What do you think?
Rate this book
Class War Conservatism: And Other Essays
When, in 2013, the Daily Mail labeled Ralph Miliband “The Man Who Hated Britain,” a diverse host rallied to his defense. Those who had worked with him – from both left and right – praised his work and character. He was lauded as “one of the best-known academic Marxists of his generation” and a leading figure of the New Left.
Class War Conservatism collects together his most significant political essays and shows the scope and brilliance of his thinking. Ranging from the critical anatomy of capitalism to a clear-eyed analysis of the future of socialism in Britain, this selection shows Miliband as an independent and prescient thinker of great insight. Throughout, his writing is a passionate and forcefully argued demand for social justice and a better future.
Class War Conservatism collects together his most significant political essays and shows the scope and brilliance of his thinking. Ranging from the critical anatomy of capitalism to a clear-eyed analysis of the future of socialism in Britain, this selection shows Miliband as an independent and prescient thinker of great insight. Throughout, his writing is a passionate and forcefully argued demand for social justice and a better future.
368 pages, Paperback
First published February 3, 2015
7 people are currently reading
236 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 7, 2016
Has some very interesting essays but unfortunately also quite a lot of reviews of things that aren't particularly illuminating - typically they don't run long enough to give enough depth to either his ideas or those of the person he's reviewing and there are some points that he covers again and again. For example, he regularly attacks Stalinism (although it's not his constant target, more a side issue) and tries to separate it cleanly from Leninism in general and Marx. But he doesn't really ever provide a good argument why this is a reasonable stance and it seems to me to inhibit analysis of the USSR. There's also a lot of stuff here that's either for a very specific audience (talking about Bettelheim's economic analysis of the USSR for example) or simply dated (although I suppose many current "new new left" stuff is very reminiscent of Eurocommunism) - there's always interesting things to pick out from what he says but it limits the wider appeal of it.
I highly recommend "The Coup in Chile", available online https://www.marxists.org/archive/mili..., that explains clearly both the specific situation of Chile and also the problems facing any serious movement of power and wealth from the hands of the current ruling classes in every country. "State Power and Class Interests" is an interesting attempt to work out what the "ruling classes" and bourgeois hegemony actually means and "Constitutionalism and Revolution" is dated because it's targeted at Eurocommunism but much of the attacks on their general principles are still relevant. Don't take my first paragraph as disparaging the book because there's definitely a lot of good stuff it's just sometimes buried and the topics addressed are very variable.
The essay "Military Interventionism and Socialist Internationalism" is notable for having aged extremely poorly. With regards to Afghanistan he says "It is of course convenient to argue that no alternative to Babrak Karmal existed save the blackest kind of reactionary regime, allied to the United States, Pakistan and China." He attacks the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea on the basis that the government they installed was no better than the Pol Pot one, set back the course of socialism through creation of nationalism etc, and disparages the idea that the Kampuchean incursions on Vietnamese territory were of any import. He ridicules the idea that a counter-revolution was possible in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 by describing such a thing in terms exactly describing what actually happened in the early 1990s - of course, this doesn't in any way provide a justification for Soviet actions at those times, but with hindsight it's quite awkward to read. To quote, because it's so exact:
"Properly speaking, a counter-revolution may be said to have occurred when a regime of the left, Communist or not, has been overthrown (or for that matter replaced by legal means) and where the successor regime pushes through a series of economic, social and political measures designed to assure or restore the power, property and privileges of landlords, capitalists and other segments of the ruling class who have been threatened with dispossession or who have actually been dispossessed by the regime which the counter-revolution has replaced. This involves the return to landlords and capitalists of their land and factories and banks, and of property in general, where it has been taken from them. It also involves the reaffirmation of their power and preponderance by the suppression of the defence organizations of the subordinate classes—parties, trade unions, cooperatives, clubs and associations. It further involves the suppression or drastic curtailment of civil rights; the physical suppression of opposition leaders, of agitators, subversives and enemies of the state; and the political restructuring of the state in authoritarian directions... Of course, there were, particularly in Hungary, people who had counter-revolutionary intentions: but that is obviously not the same thing... In both countries, there might well have come into being a coalition regime in which the Communist Party would not have been assured of an automatic preponderance; and other such variations can easily be conceived. The point is that, whatever may be thought of these possibilities, they cannot, on any reasonable assessment, be equated with ‘counter-revolution’, or anything like it. It would surely have been exceedingly difficult to unscramble long-nationalized property and to restore factories, mines or land to their former owners..."
