Imatge de l'autor
49+ obres 707 Membres 5 Ressenyes

Sobre l'autor

Ralph Miliband (1924-1994) was one of the key intellectual figures of the British New Left. He was the founder of the Socialist Register and author of Marxism and Politics, Parliamentary Socialism (reprinted 2009) and Socialism for a Sceptical Age. He held the Chair of Politics at the University of mostra'n més Leeds; he also taught at the London School of Economics, Brandeis in Boston, York University in Toronto and the City University of New York. mostra'n menys

Obres de Ralph Miliband

Socialism for a Sceptical Age (1994) 19 exemplars
Class Power and State Power (1983) 14 exemplars
The Socialist Register, 1964 (1964) 9 exemplars
Socialist Register. 7 exemplars
The Socialist Register, 1966 (1966) 7 exemplars
The Socialist Register, 1965 (1965) 6 exemplars
The Socialist Register, 1968 (1968) 4 exemplars
Marx und der Staat 1 exemplars

Obres associades

Aspects of history and class consciousness (1971) — Col·laborador — 33 exemplars

Etiquetat

Coneixement comú

Membres

Ressenyes

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/miliband/1973/10/chile.htm, 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.
… (més)
 
Marcat
tombomp | Hi ha 1 ressenya més | Oct 31, 2023 |
Reflecting on the Labor government of Harold Wilson between 1964 and 1970, this concise analysis chronicles the Labor Party from its early days up to the early 1960s, including a 1972 postscript. Demonstrating how empirical and flexible the Labor Party has been about certain issues, this reference also touches on how it is one of the most dogmatic political parties in regards to the parliamentary system. Commenting on why its leaders have always made devotion to this system their fixed point of reference, this political overview proves that this has always been the conditioning factor of their political behavior, as they consistently reject any kind of political action which has fallen outside the framework and conventions of Parliament. Stating that there is no distinction to be made between Labor's political and industrial leaders, this study illustrates the party as it is now and has always been--one of modest social reform in a capitalist system within whose confines it is ever more firmly and by now irrevocably rooted.… (més)
 
Marcat
LarkinPubs | Mar 1, 2023 |
I nearly gave up on this book: the early chapters are an outdated vindication of Soviet style socialism. I appreciate that this might have been an arguable perspective when it was written but, surely is passé now.

Parts three and four are much more interesting to the modern reader. They concern Britain and the effects of the Thatcher/Reagan revolution and Neo Liberalism. It is helpful, sometimes, to go back to the view at the time of this cataclysmic event; from which we are still suffering the aftershock.… (més)
 
Marcat
the.ken.petersen | Hi ha 1 ressenya més | Nov 11, 2019 |
Ralph Miliband's book, "Marxism and Politics", dates from 1977 but is still of relevance today. In this work, Miliband discusses the Marxist perception of politics itself, the meaning and role of the state, the meaning of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and the various views leading Marxists have had in the past on the way revolutionary Marxist politics should be made, concentrating on Lenin and Gramsci.

The first half of the book discusses the Marxist view of the state and politics. It is a useful introduction to the subject for those largely ignorant of Marxist theory, but not of much use beyond it: Miliband's approach is no more than a general overview, and does not answer any of the more difficult questions on the subject. The only useful part for those with more experience with Marxism is his review of the concept of "state autonomy", quite correctly stressing the importance of not confusing the class nature of the state with the state being a mere instrument of a particular class.

The second half of the book is about Marxist politics itself and its relation to existing political structures. He focuses largely on Lenin and Gramsci and discusses the general Leninist conception of revolutions and the role of the vanguard state. Considering the year it was written, this part is for its time quite critical and reflective, but for current times it is still a little 'soft'; many of the things he talks about are worth restating though, and Miliband does so with clarity.

The final chapter, "Reform and Revolution", is probably the best part of the book. Here Miliband goes into the tension in Western nations between on the one hand the necessity to improve the situation of the workers within bourgeois parliamentary capitalism, and on the other hand the need to remain a true revolutionary party. This is an old dilemma, but Miliband's take on it is more thorough than most discussions of the subject in more general overviews of Marxist theory. He also discusses the other main tension in Marxist views of this subject, one that is less often pointed out: the tension between on the one hand the need to press forward with revolutionary policies to 'build socialism', and on the other hand the tendency of the labourers to generally cling to the structure of the old system. Lenin already pointed out the high esteem in which the structure at least of the parliamentary system is held by the workers of Western Europe, but he does not seem to have realized the problem this might form for any kind of vanguard party. How to represent workers when the workers are not as prepared as their vanguard to do away with structures that in many of these nations are as old as Marx himself? This is of course a matter of class consciousness, and in that sense a beaten path, but this also bears repeating.

On the whole the booklet uses clear language, but does presuppose a little knowledge of Marxism while at the same time not being very in-depth. That makes it quite useless for a deeper view into the subject, but also hard for an introduction for the uninitiated, so to speak. Because of this, Miliband's otherwise fine overview of Marxist politics (in both senses of the word) succeeds for neither purpose.
… (més)
 
Marcat
McCaine | Feb 2, 2007 |

Llistes

Potser també t'agrada

Autors associats

Estadístiques

Obres
49
També de
1
Membres
707
Popularitat
#35,840
Valoració
½ 3.6
Ressenyes
5
ISBN
104
Llengües
8

Gràfics i taules