye, from the Old French guie (a guide (also “a crane, derrick”)), from guier (to guide), from a Germanic source (probably Low German or the Frankish witan (show the way), ultimately from the Proto-Germanic wītaną (know) or witanan (to look after, guard, ascribe to, reproach) and the source also of the German weisen (to show, point out), the Old English witan (to reproach) & wite (fine, penalty) and the Dutch gei brail & geiblok (pulley), from the primitive Indo-European root weid (to see) (although some etymologists maintain it’s not impossible it was from a related word in the North Sea Germanic.  The use to describe a “small rope, chain or wire” emerged in the 1620s in nautical use, replacing the mid-fourteenth century “leader”, from the Old French guie "a guide," also "a crane, derrick," from guier, from Frankish witan "show the way" or a similar Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic witanan "to look after, guard, ascribe to, reproach" (the source also of German weisen (to show, point out), the Old English witan (to reproach) & wite (fine, penalty).  Guy is a noun, proper noun & verb, guyed & guying are verbs; the noun plural is guys (the historic guies has long been listed as non-standard).

Promotional poster for an amateur production of Guys & Dolls (1950), West Genesee High School (Camillus, New York).

The uses referencing Guy Fawkes emerged in the first years of the nineteenth century (most sources cite 1806 or 1806).  The male given name Guy (cognate with the Italian Guido) was from the Old French Gui, a form of the Proto-Germanic Wido, a short form of names beginning with the element witu (wood), from the Proto-Germanic widuz (such as Witold & Widukind).  Guy is used mostly in France or Francophone countries (in the French pronounced gahy) and the use as a surname began as a patronymic.  Guy Fawkes (1570–1606) was an English Roman Catholic who maintained his allegiance to the pope.  He was hanged, drawn and quartered for his role in the Gunpowder Plot (5 November 1605), the more romantic (if misleading) label for which was “the Jesuit Treason” which was an act of attempted regicide against King James VI and I (1566–1625) and King of Scotland as James VI (1567-1625) & King of England and Ireland as James I (1603-1625).  The domestic terrorists (as they would now be called) considered their actions attempted tyrannicide, their object being regime change in England to end the decades of religious discrimination and persecution.  Experts long ago concluded that had the plot been brought to fruition, the 36 barrels of gunpowder placed directly under the debating chamber of the House of Lords would have been more than enough to destroy the building.  In England, the burning of bonfires on the anniversary became a tradition almost immediately after the plot was foiled but it wasn’t until the early nineteenth century it became the practice to burn Guy Fawkes in effigy, the figure constructed usually in a deliberately crude manner using rags and old clothes, stuffed with combustible dry straw.  The tradition became established in many parts of the British Empire but as fireworks became increasingly powerful ordnance, local authorities restricted their sale (for example most Australian jurisdictions have banned the once popular "cracker night") thereby saving many eyes and fingers of children) and beyond the UK, Guy Fawkes day persists only in parts of New Zealand, South Africa and Canada. 

The use of “guy" to describe “a grotesquely or poorly dressed man” began in England in the mid 1830s and came into use in the US about a decade later although there it seems either immediately or within a short time to mean “a man”, rather as “fellow” or “chap” might be used.  GK Chesterton (1874–1936) noted for English audiences that in the US to be called “a regular guy” was “the most graceful of compliments” although that meaning has by now shifted to mean “someone average; unexceptional”.  In mixed company, guys are male while women variously (depending on the region, social class etc) are girls, chicks etc but sometimes, in the plural, guys may not be completely gender-neutral but may refer to people of any gender in certain circumstances and forms (such as “hey guys”).  Indeed, so adaptable is the word that a group of guys may be wholly female.  Nor is guy always the preferred form for men, young generations often preferring “dude” and the companion feminine coining “dudette” is occasionally heard though unusually only when dude is used in the same context.  When used of animals, guy usually refers to either a male or one whose gender is not known; it is rarely if ever used of an animal that is known to be female (the matching term for a female being “gal”) and it’s often used as “little guy”, “big guy” etc.  The form in which the use of guy most annoys the pedants seems to be as “youse guys” which really seems to offend although, under the conventions of English plural constructions, “youse” should be correct.