Again, this isn't to absolve the Soviets of blame by using something that happened afterwards as justification. Just. Dang.
Ultimately the essay fails for the reason many of the essays that talk about "Stalinism" or generally try to put forward an international socialist viewpoint fail - everything is so hedged about with the necessity for "critical support", acknowledging "the progressive and regressive sides", not allowing yourself to ever for a moment say something is good. There are two bad sides - the capitalist West and the Stalinist USSR - but there's nobody to root for except in very specific situations, and there's no real alternative position because everything has to be hedged with criticality no matter what. By focusing on a certain narrow definition of "civil rights" all the time, it leaves the reader wondering why the author shows any support for the socialist bloc at all. And when he says that there are some extreme situations where interventionism is justified but decides that responding to attempted invasion by a country that borders you and is currently involved in mass murder of its own citizens doesn't count, it makes you wonder what on earth *does* count. Much of this kind of "non aligned communist" writing just gives off an incredible feeling of futility and total pointlessness - it's not advancing any cause, it's not giving material support to anyone, and even as criticism it's confused and aimless.
For the last few essays: Class War Conservatism is short and doesn't say much but is good. Socialist Advance in Britain is OK and relates pretty strongly to Corbyn but is pretty familiar stuff if you have a radical left background I think. Freedom, Democracy and the American Alliance is pretty good about attacking the "USSR expansionism" myth but again not too much new. What Comes After Communist Regimes is pretty prescient about the coming privatisation and its effects and what "democracy" the West imposed would really mean but it's not super relevant today.
Overall it has a few quality essays, some ok but not particularly groundbreaking ones and some dull ones (typically reviews etc). It's worth reading some of the specific essays and there's definitely interesting parts in all the essays, it's just often covered in mundane/tedious stuff. He *is* a relatively easy writer to read though so it's not a slog at all if you have a basic familiarity with political terminology, which is a big advantage.
I highly recommend "The Coup in Chile", available online https://www.marxists.org/archive/mili..., that explains clearly both the specific situation of Chile and also the problems facing any serious movement of power and wealth from the hands of the current ruling classes in every country. "State Power and Class Interests" is an interesting attempt to work out what the "ruling classes" and bourgeois hegemony actually means and "Constitutionalism and Revolution" is dated because it's targeted at Eurocommunism but much of the attacks on their general principles are still relevant. Don't take my first paragraph as disparaging the book because there's definitely a lot of good stuff it's just sometimes buried and the topics addressed are very variable.
The essay "Military Interventionism and Socialist Internationalism" is notable for having aged extremely poorly. With regards to Afghanistan he says "It is of course convenient to argue that no alternative to Babrak Karmal existed save the blackest kind of reactionary regime, allied to the United States, Pakistan and China." He attacks the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea on the basis that the government they installed was no better than the Pol Pot one, set back the course of socialism through creation of nationalism etc, and disparages the idea that the Kampuchean incursions on Vietnamese territory were of any import. He ridicules the idea that a counter-revolution was possible in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 by describing such a thing in terms exactly describing what actually happened in the early 1990s - of course, this doesn't in any way provide a justification for Soviet actions at those times, but with hindsight it's quite awkward to read. To quote, because it's so exact:
"Properly speaking, a counter-revolution may be said to have occurred when a regime of the left, Communist or not, has been overthrown (or for that matter replaced by legal means) and where the successor regime pushes through a series of economic, social and political measures designed to assure or restore the power, property and privileges of landlords, capitalists and other segments of the ruling class who have been threatened with dispossession or who have actually been dispossessed by the regime which the counter-revolution has replaced. This involves the return to landlords and capitalists of their land and factories and banks, and of property in general, where it has been taken from them. It also involves the reaffirmation of their power and preponderance by the suppression of the defence organizations of the subordinate classes—parties, trade unions, cooperatives, clubs and associations. It further involves the suppression or drastic curtailment of civil rights; the physical suppression of opposition leaders, of agitators, subversives and enemies of the state; and the political restructuring of the state in authoritarian directions... Of course, there were, particularly in Hungary, people who had counter-revolutionary intentions: but that is obviously not the same thing... In both countries, there might well have come into being a coalition regime in which the Communist Party would not have been assured of an automatic preponderance; and other such variations can easily be conceived. The point is that, whatever may be thought of these possibilities, they cannot, on any reasonable assessment, be equated with ‘counter-revolution’, or anything like it. It would surely have been exceedingly difficult to unscramble long-nationalized property and to restore factories, mines or land to their former owners..."
