The Future of Socialism: The Book That Changed British Politics
byAnthony Crosland
===
There are 0 reviews and 0 ratings from Australia
From other countries
Jonathan Spencer
5.0 out of 5 stars Where is that road now
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 17 October 2018
Verified Purchase
Its a fantastic read, because you realise how even in the 1950s and 60s people were just so much more socially conscious and already thinking in cooperative, communal ways. Really very left wing by todays standards although Crosland felt that some of the more emotive and psychological things, the environment, we live in , entertainment, art and design were as important if not more than the process driven Nationalisation etc.
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Conscrog
5.0 out of 5 stars Good book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 12 August 2019
Verified Purchase
Decent read
Report abuse
Crook
4.0 out of 5 stars Dated in some respects, but are we not all ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 31 August 2015
Verified Purchase
Dated in some respects, but are we not all? Principles remain so very strong and worth reading to chuck pooh on today's politiicans' parades
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
Tanler
4.0 out of 5 stars The Future of Socialism is...Liberalism
Reviewed in Canada on 21 August 2018
Verified Purchase
Why would Crosland write a book about the future of socialism when the man was not a socialist? At least, not in the way others have self-identified as such, from communists in Russia and Eastern Europe to North Korea and Venezuela. It is because Crosland came to the conclusion that the underlying principles that govern all economies must be the same, regardless of political label. So, when Hugo Chavez attempted to price fix and remove the professional management of the national oil corporation, replacing them with political cronies, he was doing things Crosland had specifically argued against. Crosland's chapter on surplus value is brilliant. The confiscation by the state of any contribution of a worker's labor beyond that needed for the cost of production merely turns workers into slaves. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor (Chavez) was not Crosland's idea of how to run a society. Everyone's contribution is valuable. Crosland was an egalitarian, but he rejected equality of outcome. He saw social hierarchy as necessary and functional. What is important, however, is that disparities should not be so great as to make social mobility impossible. He believed strongly in equality of opportunity. But he cautioned against placing so much value on intellectual ability, business acumen or political craftiness. "Why should no marks be given for saintliness, generosity, compassion, humor, beauty, assiduity, countenance and artistic ability?" Writing in the 1950's he often referenced America as the ideal of social mobility and a lack of class consciousness. Crosland would have bemoaned the America of today...the growing polarization, a society facing the challenges brought on by such issues as identity politics and immigration. Crosland was aware of feminist issues but he does not dwell on them. If Crosland was not a socialist, what was he? From our perspective, he is a center-left liberal and a social democrat. Even calling him a democratic socialist is in my view a stretch. He believed in capitalism (as an economic system), individual freedom and private property. But the government was there to help oversee the system and to step in where abuse demanded. The book is filled with financial and economic counsel, sometimes technical, but much of which has since been implemented as policy in many western democratic nations. When I started reading I was at first disappointed because I assumed the author was going to defend "socialism". Crosland does no such thing.
Report abuse
Shayn Mccallum
3.0 out of 5 stars A very important text for anyone interested in the history of UK socialism.
Reviewed in the United States on 27 January 2011
Verified Purchase
It's a sign of the times we're in that this book was a bombshell on the British Left of its day, an iconoclastic, tour de force of revisionist thinking to equal 'Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus', the original revisionist text of Eduard Bernstein written at the turn of the century in Germany. Tony Crosland immediately became a saint to rightward-leaning moderate socialists and a devil to the traditional Left. His attempt to re-cast socialism for the post-war era was seen by some as a betrayal and a repudiation of socialism itself while, for others, it showed the way forward and excavated the essential values of the socialist movement out from under a host of unnecessary and destructive accretions that had attached themselves to it.
After reading the book and comparing Crosland's revised socialism with the state of much post-1990's socialist and social-democratic thinking, it is somewhat jarring to note that, were he alive today, Crosland would probably be seen on the Left of the Labour movement rather than the Right where he was in his own day. Moreover, although it has often been argued that the modern Labour Party is the living fruit of his work, I think it unfair in a way (rather as it is, to a degree, unfair to lay 20th Century communism at Marx' feet) to attribute the Blair years to Tony Crosland's legacy. The man has been misunderstood it seems by friend and foe alike. Far from being the scribblings of a craven sell-out to free-market capitalism, this book reveals itself to be the work of a highly-intelligent, principled democratic socialist trying to argue, in essence, that socialism had been misdefined by history as 'state-ownership of the means of production' whereas the true essence of the socialist movement had always been in extending democratic participation and control into society. According to Crosland, democracy and equality are the hallmarks of socialism rather than the nationalisation of enterprises. This argument (in a sense much more radical than bland proposals to put public enterprises under dull, bureaucratic administration, in no way more meaningfully 'popular property' than privately-owned firms) rests on firm ground with regard to the history of socialist ideas. The identification of socialism with the state is, indeed, largely an accident of history and the circumstances produced by the 1920's and 30's, more than a sacred principle of socialist economics (as any glance at the debates among different branches of the socialist movement as far back as Marx' time will reveal).
In coming to this not-unprecedented position, Crosland was largely paralleling the concerns and approach of Swedish Social Democracy, arguably one of the most successful political movements in the 20th Century. Capitalism, he argued, due to the political advances made by working people in the post-war period through democratic self-organisation, was no longer really capitalism at all. Capital was being subdued and tamed for the benefit of society as a whole, removing the need for the militant approach of the more traditional left-wingers. Socialism, in other words, was already bearing its fruits through the mixed economy of the 1950's.
Sadly, although Crosland may have sounded more convincing in the golden, Keynesian era that followed WWII, today's capitalism is re-discovering its old bite and is busy throwing off the chains briefly imposed on it by democracy. Crosland's book is a wonderful product of a keen mind and compassionate heart and it deserves to be read and studied by democratic socialists. Its assumptions however, now require a new revision (though not, I would suggest, of his central assertion which was true in the time of Bernstein and just as true today, that the struggle of socialists is ever the struggle for a more democratic, more participatory society). This message, long affirmed by all democratic socialists, is eloquently argued in this book and deserves to be heard again- even more now that the historical dead-end of state socialism no longer exists to distract us or confuse the debate. There may be little that is programmatically useful for modern socialists in this book as the death of Keynesianism has resurrected a much fiercer version of disembedded capitalism that Tony Crosland, in his time, had believed dead forever, yet there is much of value in the spirit in which this book is written, and much still to be admired in the values it expresses.
9 people found this helpful
Report abuse
===
===
No comments:
Post a Comment