IMAGINING OTHER
Political Philosophy
Part 2
Marxism
and Socialism since Marx (pp17)
Part 1:
Marxism and Revisionism (*)
(see
also notes on the Labour Movement… here we are dealing mainly with Marxist theory)
(*)
part 2 deals with the English experience – including the New Left, Labour and
New Labour, the ‘Third Way’ etc.
Links:
Imagining Other Index Page
Political Philosophy Contents Page
Outline:
1. Currents in Marxism:
1.1 why
the different “currents” in Marxism
1.2 what
are the main groupings
1.3 what are
the theoretical differences in Marxism
2. Marx’s different interpreters
2.1 Lenin
and Stalin
2.2
Western Marxism – the ‘first generation’
2.3
Gramsci
2.4
Lukacs
2.5 the
‘second generation’ of western Marxists - critical theory etc.
3. Social Democracy: ‘revisions’ of Marx (by those who
still felt themselves to be to some extent Marxists, whilst others would say
they were not):
3.1
Eduard Bernstein
3.2 Tony
Crosland
Note: there are notes and points on inequality at: Chapter 8 of Corporate Social Responsibility and
at: Updates on Inequality.
NOTES:
1. Currents in
Marxism.
1.1 why the
‘fragmentation’?
There are several reasons:
- theoretical
differences: Marxism is a complex theory with many inter-related ‘parts’ (see
pp16). Differences will obviously emerge among interpretations as a result of
emphasising different features of the theory. Thus Lenin and others stressed: the
economy and party organisation, the strategy of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, egalitarianism. “Western Marxists” stressed Marxism as a
philosophy, and such themes as alienation (in the light of Freud and modern
psychology). Social democracy stressed the relative autonomy of politics and
the way the economy and politics had changed since Marx’s time. The New Left
and some social democrats brought out the libertarianism in Marxism. (See 1.3 below)
- the
ambiguity/incompleteness of Marx's work – this led to different
interpretations of key concepts e.g. materialism, the role of the economy, the
state, class struggle, democracy, the transition to socialism…
- R.N. Berki, in ‘Socialism’ (see booklist) suggests
that different psychological approaches
lead to different “socialisms” - and maybe the same can be said of Marxism – so
we could identify perhaps: authoritarian vs. libertarian, practical vs.
idealist; rigid vs. flexible Marxisms…
- differences in the
historical/economic circumstances where the theory is applied. For example,
developing economies (as
- sectarianism:
the tendency to see Marxism as "truth" encourages groups to fight
amongst each other…
1.2 main groupings:
- "Third International" - followers of Lenin
and the CPSU (Communist Party of the
- "revolutionary Marxism" – rejects the
reformism of the pro-Moscow communist parties - e.g. Socialist Workers' Party
(UK), Revolutionary Communist Party etc; since CPs tend to take part in
Parliamentary elections etc, Marxists who stress the revolutionary nature of
Marxism have set up separate groupings; theoretical differences obviously exist
with (orthodox) CPs but differences, often bitter, also exist with each other
(e.g. in UK a contentious issue is Ireland)
- council communists stress that Lenin took over the
workers’ organisations (the soviets/councils) and manipulated them through the
Bolshevik Party (and the secret police!) – a genuine and democratic workers’
revolution could still take place if “vanguardism” is avoided (see, for
example, Pannekoek and the early ideas of Castoriadis)
- "Trotskyism" – rejects Stalinism (a
bureaucratic dictatorship) and Eurocommunism/reformism – Trotskyites were an
early split from the CP/Third International, in fact formed the Fourth
International, when Trotsky was exiled from
- "Maoists" - Mao's main alteration
to/development of Marxism was to give a role to the peasantry, in alliance with
the CP of course; this has been welcomed by some in less developed countries.
In
Article
by Pankaj Mishra, author of ‘Temptations of the West’, G 200711 discusses the
‘return of Mao’ – points out that Mao’s contribution to Marxist theory and
practise was to identify a nexus between the feudal elites in the hinterland
(of China) and the capitalists in the semi-colonial coastal cities. This was
the class enemy against whom the peasants needed mobilising. He lists as Mao’s
key works: Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in
Mao’s
ideas then had a significant impact in
Now there
is the insurgency in the forests of central
Mishra
also makes the point that whilst the scale of Mao’s violence dwarfs all other
crimes committed in the course of nation-building, nevertheless ‘modernisers’
everywhere have inflicted violence and suffering – especially ‘in a huge area
of Asian territory, from Turkey and Iran to Indonesia and Taiwan…’
- philosophical Marxists e.g. "New Left" and
“Western Marxism” - see 2.2 below
- there are also Marxists who want to combine Marxism
with e.g. Christian socialism, or to push the Labour Party from within
(Militant et al).