Again, this isn't to absolve the Soviets of blame by using something that happened afterwards as justification. Just. Dang.
Ultimately the essay fails for the reason many of the essays that talk about "Stalinism" or generally try to put forward an international socialist viewpoint fail - everything is so hedged about with the necessity for "critical support", acknowledging "the progressive and regressive sides", not allowing yourself to ever for a moment say something is good. There are two bad sides - the capitalist West and the Stalinist USSR - but there's nobody to root for except in very specific situations, and there's no real alternative position because everything has to be hedged with criticality no matter what. By focusing on a certain narrow definition of "civil rights" all the time, it leaves the reader wondering why the author shows any support for the socialist bloc at all. And when he says that there are some extreme situations where interventionism is justified but decides that responding to attempted invasion by a country that borders you and is currently involved in mass murder of its own citizens doesn't count, it makes you wonder what on earth *does* count. Much of this kind of "non aligned communist" writing just gives off an incredible feeling of futility and total pointlessness - it's not advancing any cause, it's not giving material support to anyone, and even as criticism it's confused and aimless.
For the last few essays: Class War Conservatism is short and doesn't say much but is good. Socialist Advance in Britain is OK and relates pretty strongly to Corbyn but is pretty familiar stuff if you have a radical left background I think. Freedom, Democracy and the American Alliance is pretty good about attacking the "USSR expansionism" myth but again not too much new. What Comes After Communist Regimes is pretty prescient about the coming privatisation and its effects and what "democracy" the West imposed would really mean but it's not super relevant today.
Overall it has a few quality essays, some ok but not particularly groundbreaking ones and some dull ones (typically reviews etc). It's worth reading some of the specific essays and there's definitely interesting parts in all the essays, it's just often covered in mundane/tedious stuff. He *is* a relatively easy writer to read though so it's not a slog at all if you have a basic familiarity with political terminology, which is a big advantage.
March 21, 2016
Miliband made me think hard about what it means to be a socialist and a revolutionary. I found these essays to be both a challenge and re-affirmation of the principle at the heart of Marxism.
Miliband repeatedly challenges the idea that any future revolutionary break will be a re-hash of 1917. But again and again, he affirms the need for socialist strategy to plan a break with capitalism, and to build up popular councils and committees that could start to create a socialist democracy.
One of the best passages, in a postscript to an article on Eurocommunism and constitutionalism, he says the choice that is likely to face mass movements in not necessarily between reform and revolution in the abstract: "This is seldom if ever how actual strategic choices present themselves, or are usually presented by the leaders of revolutionary groupings or parties. Much more commonly, specific objectives are at stake, whose pursuit aggravates class conflict to the point of major crisis: it is at some stage in this process that the 'politics of revolution' acquire a literal meaning, insofar as leaders (and followers) engaged in the conflict have to decide whether to move further and seek to gain power, or whether to retreat."
I also really appreciated his essay on the role of accident and the individual in history. I've always cringed at those crude Marxists who don't take these questions seriously. Miliband's article fits nicely with the conclusions of Ellen Wood in her article "Beyond 'Base and Superstructure'" -- and points toward a Marxist method that helps explains reality without demanding it fit into a crude economic determinism. Highly recommended.
Miliband repeatedly challenges the idea that any future revolutionary break will be a re-hash of 1917. But again and again, he affirms the need for socialist strategy to plan a break with capitalism, and to build up popular councils and committees that could start to create a socialist democracy.
One of the best passages, in a postscript to an article on Eurocommunism and constitutionalism, he says the choice that is likely to face mass movements in not necessarily between reform and revolution in the abstract: "This is seldom if ever how actual strategic choices present themselves, or are usually presented by the leaders of revolutionary groupings or parties. Much more commonly, specific objectives are at stake, whose pursuit aggravates class conflict to the point of major crisis: it is at some stage in this process that the 'politics of revolution' acquire a literal meaning, insofar as leaders (and followers) engaged in the conflict have to decide whether to move further and seek to gain power, or whether to retreat."
I also really appreciated his essay on the role of accident and the individual in history. I've always cringed at those crude Marxists who don't take these questions seriously. Miliband's article fits nicely with the conclusions of Ellen Wood in her article "Beyond 'Base and Superstructure'" -- and points toward a Marxist method that helps explains reality without demanding it fit into a crude economic determinism. Highly recommended.
January 11, 2023
One of the most incisive and independent thinkers in our tradition. A must-read for post-Leninist Gramscian Milibandists around the globe!
