Historically an imbalance of roles for people who think that they think (that is, they expect to be paid to think about or create in the world rather than act in the world as community) generally means a pessimistic culture of despair which re-orientates itself into support for people who 'do' by trying to implement 'ideas', regardless of the competence of those people. The half-educated small town German schoolmaster during the period of inflation and depression following defeat became the ideological backbone of national socialism and helped supply the ideological grounding for youthful commitment to it. Mass education creates expectations that cannot be fulfilled in low growth or depressed economies and so the 'mass educated' ((who may not be as intelligent as they think they are) start to think in terms of forms of magical idealism (such as Net Zero or Open Borders or whatever). They are a lumpen-intelligentsia that the existing elite has no room for and so they seek out a new elite who will 'care' for them. The centre-left now privileges this class wherever it can but cannot deliver the resources they demand in an age of austerity (in the UK and Europe). Where they go next is unclear but part of this class is undoubtedly (or at least its young male element) beginning to fuel the Radical Right. Another part is doubling down on liberal progressivism.
A very well written piece, even if I disagree with some of it. In particular, I cannot countenance the use of the words 'best' and 'Miliband' (of whatever flavour) in the same sentence, unless it also includes 'candidate for a good dose of the hobnails'!
Ralph had very different views from his sons David (Blairite liberal internationalist) and Ed (liberal left eco-'socialist') which were centred on a fairly rigorous evidence-based academic Marxist analysis. The book is worth digging out and reading even today.
My opinion of his progeny is best left to one side but may not be far distant from your own. There was one possible consistency between the two generations.
Ralph describes the predicament of the British Left as it was and is. The sons, once they decided to go into politics, may have sought 'relevance' rather than to change anything fundamental - that is to say, to concentrate on policy rather than system change.
Once that choice is made, it leads ineluctably to compromise and taking 'second best'.
The first generation understood the system but, in understanding it, demonstrated that the barriers to system change were so great that the choice (for a political animal who decided to act rather than analyse) was between futility on the sidelines of history or becoming a manager or manipulator in order to effect 'reform' or 'improvement'.
Naturally, once you take the latter path, you may 'do some good' but you also become wholly complicit in those aspects of the system that you cannot change (the bulk of it).
As the system moves in a neo-liberal and values imperialism direction, you either ride the tiger and become part of the new order entirely (David-ism) or pick one aspect of the flow and try to make it more 'progressive' and dynamic (Ed-ism, having chosen the Green line of attack).
The personal choice between purity and complicity has become more dreadful as the complicity develops into complicity with the exact opposite of what the British Left had been at its height in terms of aspiration and moral compass ... which is where we are today.
A fine analysis, Tim.
"It is true that there are too many 'intellectuals' for the resources available to them" - a la Peter Turchin's elite overproduction?
Historically an imbalance of roles for people who think that they think (that is, they expect to be paid to think about or create in the world rather than act in the world as community) generally means a pessimistic culture of despair which re-orientates itself into support for people who 'do' by trying to implement 'ideas', regardless of the competence of those people. The half-educated small town German schoolmaster during the period of inflation and depression following defeat became the ideological backbone of national socialism and helped supply the ideological grounding for youthful commitment to it. Mass education creates expectations that cannot be fulfilled in low growth or depressed economies and so the 'mass educated' ((who may not be as intelligent as they think they are) start to think in terms of forms of magical idealism (such as Net Zero or Open Borders or whatever). They are a lumpen-intelligentsia that the existing elite has no room for and so they seek out a new elite who will 'care' for them. The centre-left now privileges this class wherever it can but cannot deliver the resources they demand in an age of austerity (in the UK and Europe). Where they go next is unclear but part of this class is undoubtedly (or at least its young male element) beginning to fuel the Radical Right. Another part is doubling down on liberal progressivism.
A very well written piece, even if I disagree with some of it. In particular, I cannot countenance the use of the words 'best' and 'Miliband' (of whatever flavour) in the same sentence, unless it also includes 'candidate for a good dose of the hobnails'!
Ralph had very different views from his sons David (Blairite liberal internationalist) and Ed (liberal left eco-'socialist') which were centred on a fairly rigorous evidence-based academic Marxist analysis. The book is worth digging out and reading even today.
My opinion of his progeny is best left to one side but may not be far distant from your own. There was one possible consistency between the two generations.
Ralph describes the predicament of the British Left as it was and is. The sons, once they decided to go into politics, may have sought 'relevance' rather than to change anything fundamental - that is to say, to concentrate on policy rather than system change.
Once that choice is made, it leads ineluctably to compromise and taking 'second best'.
The first generation understood the system but, in understanding it, demonstrated that the barriers to system change were so great that the choice (for a political animal who decided to act rather than analyse) was between futility on the sidelines of history or becoming a manager or manipulator in order to effect 'reform' or 'improvement'.
Naturally, once you take the latter path, you may 'do some good' but you also become wholly complicit in those aspects of the system that you cannot change (the bulk of it).
As the system moves in a neo-liberal and values imperialism direction, you either ride the tiger and become part of the new order entirely (David-ism) or pick one aspect of the flow and try to make it more 'progressive' and dynamic (Ed-ism, having chosen the Green line of attack).
The personal choice between purity and complicity has become more dreadful as the complicity develops into complicity with the exact opposite of what the British Left had been at its height in terms of aspiration and moral compass ... which is where we are today.