A  /  B  /  C  /  D  /  E  /   F  /  G  /  H  /  I  /  J  /   K  /  L  /  M  /  N  /  O   P  /  R  /  S  /  T  /  U  /  V  /  W  /  X  /  Y  /  Z

The Journal of Arthur Stirling by Upton Sinclair

U >> Upton Sinclair >> The Journal of Arthur Stirling

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16



--The infinite irrationality of it seems to me notable. Why, upon the
men of genius of the _past_ you feed your lives, you blind and
foolish men! They are the bread and meat of your souls--they make your
civilizations--they mold your thoughts--they put into you all that little
life which you have. And your reviews have use enough for _them_! Your
publishers publish enough of _them_! _But what thoughts have you
about the NEW teacher, the NEW inspirer?_

The madness of the thing! I read books enough, it seems to me, telling of
the sufferings of the poets of a century ago!--of the indifference of the
critics, the blindness of the public, of a century ago. And those things
pain you all so cruelly! But the possibility of their happening to the
poets of the _present_--it never seems to enter into your heads! Why,
that very man who sent me back his curt refusal by his secretary--he writes
about the agonies of Shelley and Keats in a way that brings the tears into
your eyes! And that is only one example among thousands.

What do these men think? Is it their idea that the public and the critics
are now so true and so eager that the poets have nothing more to fear? That
stupidity and blindness and indifference are quite entirely gone out of the
world? That aspiration and fervor are now so much the rule that the least
penny-a-liner can judge the new poet?

And they think that the soul is dead then! And that God has stopped sending
into this world new messages and new faiths!

Oh you civilization! You society! You critics and lovers of books! Why,
that new message and that new faith ought to be the one thing in all this
world that you bend your faculties to save! It is that upon which all your
life is built--it is that by which this Republic, for one thing, is to be
made a factor in the history of mankind. But what do you do? What
_have_ you done? Here I am; and come now and tell me what it is that
you _think_ you have done. _For I have the message!--I have the
faith_! And you have starved me, and you have beaten me, until I am too
ill to drag myself about!

And what can I do? Where can I turn? What hope have I, except, as Swift's
phrase has it, to "die like a poisoned rat in a hole"? I could wish that
you would think over that phrase a little while, cultivated ladies and
gentlemen. It is not pleasant--to die like a poisoned rat in a hole.

* * * * *

You ask me to believe in your civilization; you ask me to believe in your
love of light! Let me tell you when I would believe in your civilization
and your love of light.

I say that the last and the highest thing in this world is _Genius_.
I say that Religion and Art and Progress and Enlightenment--that all
these things are made out of Genius; and that Genius is first and last,
highest, and best, and fundamental. And I say that when you recognize that
fact--when you believe in Genius--when you prepare the way for it and make
smooth the paths for it--I say that then and then alone may you tell me
that you are civilized.

The thing shrieks against heaven--your cruelty, your stupidity. Since ever
the first poet came into this world it has been the same story of agony,
indignity, and shame. _And what do you do?_

It is poverty that I talk about, poverty alone! The poet wants nothing in
this world but to be let alone to listen to the voices of his soul. He
wants nothing from you in all this world but that you give him food while
he does it--while he does it, miserable people--not for himself, but for
_you_.

This is the shame upon you--that you expect--that you always have
expected--that the poet, besides doing the fearful task his inspiration
lays upon him--that he shall go out into the coarse, ruthless world and
slave for his bread! That is the shame! That is the indignity, that is
the brutality, the stupidity, the infamy! Shame upon you, shame upon you,
world!

* * * * *

The poet! He comes with a heart trembling with gladness; he comes with
tears of rapture in his eyes! He comes with bosom heaving and throat
choking and heart breaking. He comes with tenderness and with trust, with
joy in the beauty that he beholds. He comes a minstrel, with a harp in his
hand--and you set your dogs upon him--you drive him torn and bleeding from
your gates!

* * * * *

The poet! You make him go out into the market and chaffer for his bread!
You subject him to the same law to which you subject your loafers and
your louts--that he who will not work can not eat! Your drones, and your
drunkards--and your poets! Every man must earn for himself, every man must
pay his way! No man must ask favors, no man must be helped, no man shall be
any different from other men! For shame! For shame!

* * * * *

And you love letters! You love poetry! You are civilized, you are liberal,
you are enlightened! You are fools!