September 6, 2018
Excellent collection of essays from the the 1970s to the early 1990s by one of the foremost Marxist political philosophers of the time. Miliband was unique in not being bound by any dogma or affiliate to any formal Marxist political organisation but at the same time being able to offer insightful critiques based on a solid Marxist understanding of history and using Marxist theory to offer key insights into debates on historiography as well as current affairs. His essay on Chile and the coup against Allende written only a few months after the events of September 11th 1973 is brilliant and remains one of the best pieces of writing in English on the Allende government and the reasons behind its overthrow by the military.
October 12, 2022
An interesting collection of articles and essays by one of the 20th century's eminent Western Marxists, this volume draws together a selection of Miliband's writings on topics ranging from the more theoretical discussions of Marx's work on the state, to more contemplations on the fall of the Eastern bloc in 1989 and beyond.
Underpinning most of the essays, including even the later ones on Thatcherism as well as the post-Communist European landscape, is a central emphasis on the relative autonomy of the state. Articulated most coherently in the essays 'Marx and the State', as well as the discussions with Nicos Poulantzas, Miliband rejects the views of the latter (and those of the Althusser school of Structural Marxism) that the state might be said to be merely an organ of the wider ruling class, rejecting this kind of functionalism and developing a view instead that seeks to understand the state as a tool of the ruling bourgeoisie, but not one that is totally subservient to it. That is, emphasising again its relative autonomy.
In 'Marx and the State', he writes: '[Marx] often makes the point that, at one time or another, it is not the ruling class as a whole, but a fraction of it, which controls the state; and that those who actually run the state may well belong to a class which is not the economically dominant class. Marx does not suggest that this fundamentally affects the state's class character and its role as guardian and defender of the interest of property' (p.9), but - as he points out in the exchanges with Poulantzas - it is an important caveat to make not least because the structuralist formulation might lead to a dismissal of the specific kinds of characters who run the state (his example: constitutionalists or fascists) and thus leads to the failure to distinguish between different bourgeois states, regardless of whether they are relatively autocratic or democratic (he uses the Nazi Germany-Soviet pact as evidence of where this erroneous lapse in judgement might lead). In other words - not all boujis are created equal.
Miliband's emphasis on the relative autonomy of the state introduces into the matter a necessary dialectic (p.32). The error of Poulantzas, among others, he argues is that 'the structural constrains of the system [as they propose them to be] are so absolutely compelling as to turn those who run the state into the merest functionaries and excutants of politics imposed upon them by 'the system'' (p.32). Miliband, on the other hand, believes 'the state élite is involved in a far more complex relationship with the 'system' and with society as a whole than Poulantzas's scheme allows' (p.32).
There are some other interesting discussions on contingency and determinism in history (and historiography), insightful book reviews, and prescient looks at Thatcherism and at the British Labour Party post-1979 that could almost - line for line - be applied to that same party today. Miliband makes a case that the 1983 manifesto represented - in spite of the electoral failure - an indication of the persistent influence of the party's left on its programme. Writing, of course, before the Militant expulsions under Kinnock and then the electoral successes of Blair, he was perhaps a little premature in expecting the ascendency of Labour socialists within the party. But, in light of the 2019 election and the continued intra-party negotiations as to what kind of a programme it expects to put forward, the analysis remains relevant.
Another reviewer has quite accurately criticised Miliband's attempts to neatly demarcate Leninism from Stalinism. This rings true of his other works, too. For as much as Miliband might be historically correct in 'Bettelheim and Soviet Experience' that Lenin cannot be said to be a progenitor for Stalinism, he dramatically fails to make the case for this.
Another reviewer, however, seems to believe Miliband is too apologetic for Stalin. All this really shows is that they didn't read the book, or at least didn't read it particularly hard.
Underpinning most of the essays, including even the later ones on Thatcherism as well as the post-Communist European landscape, is a central emphasis on the relative autonomy of the state. Articulated most coherently in the essays 'Marx and the State', as well as the discussions with Nicos Poulantzas, Miliband rejects the views of the latter (and those of the Althusser school of Structural Marxism) that the state might be said to be merely an organ of the wider ruling class, rejecting this kind of functionalism and developing a view instead that seeks to understand the state as a tool of the ruling bourgeoisie, but not one that is totally subservient to it. That is, emphasising again its relative autonomy.