Lindsay Lohan provides an authoritative ruling of meaning in context: When in a relationship, a “guy” is a man whereas her former special friend Samantha Ronson was not; she was a girl.

In idiomatic use, guy often appears including “… as the next guy” (indicating that one holds typical or mainstream views), “cable guy” (the technician who connects cable TV services to the home (or one who deals with cables in some way though probably not a professional who would usually be called a “cabler”)), “cis-guy” (a male (though this can’t be guaranteed in contemporary use because women may use the form) who uses the gender assigned at birth (ie conventional biological sex) and thus distinct from “trans guy”), one on use, “fall guy” (one who takes the blame for something). “family guy” (a conventional husband & father), “go to guy” (one who by virtue of knowledge, skills etc is the first sought for an opinion etc), “guy friend” (a nuanced term which varies in exactitude but always means some sort of platonic relationship), “nice guys finish last” (in life one needs to be ruthless to succeed), “you should see the other guy” (indicating the injuries one has suffered in a fight are minor compared with those inflicted on the opponent), “wise guy” (not exactly an ironic use but closer to “a smart-ass”).  General value modifiers are appended as needed including “good guy”, “bad guy”, “big guy” (which like “little guy” is often figurative), “nice guy”, “tough guy” etc.  Guy is handy because it’s pretty much neutral and can in most cases be used instead of buster, fella, man, bud, dude, fellow, bro, bloke, chap.  For women it can substitute for girl, woman or the many archaic forms (gal, broad, dame, jane, bird, sheila & chick).  Strangely, in colloquial use, it’s come to be widely used of things and the use is common in IT, among mechanics and others working with distinct bits & pieces.  While not overt, there is something of the anthropomorphic about this because as mechanics and IT techs know, one can have a dozen identical part-numbers which truly are functionally indistinguishable under any objective examination yet in use one or two might exhibit characteristics which will be described in terms used usually of personalities such as "troublesome", "inconsistent" or "un-cooperative".  Some guys are like that.   

Snorkel

Snorkel (pronounced snawr-kuhl)

(1) A device permitting a submarine to remain submerged for prolonged periods, consisting of tubes extended above the surface of the water to (1) take in air for the diesel engine, (2) for general ventilation and (3) to discharge exhaust gases and foul air.

(2) In military jargon, a similar device on a tanks (and other vehicles), enabling it to cross shallow water obstacles (later adopted for civilian use in 4WD (four-wheel-drive) off-road vehicles and sometime fitted (for visual effect) even to to those used only in urban environments.

(3) In swimming, a device (usually of plastic or rubber), allowing a swimmer to breathe while face down on the surface of the water, consisting of a bent tube fitting into the mouth and projecting above the surface.

(4) To engage in snorkeling.

(5) In clothing design, a specialized style of hoodie, a type of parka or anorak with a hood projecting beyond the face (a la Kenny in South Park).

(6) In fire fighting, a bendable arm for hydraulic platforms or buckets.

(7) A proprietary fountain pen piston filling system used by the Sheaffer pen company.

1945:  A Modern English borrowing from the German Schnorchel ((submarine) snorkel), an airshaft for submarines, related to schnarchen (to snore) and thus named because of (1) the submarine snorkel's functional similarity to a nose and (2) its noise when in use.  The anglicized spelling was first recorded in 1945 in US documents, apparently not appearing in the UK until 1949 although there had been earlier references to the technology using the noun “snort”.  The meaning "curved tube used by a swimmer to breathe under water" was first recorded in 1951.  Snorkel & snorkelling are nouns & verbs, snorkeler is a noun and snorkeled &  are verbs; the noun plural is snorkels.