* * * * *

I tell you the agony of this thing is in me yet--it has heaped itself up
in my soul all my days. It was my life, it was my _life_ that cried
out! And now that I can not save my own self--oh, let me at least save the
others! O God, let me not die till I have said one word that reaches their
hearts, till I have done something to change this ghastly thing! The voices
of the ages cry out to me. Not only the hundreds who have gone before--but
the hundreds and the thousands who are to come! What are _we_ to do?
they cry--who shall save _us_? Are we to share the same fate--are we
too to struggle and die in vain? And in this world that is civilized! In
this world that seeks progress! In this world that wants nothing but light!
Not to the mob I speak, not to those who once mocked me; if none but they
lived, I should hold my tongue and go. But you men who are leaders, you men
who stand upon the top, you men who see!--can I not find some word to reach
_you_? You men who really love books--who have money--who want nothing
but to put it to use!--can I not find some word to reach _you_?

O God! And it is all so simple.

* * * * *

I tell you this land will never be civilized, this land will never lead
mankind, it will never be anything but the torture-house that I have found
it, until it makes some provision for its men of _Genius_! Until this
simple fundamental thing be true--that a man may know that if he have
_Genius_--that the day he shows he has _Genius_--he will be
honored and protected by society and not trampled and kicked like a dog.
That he will not have to go out into the market-place and vend his wares!
That he will not have to make sick his soul haggling for his bread! That if
he turns his strength to higher things, and exposes himself to the world
thereby, he will not be trodden down in the struggle for existence! That
he will not have to bear indignities and insults; that he will not have to
write till he be ripe, or be stunted and deformed by early deprivation.

* * * * *

Genius. And am I not to die now?--And what matters the world?

Therefore let me write it: that I was a man of Genius. And that you have
trodden me down in the struggle for existence. That I saw things that no
other man has ever seen, I would have written things that no other man
can ever write. And that you have trodden me down in the struggle for
existence--that you have trodden me down because I could not earn my bread!

* * * * *

This is what I tell you--this is what I cry out to you, that the man of
Genius _can not_ earn his bread! That the work by which he develops
his power is something absolutely and utterly different from the work by
which he earns his bread! And that every hour which he gives to the one, he
lessens his power and his capacity for the other! Every hour that he gives
to the earning of his bread, he takes from his soul, he weakens his work,
he destroys beauty which never again can he know or dream!

And this again is what I tell you, this again is what I cry out to you:
that the power by which a man of Genius does his work, and the power by
which he earns his bread, are things so entirely distinct that _they may
not occur together at all_! The man may have both, but then again he may
only have the former.--And in that case he will die like a poisoned rat in
a hole.

* * * * *

What is the first principle of the democracy of which we boast, if
it be not that excellence, that power, that _Genius_, is not the
attribute of the rich or the noble, but that it may make its appearance
anywhere among men? And you who sigh for men of talent to raise American
letters--what do you _do_ about it? I will tell you something right
now, to begin with; it will startle you, perhaps, and you may not believe
it; but I mean to prove it later on. For the present I say this: that of
the seven poets who constitute the glory of the literature of England in
the nineteenth century, four of them were rich men, five of them were
independent, one of them was endowed when he was a youth, and the seventh,
the greatest of them all, died like a poisoned rat in a hole.

And what do you _do_ about it? What you do is to lean back in your
chair and say: "The literary market was never so wide-awake as it is now,
and the publishers never so anxious for new talent"!

* * * * *

Fools! And you think that the publishers are in business for the developing
of talent, and for the glory of literature! And that they care about
whether a man of Genius dies in the streets, or not! Why, have I not heard
them tell me, with their own lips, that "a publisher who published books
that the trade did not want would be driven out of business in a year"?

* * * * *

And you tell me that the author is an independent man nowadays! And can
earn his living with his books!

* * * * *

It is your privilege to think that, if you choose; but perhaps you will not
mind hearing what _I_ tell you--that the author can find no way to a
living more degrading to him than the earning of it with his books. I have
shoveled snow, and shoveled manure too, in the streets, and shoveled food
for swine in a restaurant. But I never did anything so degrading as I
should have had to do if I had tried to earn my living with my books.

* * * * *

Oh, the author may be independent, may he! And you will escape with that
fine platitude, and with that bitter mockery! And never think that the
author's independence is but the fine phrase for your own indifference!