In 'Marx and the State', he writes: '[Marx] often makes the point that, at one time or another, it is not the ruling class as a whole, but a fraction of it, which controls the state; and that those who actually run the state may well belong to a class which is not the economically dominant class. Marx does not suggest that this fundamentally affects the state's class character and its role as guardian and defender of the interest of property' (p.9), but - as he points out in the exchanges with Poulantzas - it is an important caveat to make not least because the structuralist formulation might lead to a dismissal of the specific kinds of characters who run the state (his example: constitutionalists or fascists) and thus leads to the failure to distinguish between different bourgeois states, regardless of whether they are relatively autocratic or democratic (he uses the Nazi Germany-Soviet pact as evidence of where this erroneous lapse in judgement might lead). In other words - not all boujis are created equal.
Miliband's emphasis on the relative autonomy of the state introduces into the matter a necessary dialectic (p.32). The error of Poulantzas, among others, he argues is that 'the structural constrains of the system [as they propose them to be] are so absolutely compelling as to turn those who run the state into the merest functionaries and excutants of politics imposed upon them by 'the system'' (p.32). Miliband, on the other hand, believes 'the state élite is involved in a far more complex relationship with the 'system' and with society as a whole than Poulantzas's scheme allows' (p.32).
There are some other interesting discussions on contingency and determinism in history (and historiography), insightful book reviews, and prescient looks at Thatcherism and at the British Labour Party post-1979 that could almost - line for line - be applied to that same party today. Miliband makes a case that the 1983 manifesto represented - in spite of the electoral failure - an indication of the persistent influence of the party's left on its programme. Writing, of course, before the Militant expulsions under Kinnock and then the electoral successes of Blair, he was perhaps a little premature in expecting the ascendency of Labour socialists within the party. But, in light of the 2019 election and the continued intra-party negotiations as to what kind of a programme it expects to put forward, the analysis remains relevant.
Another reviewer has quite accurately criticised Miliband's attempts to neatly demarcate Leninism from Stalinism. This rings true of his other works, too. For as much as Miliband might be historically correct in 'Bettelheim and Soviet Experience' that Lenin cannot be said to be a progenitor for Stalinism, he dramatically fails to make the case for this.
Another reviewer, however, seems to believe Miliband is too apologetic for Stalin. All this really shows is that they didn't read the book, or at least didn't read it particularly hard.
February 25, 2024
Es handelt sich um eine Essay-Sammlung des britischen Marxisten Ralph Miliband. Behandelt werden sowohl theoretische marxistische Grundsatzfragen wie z.B. das Verhältnis von Staat und herrschender Klasse als auch in den 70ern und 80ern aktuelle politische Entwicklungen, darunter der Putsch in Chile, der Eurokommunismus in Italien und Frankreich und die Rolle der Labour Party. Vieles ist nach wie vor gewinnbringend lesbar, einiges inzwischen eher von historischem Interesse, lesenswert ist das Buch aber durchgehend, da Miliband zu allen Themen kluge Gedanken formuliert und das stets in einer klaren und nachvollziehbaren Sprache.
February 10, 2023
These essays are (as a rule) not out of date, and those that are, are only mildly - no revision sessions needed
Most well written, great summary of the Marxist position circa 1965-1975, and the occasional cognitive dissonance to go with it
Essays on war difficult to read as miliband plays too much with the idea that war might have significant value before backing the correct conclusion and often a little too lukewarmly for my liking
Most well written, great summary of the Marxist position circa 1965-1975, and the occasional cognitive dissonance to go with it
Essays on war difficult to read as miliband plays too much with the idea that war might have significant value before backing the correct conclusion and often a little too lukewarmly for my liking
December 29, 2024
collection of essays going after Stalin, one half of an exchange with Poulantzas steering a course between Althusserian and Empiricist conceptions of the state (the other half is available in New Left Review though why anyone would be interested I can't imagine, this is from my pov easily the most boring 'branch' of Marxist thought) others considering the (im)plausibility of reforming the USSR into social democracy. Tariq Ali introduction v good and enjoyably rambling, wish it was longer
March 22, 2019
A brilliant set of essays with important perspectives and nuances
August 18, 2023
Combination of sharp analysis and excellent prose. Highly recommend!
