What do you think?
Rate this book
Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost
The Left is in crisis. Despite global economic turbulence, left-wing political parties in many countries have failed to make progress in part because they have grown too ideologically fragmented. Today, the term Left is associated with state intervention and public ownership, but this has little in common with the original meaning of the term. What caused what we mean by the Left to change, and how has that hindered progress?
With Wrong-Turnings , Geoffrey M. Hodgson tracks changes in the meaning of the Left and offers suggestions for how the Left might reclaim some of its core values. The term Left originated during the French Revolution, when revolutionaries sought to abolish the monarchy and privilege and to introduce a new society based on liberty, equality, fraternity, and universal rights. Over time, however, the meaning radically changed, especially through the influence of socialism and collectivism. Hodgson argues that the Left must rediscover its roots in the Enlightenment and readopt Enlightenment values it has abandoned, such as those concerning democracy and universal human rights. Only then will it be prepared to address contemporary problems of inequality and the survival of democracy. Possible measures could include enhanced educational provisions, a guaranteed basic income, and a viable mechanism for fair distribution of wealth.
Wrong-Turnings is a truly pathbreaking work from one of our most prolific and respected institutional theorists. It will change our understanding of how the left got lost.
With Wrong-Turnings , Geoffrey M. Hodgson tracks changes in the meaning of the Left and offers suggestions for how the Left might reclaim some of its core values. The term Left originated during the French Revolution, when revolutionaries sought to abolish the monarchy and privilege and to introduce a new society based on liberty, equality, fraternity, and universal rights. Over time, however, the meaning radically changed, especially through the influence of socialism and collectivism. Hodgson argues that the Left must rediscover its roots in the Enlightenment and readopt Enlightenment values it has abandoned, such as those concerning democracy and universal human rights. Only then will it be prepared to address contemporary problems of inequality and the survival of democracy. Possible measures could include enhanced educational provisions, a guaranteed basic income, and a viable mechanism for fair distribution of wealth.
Wrong-Turnings is a truly pathbreaking work from one of our most prolific and respected institutional theorists. It will change our understanding of how the left got lost.
- GenresHistory
288 pages, Hardcover
Published January 3, 2018
2 people are currently reading
37 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 of 1 review
January 9, 2018
Geoffrey Hodgson is a distinguished research professor and has published numerous books. This one is a thorough history of global political economy from the Enlightenment to the present. While the focus is on the left, it covers the full political spectrum from Marx and the numerous iterations of socialism to the contemporary manifestations of libertarianism.
While this is a book that should hold the interest of the most ardent scholar, this is also a very good read for the more casual armchair historian or political economist. The research is very thorough and the writing is accessible and impassioned. There is nothing dry about the prose or the subject matter. “There is another health warning. My evidence and arguments may be disconcerting for those with unbendable notions of Left or Right.”
My only criticism, and it doesn’t really rise to that level, is that the author is an obvious fan of the Enlightenment and, as a result, seems to hold a very deductive worldview. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but the people who share this worldview often see the world in very binary terms of either/or. So while the arguments are generally quite sound and well reasoned, I found that they sometimes sounded, at least to my ears, just a bit too self-assured. He seldom leaves any room for a greater understanding of context to provide a more complete and accurate depiction.
Professor Hodgson states, for example, “Cultural relativists remove themselves from any discussion of normative morality.” I don’t spend much time with cultural relativists, mind you, but that strikes me as an unlikely universal truth. If that is a generalization, that’s fine. As a reader, however, I would prefer it be stated as such.
Having lived in China for nine years I can similarly say that based on my own real-life experience there, his characterization of China’s residency registration system struck me as just a bit too cynical. “Urban and rural citizens have different rights and entitlements.” He goes on to say, “..the hukou system is an inegalitarian relic of both imperial and Maoist China.” Technically speaking, urban and rural citizens in China actually have very similar rights and entitlements, but they do, as a result of the urban/rural distinction, result in different outcomes at some level.
Perhaps more importantly, I think the characterization ignores the larger context of why the system exists in the first place. I don’t believe the government is attempting to deprive anyone of their rights so much as it is merely trying to prevent overwhelming urban services and infrastructure with excessively rapid urbanization. In fact, in the final chapter of the book, when addressing the question of world citizenship raised by Kant and others, Hodgson notes, “But concomitant rights of free global movement, especially in a world of huge inequalities, would raise massive problems.” I think he’s right, but the observation is no less valid when applied to China’s internal migration. It’s not an ideal restriction, for sure, but arguably necessary given the urban/rural inequities found in a developing country that is home to 1.4 billion people.
As the title suggests, a lot of the book is dedicated to correcting the record of nomenclature used by politicians and reformers around the globe. From Paine to Marx, he makes a solid case that when it comes to designating the political left and right, we often get it wrong. American libertarians, he notes, actually share a great deal in common with the leftists of the French Revolution, while Lenin and the Soviets got little of their ultimate tyranny from Marx himself, who, in fact, shunned, perhaps a little too cleverly, ever committing himself to the details of what comes after his proletariat class struggle.
For a while I’ll admit that it sounded a bit like he was splitting semantic hairs but if you hang in there it becomes obvious why the clarification of original intent is important. His point is ultimately more than academic.
I did think that the author made some very insightful observations about the nature of science that are spot on. “In their view and application of science, Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen were mistaken. Their use of the supposed findings of science was highly selective and idiosyncratic. They did not understand how science evolves; they did not appreciate that its findings are always provisional.” Indeed they are not alone in neglecting “the social context of scientific discovery.” Science, in the vernacular of pop culture, has taken on a demagogic meaning that greatly distorts its true purpose. It is a methodology for objectively interpreting reality rather than a specific and unassailable body of knowledge.