Breath deeply

Lindsay Lohan snorkeling in the Aegean, 2016.

Adding a snorkel to a conventional (ie one with diesel/electric rather than nuclear propulsion) submarine allows the vessel to operate while submerged for extended periods.  From their origins in the nineteenth century until late in the World War II (1939-1945), submarines were more properly regarded as “submersibles”; small boats which could be used underwater for short periods.  Until snorkels were adopted, submarines were compelled to operate mostly on the surface, submerging only to attack during daylight or to avoid being attacked.  This was less of a disadvantage than it might seem because the limitations of the early sonar systems meant submarines on the surface were close to invisible until visual contact was made.  That changed with the increasing deployment of radar and other detection systems which compelled submarines to spend more time underwater, using electric motors that offered little speed and range.

The need for a snorkel seems obvious and it was, the first patent issued in the UK in 1916 but neither the British Admiralty nor any other navy experimented with the design until some Italian prototypes were built in 1926 and these were soon scrapped.  The Royal Netherlands Navy was the first with a practical production model (which they called the snuiver (sniffer)) and it was this the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) copied.  Initially, the Germans were interested only in a fresh-air system for ventilation but by 1943, the U-Boats (the German term for submarines) were suffering unsustainably high losses and OKM (the naval high command) began development of the Dutch design which enabled diesel propulsion at periscope depth, while also charging the batteries.  Operational use began in 1944 and the vessels produced by 1945 were essentially the first modern submarines, designs which, when later combined with nuclear propulsion, were for decades produced with only detail refinements.  Snorkels continue to be installed on nuclear-powered submarines because they still have on-board diesel engines for backup power.  The time a nuclear submarine can remain submerged is limited not by the fuel supply or the need to replenish fresh air (which can be generated aboard) but by how much food can be stored.

German Type XII Elektroboot (1945).

In World War II (1939-1945), the course of the war could have been very different had OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the high command of the Kriegsmarine (the German Navy 1935-1945)) followed the advice of the commander of the submarines and made available a fleet of 300 rather than building a surface fleet which wasn’t large enough to be a strategic threat but of sufficient size to absorb resources which, if devoted to submarines, could have been militarily effective.  With a fleet of 300, it would have been possible permanently to maintain around 100 at sea but at the outbreak of hostilities, only 57 active boats were on the navy’s list, not all of which were suitable for operations on the high seas so in the early days of the conflict, it was rare for the Germans to have more than 12 committed to battle in the Atlantic.  Production never reached the levels necessary for the numbers to achieve critical mass but even so, in the first two-three years of the war the losses sustained by the British were considerable and the “U-Boat menace” was such a threat that much attention was devoted to counter-measures and by 1943 the Allies could consider the battle of the Atlantic won.

The Germans’ other mistake was not building a true submarine capable of operating underwater (and therefore undetected) for days at a time.  It was only in 1945 when Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; as Grand Admiral head of the German Navy 1943-1945, German head of state 1945) and Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) were assessing their “revolutionary” new design that it was concluded there was no reason why such craft couldn’t have been built in the 1930s because the capacity and technology existed even then.  It was a classic case of what Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US defense secretary 1975-1977 & 2001-2006) would later call an “unknown known”.  The Germans in 1939 knew how to build a modern submarine but didn’t know they knew.  Despite the improvements however, military analysts have concluded that even if deployed in numbers, such was the strength of forces arrayed against Nazi Germany that by 1945, not even such a force could have been enough to turn the tide of war.  Dönitz and Speer had plenty of time to reflect on such missed opportunities of 1939-1940, both war criminals sentenced by the IMT (International Military Tribunal) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) to imprisonment respectively for 10 & 20 years in prison.  The admiral was debatably unlucky to be found guilty but had all the evidence of Speer's wartime conduct been brought before the court, he'd have been hanged.