1.3 theoretical
differences among Marxists – (revisiting points made concerning Marx) differences
centre on such problems as:
- economic determinism: some Marxists have a model where
the economic "base" is separate from and determines the
"superstructure" (politics, culture etc); Engels himself tried to
restate this by saying the "economy is important in the last
instance" (i.e. as a kind of ultimate constraint, rather than a
determining factor); more recent writers have put the "relations of
production" as fundamental - i.e. the danger with economic determinism is
that it seems to attribute to non-human aspects of society the ability to push us towards socialism
(material forces have a purpose?!) - at the very least it reduces the role of
the human agent. But if you reduce the importance of the economy, how does
Marxism differ from other theories of social change, and how does it
demonstrate the necessity for socialism?
- consciousness and direction: related to the above,
some (e.g. Lenin) believe(d) that workers themselves, with no outside
influence, will only develop "trade union consciousness" (asking for
concessions from capitalism, not revolutionary consciousness which aims to
overthrow capitalism); others (e.g. Rosa Luxemburg) believe(d) that workers can
"spontaneously" become revolutionary; some argue that to develop
communist theory/consciousness you need a party, others reject this. Even
Trotsky found the Party indispensable, and - for all his criticisms, and
despite how he was treated, Lukacs never left it (see 2.4 below)
- Marxism as a scientific theory: stresses the importance
of empirical observation – but if it is a science then we ought to be able to
make firm predictions, e.g. of a coming "crisis of capitalism" – and
this has proved very difficult! A
counter view is that the development of workers’ consciousness will itself
determine the direction of capitalism (after all, Marx did say we have a
choice: “socialism or barbarism”! – see Castoriadis Notes on "Recommencing Revolution"
by Castoriadis). On the other hand, if consciousness is a key element in
the development of the proletariat before a revolution is possible - how
exactly does the level of workers’ consciousness relate to the development of
the economy (and couldn't such consciousness arise without a high level of
economic development)?
- can you combine a scientific theory with a moral one
(as Marxism seems to do)? The danger
with a pseudo-science based on moral arguments is that its adherents are driven
to prove their correctness by "forcing" events. Karl Popper argued
that the characteristic of a scientific theory is that it must be possible to falsify it (by finding
evidence that disproves it, or by testing it and the test failing). Can Marxism
be ‘falsified’? How do we go about testing arguments that point to the collapse
of capitalism as a result of the rate of profit declining? The rate has gone
down sometimes, and up at others; there have been various ‘crises’ but no
complete collapse as yet. Does this disprove the theory? No, say hard-line
Marxists, as they are still waiting for the final
crisis… Popper says Marx's theory suffer from historicism - the attributing to
"history" of purpose and meaning outside of how humans choose to act
- again, a form of determinism.
- Marxism as critique: if, as some say, the main
strength of Marxism is to criticize and demystify, why at the same time does it
want to assert what it does? Criticism and demystification does not of itself
provide positive answers.
- Marxism as ideology: if all classes adopt theories
about the world which reflect their position in it and their interests/desires,
and these ideas are therefore distortions - ideologies - how can it be proved
that Marxism is not itself an ideology? (Unless and until the socialist
revolution has in fact occurred!) Note too that Freud contributed other
thoughts on the problem of self-knowledge/self-deception... [Some of these
arguments are taken from books by Sabine and Lancaster – see the booklist).
2. Marxism's
interpreters (post-1917) - selected critical issues:
2.1 Lenin and Stalin:
Lenin's revolution took
many by surprise at the time: it had seemed that Marx expected revolution to
start in advanced capitalist countries. Hence many (especially the Mensheviks)
felt that Lenin introduced an element of "voluntarism" – as it were
‘willing’ a revolution before economic conditions were ripe (see also Gramsci,
below). These thoughts reinforced the division between those who saw Marxism as
predicting events, in a deterministic way (such as the Mensheviks) and those
who believed (with Gramsci and Lukacs) that what happened depended more on how
people thought and acted - a crucial aspect of this is "cultural":
how ideas are presented by the ruling powers, and how workers and others
respond.
With the USSR's isolation from the rest of the world
after the revolution of 1917, and with the subsequent failure of revolution to
occur in Europe, another central aspect of Marxism - its international appeal -
had to be confronted, or "revised". ‘Socialism in one country’ was Stalin's slogan. Many seemed to accept
it, though part of the appeal of Trotskyism was in its stressing the need for
international revolution.
Another feature of Stalinism was the centralisation of
power into his own hands. To many, the Party was "substituting" itself
for the proletariat, and Stalin substituted himself for the Party. With the
brutal suppression of uprisings in East Germany and Hungary (1956 and after) -
where ordinary working people were making demands that the original promises of
the revolution be fulfilled, a good many westerners left the Communist Party,
and much theoretical discussion took place (e.g. the New Left).
2.2 “Western Marxism”
or “philosophical Marxism”
Russia had never seen itself as entirely ‘western’ (in the course of
its history the ‘slavophiles’, who thought Russia should follow a distinct
‘Slav’ pattern of development were influential). Hence Marxists in Western
Europe acquired the label “western”. Their ideas arose also from the late
discovery of Marx’s early writings; these, with their emphasis on ‘alienation’
etc, were not published until the 1940s. Freud’s ideas had come to influence
western thought as well, and Marxists sought to add to Marx ideas from other
philosophers in order to strengthen Marxism, or to ‘fill in’ perceived gaps in
the theory. In particular, they felt they needed to distance themselves from
any "mechanistic” or “deterministic" interpretations of Marxism, and
therefore needed to develop a stronger Marxist philosophy. Politically they took up a distinctive position also,
since many were not able to support Leninism, they saw social democrats as
“managing capitalism”, and they thought that Maoism was not relevant to the
West. Whilst ‘western’ Marxism has its origins in Gramsci and Lukacs, a range
of ideas was developed, and could be said to include the New Left, thinkers
such as Ralph Milliband, Poulantzas, Althusser and others.
Perry Anderson in: Considerations on Western Marxism, New Left Books
1976, argues that these thinkers were found mainly in
workers councils; Lukacs was expelled from the party because of his
opposition to the party’s refusal to work with other workers' organisations – a
line known as
‘social fascism’); Gramsci spent years in prison (while
For
2.3 Gramsci (1891 – 1937)
The Italian Marxist thinker and politician Antonio Gramsci
was politically active during the rise of fascism in Italy. He became general
secretary of the Italian Communist Party in 1921, and was elected to parliament
in 1924. In fact he stood up against Mussolini in the parliament, and was
eventually imprisoned (1926) for life – Mussolini’s prosecutor saying “we must
silence this brain for ever.” He wrote his Prison Notebooks between 1929 and
1935, in prison – using a kind of coded language to hide from the prison
authorities the fact that he was writing about Marxism. He became very ill in
prison and was eventually released, but died of a brain haemorrhage soon after
his release.
Gramsci had warned of the danger of bureaucracy in the
Party (as had Trotsky...), and called for power to workers' soviets. He argued
that the scientific nature of Marxism cannot be demonstrated apart from the
actions of the working class - i.e. theory and practice must be one.
Intellectuals who sympathise with the workers must be "organically"
linked, i.e. must "practise" by being actively involved in struggle
etc.
He noted the way that classes exercise
"hegemony" - i.e. control of society through ideas as well as
economically (through ownership of the means of production). Therefore the
struggle against the rulers must also be one on the "cultural" plane.
This stressed the role of the church, the media, civil society organisations
and trade unions. He thus rejected the "base/superstructure" model
that many Marxists had adopted, where the economic base determines the cultural
superstructure, and wrote of the ‘optimism of the will’ (from Heywood 2003). He
also suggested that the state has some "autonomy" - its actions are
not merely determined by economic circumstances, but the ruling class has room
to manoeuvre in response to pressures put on it.
2.4 Lukacs (1885 - 1971)
The Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs wrote "History
and Class Consciousness" in 1919 - 22, and other writings through to 1963.
He also attempted to theorise a more ‘humanist’ Marxism, with his emphasis on
“reification” – the process by which capitalism reduces workers to passive
objects or marketable commodities (Heywood).
(The notes that follow are primarily from Kolakowski’s
Main Currents of Marxism – see booklist).
Lukacs stressed that the core of Marxism was "dialectics"
- however, this is not just a way of describing the world, it is a way of
thinking which accepts that in thinking about the world we change it. In other
words the dialectic is a part of the revolutionary process.
This enabled Lukacs to tackle the problems associated
with the question of ‘scientific method’ in Marxism, and he did this by
distancing himself from "empiricism" - the obsession with
"facts" - which when it gets in the way of seeing the
"total" movement of history, he said, produces revisionism and
reformism. His approach to the epistemological (the nature of knowledge - how
we know) aspect of Marxism was to subordinate ‘empirical’ facts to the ‘bigger
picture’ (as it were): "...when vulgar Marxists adduce "facts"
that appear to contradict the process (…whereby the time approaches for the
expropriators to be expropriated), so much the worse for the facts!"
On the other hand, we must be able to fit the concrete
details into the whole - this he calls "mediation": over-emphasising
one aspect or the other leads to errors - too much attention to detail leads to
revisionism, but too much attention to "totalities" without taking
into account specific differences in the components leads to such doctrines as
Nazism.
The crucial agent in bringing about socialism, which is
to create a "whole" society, is the one which is itself a
"whole" i.e. the proletariat (Marx's "universal class").
The dialectic is the growing self-consciousness of this class i.e.
consciousness of "objective" change (all previous classes and times
have suffered from "alienation" or "false consciousness").
Thus socialism is neither something we "want" nor something we
"foresee", but it is the very meaning of history. Here Kolakowski observes
that we have entered the world of myth... and I would add that it is hard to
believe that the working class must
develop in self-consciousness by becoming Marxist – yet if you believe Marxism
has found the ‘truth’ about the future, so it must be…
Lukacs’s ideas were not accepted by Stalin, and he was
obliged to retract much of what he wrote ("self-criticism"). When
Hungary was invaded in 1956 Lukacs was deported (he was a member of the Central
Committee, and had held the post of Minister of Culture for a few days). He was
one of the few Hungarian leaders not to have been murdered. Despite this
treatment, he maintained Leninist views on the importance of the Party, and
even maintained that "the worst socialism is better than the best
capitalism".
I would conclude that his (problematic) ideas were more
influential on philosophers than on the workers’ movement – a dilemma that
haunts many Marxist intellectuals…
2.5 The ‘second generation’ of ‘western Marxists’
(for Perry Anderson) were formed by the experience of fascism and WWII (the
Centred on Frankfurt, a group of theorists developed what is known as
“Critical Theory” (or the Frankfurt School). These include: Theodor Adorno
(1903 – 1969), Max Horkheimer (1895 – 1973) and Herbert Marcuse (1898 - 1979).
Others of the ‘second generation’ were Louis Althusser
The most important contribution of these thinkers was
their attempted to integrate the psychological ideas of Freud and his
successors into Marxism - much work was done on the "authoritarian
personality" after the Second World War. After all, Marxism as originally
formulated did not seem able to explain fascism – and yet fascism had appealed
to many in the working class… They also returned to the ‘dialectics’ of Hegel,
and Marx’s use of them as a ‘critique’ of existing society – hence ‘critical’
theory.
Other ‘western Marxists’ (especially Sartre) were
influenced by phenomenology and existentialism.
Perry Anderson
suggests that these developments of Marxist theory were especially prevalent in
Germany, Italy, and France where there were large Communist Parties,
and a large radical
intelligentsia. Anderson notes several points (a) he attributes the preoccupation
with philosophy to their being divorced from practical politics –
especially given the
"defeats" that fascism and Stalinism represented, (b) they worked in
universities etc e.g. the Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt – and thus
gradually got more
distant from the Marxist movement, (c) in France there was the influence and
strength of Proudhonism, anarcho-syndicalism, surrealism,
existentialism, the
conflict in Algeria etc, (d) Hungary 1956 - when a popular uprising was put
down with Russian tanks - represented another defeat for traditional
Marxist thought, and
(e) they were consequently not interested so much in economics, the political
machinery of the bourgeois state and the class struggle; hence there
was bound to be a
shift to philosophy. Many leading
theorists of this ‘school’ actually had university chairs of philosophy! (cf.
Althusser and Spinoza and
Montesquieu).
I am not sure that I
go along with all of this, and it is worth stressing that alongside the ‘western
Marxists’ identified above, there were others who stressed the importance of
workers’ councils, and a practical approach from the “bottom up” (e.g. Karl
Korsch, Anton Pannekoek and others – such ‘council communism’ was an influence
on Castoriadis). Perhaps Anderson is trapped in his own “intellectual”
framework…
[Note: there are many other prominent and influential
Marxist thinkers and activists that I have to leave out of these notes, at
least for the time being e.g.: Erich Fromm, Jurgen Habermas, Henri Lefebvre…]
Thinkers such as these, and Marcuse, were influential on
the New Left (see 4.2 below)
3. Social Democracy: (revisions of Marx, but by those
who still felt themselves to be Marxists)
Eduard Bernstein 1850 – 1932: [from McClelland
1996]
1. Life:
In 1872 he joined the
precursor of the German Social Democratic Party in Berlin. The 1870 depression
convinced many that capitalism was about to collapse…
Bismarck passed
anti-socialist laws, so Bernstein went into exile in Switzerland, then had to
move on to London, where he edited a newspaper and became a friend of
Engels. He was
executor of Engels’ will, and had charge of his papers.
In London he was
impressed by the Fabians (whose approach was gradualist) and by the “liberalism
and tolerance’ of the Gladstone era.
In 1898 he wrote
Evolutionary Socialism, which was published in 1899 in Germany, and in 1909 in
England (also published as Preconditions for Socialism).
Went back to Germany
in 1901, and was a member of the Reichstag from 1902 until 1928, and a minister
in 1919.
After his death in
1932 it was only six weeks before Hitler came to power. Bernstein never thought
Nazism had a future…
2. Main Issues
(Sidney Hook, Intro to 1963 edition Preconditions of Socialism):
- science should be
seen as tentative, not doctrinal (i.e. it must change with changing evidence) –
both the fundamental concepts and the applications must be treated in this way,
so that if the ‘applications’ don’t square with the fundamental concepts then
these (fundamental concepts) may need changing
- historical
developments have not turned out as Marx foresaw – in particular, unemployment
and impoverishment of the workers had not kept on worsening
- the basic ideas of
Marxism need revising (though NB he still saw himself as a Marxist, and Marxism
as ‘scientific’):
(a) historical materialism,
(b) class war,
(c) surplus value,
(d) an account of the tendencies of
bourgeois society
- consequently:
* there is not likely to be an apocalyptic
end to capitalism, rather a gradual change – which is in fact a change towards
socialism
* the idea of a proletarian
dictatorship should be rejected, as undemocratic – socialism is a movement towards (more/true) democracy,
& the heir to liberalism
* too much emphasis on the goal of the
movement is wrong (utopian) – the method and the movement are most important,
and the approach must combine realism and idealism.
3. These points in
more detail:
Science: involves
both the possibility of proof based on experience, and proof based on logic,
and the two must of course work together. There is a ‘pure’ universally valid
basis of Marxism (the ‘fundamental concepts) i.e. a philosophy of the general
features of history and society (though it has not yet been fully worked out),
and there are ‘applications’, but these are ‘out of synch’ [my words].
(a) Historical
materialism: if taken in a [too] materialist sense must be determinist, but
Engels argued that changes in production are ‘final causes’ of social change
and therefore not the only causes. Social institutions are not merely the
products of economic development but can become social forces with a will of
their own (e.g. the state has some limited autonomy in relation to the
economy). Thus capitalism involves “endless parallelograms of forces” – what
each person wills is hindered by what others will, and the consequences are
therefore not intended by anyone. Economics is a “decisive force, [the]
cardinal point of great moments of history, but not an unconditional
determining influence”. Moreover, we are getting to understand economics
better, and so to control it more.
(b) Class war: as
public/common interests (via the state) gain in power, so the conflict between
private ownership and the social character of production becomes less of a
contradiction. Moreover, the class theory is based on the theory of surplus
value – see next point.
(c) Surplus Value:
Bernstein felt that such ‘abstractions’ as “abstract labour, average wages,
socially necessary labour” were just abstractions and reductions – and that you
could argue that workers do not get the full value they create (or their fair
share) without these technical complications [my words]. So for Bernstein (as
for many non-Marxist socialists) the problem becomes one of distribution.
(d) Tendencies of the
development of capitalism: the bourgeoisie is not becoming smaller but bigger;
the middle classes are not disappearing (i.e. no polarisation is taking place).
There is only some concentration of industry and no concentration of capital.
Restraints have been placed on capitalism: factory legislation, minimum
conditions of labour, crises are being overcome etc. Bernstein also makes the
point that a ‘catastrophe theory’ is objectionable in that it makes radicals
oppose improvements in order to bring about the expected catastrophe.
4. Tasks for the
socialist movement: Bernstein was not in favour of the state to taking over
large enterprises, as this leaves many workers in small firms out of the
picture – also, there is more co-operation among producers now. He supported
consumer co-ops as a way of redistributing wealth (but not producer
co-operatives as this would be turning workers into capitalists). The crucial
developments are: more of a say for workers in the management of enterprises;
and more democracy, based on a better educated citizenship. The aim is “raising
the worker from the social position of a proletarian to that of a citizen, and
thus to make citizenship universal.” “[The] liberal organisations of modern
society (are flexible and can be changed) [so they] do not need to be
destroyed, but only to be further developed.”
Socialism is a
continuous process not a utopian goal. With more freedom and democracy we will
move away from economic compulsion and be in charge of our own futures.
Anthony Crosland 1918 – 1977:
1. Life:
- son of civil
servant and university teacher
- read Classics at
Trinity College Oxford
- became economist
while in the army, taught economics at Trinity until 1950 when became an MP
- originally a
Marxist (at Oxford), he broke away in 1940 to join the Democratic Socialist
Club
- published The
Future of Socialism in 1956
- Foreign Secretary
in Callaghan government for ten months before he died.
2. Ideas:
1. Capitalism has
been transformed:
- there is less class antagonism, and
the standard of living has improved – including a better share of wealth for
the working class
- the power of the business class has
declined, and they are less confident (no lockouts as before WW II), and with
full employment labour has more power;
business is becoming more
‘socially responsible’
- the power of the state has
increased, through nationalisation etc (and at the expense of the business
class), and through a state bureaucracy
- ownership and control have become
separated (by shareholding, so they are no longer both in the hands of
capitalists); managerialism replaces the profit
motive
- these changes are permanent, and the
Conservative opposition have no counter-plan – therefore the old picture of the
aims socialism has to be modified
2. The ‘old’ aims are
varied and come from different, and sometimes conflicting, origins:
- ‘natural law’ ideas, derived from
Locke
-
Owenism and co-operatives
- the labour theory of value
- Christian socialism
- Marxism
- William Morris and the degradation
of work
- Fabian gradualism
- the ILP: the brotherhood of man
- the welfare state and paternalism
- syndicalism and guild socialism
- planning.
However, these can be
summarised in five aspects:
- equality, classlessness, just
appropriation – still some injustices here, but cannot impose equality;
question still also of attitudes (not everyone is other-
regarding)
- co-operation and fraternity – but competition
is not always harmful, and pursuit of profit is bad only where there is
inequality
- workers’ control – trade unions have
an effective say in industry, but Crosland rejected co-operatives as
impractical
- social welfare – has been ‘substantially
fulfilled’, but there is still squalor and distress, social antagonism, and
faulty distribution of rewards and privileges (the
Beveridge report had
identified vulnerable categories, but there were still exceptions and
individual cases that were not covered)
- full employment – has been achieved.
This can be boiled
down to three aims:
- social welfare of all
- just rewards and a responsible
status to the worker
- the means to increase personal
freedom and the range of choice.
Much of this has been
achieved, but there is still some progress to be made in terms of:
(i) equality (there
is still ‘distress’ and some poverty); there is still a strong sense of class
(life-styles, status etc) and we need to diminish social antagonism and
promote social
justice: wealth still allows some to buy advantages and power – hence
redistribution must be pursued, and nationalisation, social services, taxation,
education and trade
union action should be extended;
(ii) socialism has a
reputation for being ‘dull’, and Fabians emphasise ‘solid virtues of hard work,
self-discipline, efficiency, abstinence – rather it should be about
‘liberty and gaiety
in [one’s] private life’, and Labour should promote universities, the Arts
council etc. See ‘The Good Society, Methuen 1971.
Part 2 of Socialism Since Marx
deals with: the New Left, the English experience, Labour and New Labour and the
‘third way’.