In the final chapter, Professor Hodgson offers his own straw man, if you’ll forgive the colloquialism. And I, for one, thought this was the strongest and most valuable part of the book. He refers to it as the new old left, a pragmatic form of what he calls “evotopia”, and it makes a lot of sense. It’s a hybrid model of private and shared ownership and free and regulated markets built on inalienable rights to certain personal liberties and freedoms.
I do particularly support his argument for universal income in some form. We simply can’t ignore the fact that whether the markets or the forces defining them have created inequality, we have created a world in which it is virtually impossible to live without income. For reasons of simple compassion, the rightful acknowledgement of the value created by virtue of our shared existence, and the need to maintain innovation and economic and intellectual risk-taking, the time has come to take mere subsistence off the table of human concerns.
Lastly, I also agree with his fears about the rise of authoritarian nationalism and agree that what he defines as a “modernized version of the Enlightenment politics of the original Left” is the only viable and sustainable option.
All told, it’s a very good work on a topic that couldn’t be more timely or important.
While this is a book that should hold the interest of the most ardent scholar, this is also a very good read for the more casual armchair historian or political economist. The research is very thorough and the writing is accessible and impassioned. There is nothing dry about the prose or the subject matter. “There is another health warning. My evidence and arguments may be disconcerting for those with unbendable notions of Left or Right.”
My only criticism, and it doesn’t really rise to that level, is that the author is an obvious fan of the Enlightenment and, as a result, seems to hold a very deductive worldview. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but the people who share this worldview often see the world in very binary terms of either/or. So while the arguments are generally quite sound and well reasoned, I found that they sometimes sounded, at least to my ears, just a bit too self-assured. He seldom leaves any room for a greater understanding of context to provide a more complete and accurate depiction.
Professor Hodgson states, for example, “Cultural relativists remove themselves from any discussion of normative morality.” I don’t spend much time with cultural relativists, mind you, but that strikes me as an unlikely universal truth. If that is a generalization, that’s fine. As a reader, however, I would prefer it be stated as such.
Having lived in China for nine years I can similarly say that based on my own real-life experience there, his characterization of China’s residency registration system struck me as just a bit too cynical. “Urban and rural citizens have different rights and entitlements.” He goes on to say, “..the hukou system is an inegalitarian relic of both imperial and Maoist China.” Technically speaking, urban and rural citizens in China actually have very similar rights and entitlements, but they do, as a result of the urban/rural distinction, result in different outcomes at some level.
Perhaps more importantly, I think the characterization ignores the larger context of why the system exists in the first place. I don’t believe the government is attempting to deprive anyone of their rights so much as it is merely trying to prevent overwhelming urban services and infrastructure with excessively rapid urbanization. In fact, in the final chapter of the book, when addressing the question of world citizenship raised by Kant and others, Hodgson notes, “But concomitant rights of free global movement, especially in a world of huge inequalities, would raise massive problems.” I think he’s right, but the observation is no less valid when applied to China’s internal migration. It’s not an ideal restriction, for sure, but arguably necessary given the urban/rural inequities found in a developing country that is home to 1.4 billion people.
As the title suggests, a lot of the book is dedicated to correcting the record of nomenclature used by politicians and reformers around the globe. From Paine to Marx, he makes a solid case that when it comes to designating the political left and right, we often get it wrong. American libertarians, he notes, actually share a great deal in common with the leftists of the French Revolution, while Lenin and the Soviets got little of their ultimate tyranny from Marx himself, who, in fact, shunned, perhaps a little too cleverly, ever committing himself to the details of what comes after his proletariat class struggle.
For a while I’ll admit that it sounded a bit like he was splitting semantic hairs but if you hang in there it becomes obvious why the clarification of original intent is important. His point is ultimately more than academic.
I did think that the author made some very insightful observations about the nature of science that are spot on. “In their view and application of science, Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen were mistaken. Their use of the supposed findings of science was highly selective and idiosyncratic. They did not understand how science evolves; they did not appreciate that its findings are always provisional.” Indeed they are not alone in neglecting “the social context of scientific discovery.” Science, in the vernacular of pop culture, has taken on a demagogic meaning that greatly distorts its true purpose. It is a methodology for objectively interpreting reality rather than a specific and unassailable body of knowledge.
In the final chapter, Professor Hodgson offers his own straw man, if you’ll forgive the colloquialism. And I, for one, thought this was the strongest and most valuable part of the book. He refers to it as the new old left, a pragmatic form of what he calls “evotopia”, and it makes a lot of sense. It’s a hybrid model of private and shared ownership and free and regulated markets built on inalienable rights to certain personal liberties and freedoms.
I do particularly support his argument for universal income in some form. We simply can’t ignore the fact that whether the markets or the forces defining them have created inequality, we have created a world in which it is virtually impossible to live without income. For reasons of simple compassion, the rightful acknowledgement of the value created by virtue of our shared existence, and the need to maintain innovation and economic and intellectual risk-taking, the time has come to take mere subsistence off the table of human concerns.
Lastly, I also agree with his fears about the rise of authoritarian nationalism and agree that what he defines as a “modernized version of the Enlightenment politics of the original Left” is the only viable and sustainable option.
All told, it’s a very good work on a topic that couldn’t be more timely or important.
Displaying 1 of 1 review