Read on Twitter
Hard agree. As someone who amongst other things is an historian of the Labour right, specifically Crosland, I was customarily surprised/ unsurprised to see him on the Progress reading list.
Reason being? Most of them have never read/will never read The Future of Socialism /1 https://twitter.com/AbiWilks/status/1249432067789684737
Reason being? Most of them have never read/will never read The Future of Socialism /1 https://twitter.com/AbiWilks/status/1249432067789684737
Whilst fond of arguing the left are dinosaurs, Trots etc., the contemporary Labour right is a prisoner of its own mythologies and nostalgia.
Nostalgia for 1997, yes. But also nostalgia for the mythologies of the past that New Labour fostered. /2
Nostalgia for 1997, yes. But also nostalgia for the mythologies of the past that New Labour fostered. /2
So back to Crosland, since they love him so much.
Do they want the level of state control of the economy which was the case in 1956?
Do they agree with Crosland that actually there would have to be at least some further nationalisation beyond 1956 levels?
/3
Do they want the level of state control of the economy which was the case in 1956?
Do they agree with Crosland that actually there would have to be at least some further nationalisation beyond 1956 levels?
/3
Do they believe, as Crosland did in 1956, that the social settlement is guaranteed by powerful trade unions?
Do they believe, as Crosland did, that socialism is fundamentally about equality, that comprehensive education is an essential instrument of that?
/4
Do they believe, as Crosland did, that socialism is fundamentally about equality, that comprehensive education is an essential instrument of that?
/4
In the 1970s when Foreign Secretary Crosland opposed the cuts mandated by the IMF loan in Cabinet. Alongside Tony Benn. After the PM spoke to him, Crosland fell into line. He was ultimately a loyalist and of the right. He was not Benn.
But he disagreed with cuts /5
But he disagreed with cuts /5
After Crosland's death, his widow Susan condemned those who sought to take Labour to the centre, or form a new party of the centre, saying they had never understood Crosland's central argument that 'socialism is about equality'.
/6
/6
The point is the historical Crosland is way too radical for the Labour right of today, even if he was way too lacking in radicalism for the left of his own time.
Why then, are they keen on The Future of Socialism?
/7
Why then, are they keen on The Future of Socialism?
/7
Because they buy into the Blairite mythology of it.
That it was anti-nationalisation pure and simple.
That Crosland separated 'means and ends' in socialist thinking (he didn't originate this, but Gordon Brown said he did, so it must be true) rendering him proto New Labour /8
That it was anti-nationalisation pure and simple.
That Crosland separated 'means and ends' in socialist thinking (he didn't originate this, but Gordon Brown said he did, so it must be true) rendering him proto New Labour /8
FoS is one of my favourite books though Crosland's politics aren't mine.
But it is of its time. It writes about a world which no longer exists and is rooted in a confidence in Keynesianism and trade union power that would now look horrendously misplaced. /9
But it is of its time. It writes about a world which no longer exists and is rooted in a confidence in Keynesianism and trade union power that would now look horrendously misplaced. /9
For the contemporart Labour right, Crosland is a revisionist, a la Gaitskell, so he works for the 'pragmatism' they take New Labour to represent.
Except he wasn't Gaitskell. Loyal to him though he was, he urged him against what he saw as bad moves like attacks on Clause IV /10
Except he wasn't Gaitskell. Loyal to him though he was, he urged him against what he saw as bad moves like attacks on Clause IV /10
He had always considered himself a revisionist, but as he wrote in his youth, his initial ambition was to emerge as a 'revisionist of Marx'.
By tme he wrote FoS he was no longer a Marxist&was highly critical of Marxism. But he referred to Marx as a 'dedicated genius' /11
By tme he wrote FoS he was no longer a Marxist&was highly critical of Marxism. But he referred to Marx as a 'dedicated genius' /11