May 29, 2016
Ironically this one of the most reactionary books I have ever read. Miliband clings to his Marxist faith, abusing Labour's leaders and dismayed by society's refusal to hand power to his friends regardless of events. His analysis is hopeless and uninformative, even after the collapse of Communism he seems to believe that Stalin was not so bad and predicts a future for Easrern Europe unburdened by any analysis or understanding of his subject. This is pitched at the level of Rick from the Young Ones wallowing in moral self-righteous and pertified by any change/
This book goes a long way to explaining the utter incompetence and ineffectual ranting of the Labour Hard Left. Written with all the wit and panache of a Haynes manual, Miliband sneers and attacks anyone foolish enough to diasgaree with his view that the world would be better run if everyone accepted the prejudices of him and his friends.
His intellectual arrogance and golden ability to misjudge every practical political problem does not deter his unabashed servile support of the Soviet Union and rabid anti-Americanism. The more bizarre attacks are those directed at the soft left of the Labour party for not worshipping Tony Benn and criticising Militant. Miliband's humanitarianism is undermined by his refusal to accept that Trotskites infilitrating the Labour Party might not be well-intentioned and his bizarre excuses for Soviet dictatorships. At times, this book read like a parody of the out-of-touch, wealthy academic disgruntled by society's refusal to place him in charge. It catches the zeitgeist of upper middleclass Trots fantasing that CND would lead to the collapse of Thatcherism: Miliband morphs into a more upmarket version of Dave Spart, mortally wounded by the ingratitude of capitalism forcing him to become a Fellow of an Oxford college.
For somebody closely linked to the left of the Labour Party, his utter contempt for working-class voters who dare to disagree is matched by his ignorance of the history of the left . The vanity of his projections of the demise of capitalism is nearly as depressing as his utter self-beleif that he was right. The sections on Britain show a deeply conservative man dismayed and shocked that life did not simply pour political power into his lap and becomes a rant against his opponents devoid of any constructive proposals for change.
The early academic assessments of Marxist theory are interesting if dry. However when Miliband tackles real issues, he adopts the high-minded nihilism of Benn, criticising all but providing no alternative other than empty slogans and abuse of his rivals. Having contributed to the destruction of Labour's hopes in 1983, Miliband concludes that socialist utopia is far away and promises a new party. If you want to understand the rise of Tony Blair this long book explains why the Labour Left simply bored the,selves to death.
This book goes a long way to explaining the utter incompetence and ineffectual ranting of the Labour Hard Left. Written with all the wit and panache of a Haynes manual, Miliband sneers and attacks anyone foolish enough to diasgaree with his view that the world would be better run if everyone accepted the prejudices of him and his friends.
His intellectual arrogance and golden ability to misjudge every practical political problem does not deter his unabashed servile support of the Soviet Union and rabid anti-Americanism. The more bizarre attacks are those directed at the soft left of the Labour party for not worshipping Tony Benn and criticising Militant. Miliband's humanitarianism is undermined by his refusal to accept that Trotskites infilitrating the Labour Party might not be well-intentioned and his bizarre excuses for Soviet dictatorships. At times, this book read like a parody of the out-of-touch, wealthy academic disgruntled by society's refusal to place him in charge. It catches the zeitgeist of upper middleclass Trots fantasing that CND would lead to the collapse of Thatcherism: Miliband morphs into a more upmarket version of Dave Spart, mortally wounded by the ingratitude of capitalism forcing him to become a Fellow of an Oxford college.
For somebody closely linked to the left of the Labour Party, his utter contempt for working-class voters who dare to disagree is matched by his ignorance of the history of the left . The vanity of his projections of the demise of capitalism is nearly as depressing as his utter self-beleif that he was right. The sections on Britain show a deeply conservative man dismayed and shocked that life did not simply pour political power into his lap and becomes a rant against his opponents devoid of any constructive proposals for change.
The early academic assessments of Marxist theory are interesting if dry. However when Miliband tackles real issues, he adopts the high-minded nihilism of Benn, criticising all but providing no alternative other than empty slogans and abuse of his rivals. Having contributed to the destruction of Labour's hopes in 1983, Miliband concludes that socialist utopia is far away and promises a new party. If you want to understand the rise of Tony Blair this long book explains why the Labour Left simply bored the,selves to death.
January 3, 2016
Some of the essays are on subjects which have dated slightly. A couple of interesting essays which could have been included are left out: for instance, "The New Revisionism in Britain", and his appreciation of Harold Laski, both from New Left Review. Nevertheless, this is a great collection which includes some classic essays, not least "Marx and the State", "The Coup in Chile", "Socialist Advance in Britain", "Freedom, Democracy and the American Alliance" and "What Comes After Communist Regimes?". Many of the questions addressed in this collection are of deep and abiding importance, and Miliband's judgements are often extraordinarily prescient.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews