The New Left's economic model: the challenge to Labour Party orthodoxy.
| Author | Wickham-Jones, Mark |
Writing in The Guardian in 1987 about a retrospective conference, the Oxford scholar Brian Harrison reported that one member of the audience had pointed out that 'The New Left has never succeeded even in providing a coherent sketch of the socialist society that would compare in stature with Crosland's The Future of Socialism' (Harrison, 1987, 18). The point was reinforced with a photograph of Crosland accompanying the article and a strapline reading 'The New Left, outside the Labour Party, has nothing to offer compared with Anthony Crosland's sketch of a socialist society.' The proceedings of the same event published a comment by Lawrence Daly (1989), titled 'A miner's Bible', as part of its conference scrapbook. Talking about the New Left pamphlet, A Socialist Wages Plan (Alexander and Hughes, 1959), Daly, who had been General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers between 1968 and 1984, argued: 'It seemed to be everything I believed in. I was very much against mineworkers, or indeed any other workers, being paid purely on the basis of market forces.' He continued, 'Because I was so impressed by A Socialist Wages Plan, it became for a while my Bible as an activist in the coal mines.'
It is easy to see why the first view of the New Left has become so prevalent. In part, it is a reflection of the cultural, historical and foreign policy concerns articulated by its leading figures during the late 1950s: Stuart Hall, John Saville, E. P. Thompson and Raymond Williams spoke directly to such themes. The development of a comprehensive programme was also inhibited by disagreements amongst its leading figures over the movement's connection to Labour politics. In any case, the New Left was remarkably successful in speaking to a number of distinct and original issues at this time such as, for example, the relevance of sociological categories for reformist analyses and the extent of youthful disaffection with conventional politics. (The development of a network of clubs and coffee houses such as the Partisan in London assisted in the latter area). Given the circumstances in which the New Left emerged, the influence of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the British incursion into Suez (both in 1956), it was to be expected that considerable attention would also be given over to foreign policy issues. At the time further consideration was granted to the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent, an orientation that is equally unsurprising given the nature of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the accompanying crisis that engulfed Labour politics during this period. Of course, the relative affluence of the 1950s created uncertainties for left-wingers (see the discussion in Davis, 2012): how should they respond to apparent material prosperity? What issues should they focus upon? The definitive texts about the New Left (Chun, 1993; Kenny, 1995) have not neglected economic issues of the kind raised by A Socialist Wages Plan (the latter in particular devotes a chapter to such topics). But, given the considerations just noted, it is predictable that the focus of their attention has been on other matters. Indeed, an examination of contemporary discussions of the New Left, for example in the pages of The Guardian or The Times would lead to pretty much a straightforward conclusion. The New Left appeared to give little attention to economic issues and as such failed to develop a coherent model of social democracy.
By contrast, the revisionists within (and surrounding) the Labour Party offered an apparently strong and robust account of the reformist project. Tony Crosland's 1956 The Future of Socialism seemed, of course, the epitome of such an approach. Many commentators and participants concluded that this 540 page tome, published in October 1956 and weighing in at nearly two pounds, developed a complete analysis of British society (and its economy) as well as of the normative goals that should guide social democrats (for a critical discussion see Wickham-Jones, 2007). In it, long-held articles of faith for left-wing politics, most obviously nationalisation, were rejected as ineffective, irrelevant, and unpopular. In place of public ownership, Keynesian demand management and, at the level of the firm, a new managerial stratum would provide the basis for progressive policies. With regard to the latter, as a result of the managerial revolution that had separated ownership from control, a new layer of business executives would forsake profit maximisation in favour of other objectives. Power was dispersed throughout society: to government, to voters, to unions, and to managers, as well as, residually and insignificantly, to owners of capital. Firms could be taxed to generate a surplus to fund the social and welfare services that were required in the pursuit of equality (the defining goal of social democracy). It was not just nationalisation that Crosland jettisoned: he was lukewarm about planning and about any arrangement promoting industrial democracy. He suggested that there was no need to adopt an incomes policy or plan any growth in wages. Governments could rely, he claimed, on 'the sense and moderation of the unions' in this area (Crosland, 1956, 461).
The New Left challenge to revisionism
Against Crosland's model, the New Left sometimes looked disconnected and disorganised. To be sure, its members might adopt positions on particular topics but there was not much that might be considered as an all-inclusive programme. There was certainly no single volume either to challenge or to rival The Future of Socialism. However, whether such a failure means that the New Left did not articulate an economic model is less manifest. Many of the economic arguments deployed within the New Left are consistent, both with each other and in the challenge that they make towards revisionist doctrine. Many anticipate the concerns raised in later debates on the left during the 1970s and so helped shape the emergence of Labour's Alternative Economic Strategy (Wickham-Jones, 1996, 82). Such material tends to be found on that side of the New Left that was more supportive of Labour as a viable reformist agency; those who developed these points were more likely to be 'younger' members and, with the exception of Ken Alexander and John Hughes, to write for Universities and Left Review (ULR) rather than The New Reasoner.
Members of the New Left challenged Crosland across a range of issues. In one initiative, members of the New Left refuted Crosland's argument about the separation of ownership from control in modern capitalism. Based on painstaking research at Companies House in London, and drawing theoretical inspiration from the work of the American sociologist C. Wright Mills, they argued in the pamphlet The Insiders that, in contrast to the framework set out in The Future of Socialism, share owners and managers were part of an interlocking network (Hall et al., 1958). As a response to Labour's 1957 policy document, Industry and Society (a publication heavily influenced by revisionist thought), the authors of The Insiders made a number of claims. Significant, concentrated private...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