Again it is your privilege to think what you choose; but again perhaps you
will not mind hearing what I tell you--that there can never be any man
in this world more dependent than an author, if he be a true author. A
true author is the singer and dreamer of society; and who is there more
dependent than the singer and the dreamer--who is there less powerful and
less cunning in the things of the body?

* * * * *

Why, the author gives up his whole life for your joy and help, he
consecrates himself, he lashes and burns and tortures himself--for your
sake! And you spurn him from you, and tell him he is "independent"!

Here is the truth, here is the crux, here is the whole thing in a sentence.
A publisher is not in business for the furtherance of Art, or for the
uplifting of humanity, or for the worship of God. He doesn't mind doing
these things incidentally, of course, when the fortunate occasion arises;
but do you think if he had his choice between publishing a new Paradise
Lost to be read fifty years from date, and publishing a biography of a
reigning prince, or a treatise on gastronomy, or a new dime novel by Marie
Corelli in a first edition of a hundred thousand copies--do you think he
would hesitate, now really?

* * * * *

You say that "literary excellence is identical with publishing
availability"! I tell you that they are as far apart--why, that they are
just exactly this far apart--as far as what mankind likes is from what
mankind ought to like.

* * * * *

And you ask the man of Genius to cringe and tremble before the standard
of what the reading public likes! You ask him to tame the frenzy of his
inspiration, to pull your pleasure-carriages with his winged steed! He
shall be no more the seer and the prophet and the leader--he shall be
mountebank and public-entertainer.

And you call yourself civilized! O God!

And the poet! Again the poet! Is he not _vital_ to your society? Is
he not, in the last analysis, the lawmaker, the law-enforcer--this seeker,
this inspirer, this man with the new vision of right? I look at this
society--body enough I see, bone and muscle, and a good, large, capable
stomach. Brain enough I see, too, or nearly enough; but Soul? Soul? Who
will dare to tell me that there is Soul enough? And your poet--why,
_he_ is your Soul! He is the man who fills the millions with the
breath of life, who makes the whole vast machine a living, rejoicing,
beautiful thing. _He_--every noble impulse that you have has come
originally from him--the memory of his words thrill in the hearts
of men--pupils gather to study them--tired hearts seek them for
refreshment--they grow and they fill all the earth--and never through
the centuries do they die! They blossom into noble impulses, into new
movements,--into reforms that reach down to the lowest wretches of the
gutter, who never even heard of a poet. Why, they have reached to the very
dogs, that are beaten less than they were.

* * * * *

And what is it that makes civilization in the end? What is it that the
world really honors in the end? You Americans, you who love your country,
you who believe in your country's institutions, who believe that your
country holds in her womb the future of mankind! You who want the world to
believe that!--how are you going to _get_ the world to believe that?
Is it--poor, impotent, foolish creatures--by covering your land until it is
a maze of twenty-story office buildings? By lining it with railroads six
feet apart?--Do you not know that this very hour the reason why Europe does
not believe in America is that it has not a man to sing its Soul? That it
has been a century in the eyes of the world, and has not yet brought forth
one single poet or thinker of the first rank?

The poet! And I sought to be that man, my heart burned to sing that song!
And look at me!

* * * * *

Who will dare to say that I might not have sung it? What chance have I
had--have I not been handicapped and stunted, beaten and discouraged,
punished as if I had been a loafer--by _you_, the world? Here I am--I
am only a boy--and thrilling with unutterable things! And I am going down,
down to destruction! Why, for what I had to say I needed years and years to
ripen; and how can I tell now--how can any man tell now--what those things
would have been?

And I--what am I?--a worm, an atom! But what happens to me to-day may
happen to another to-morrow, and may happen to a hundred in a century. And
who knows?--who cares?

* * * * *

What do you do with your railroad presidents? You take good care that
_they_ get their work done, don't you? They have secretaries to catch
every word, they have private cars to carry them where they would go, men
to run and serve them, to make smooth their paths and save their every
instant for them! But your poet, your man of genius--who makes smooth
_his_ paths, who helps _him_? He needs nobody to run and serve
him--he needs no cars and no palaces, no gold and precious raiment--no, nor
even praise and honor! What he needs--I have said it once--he needs but to
be left alone, to listen to the voices of his soul, and to have some one
bring him food to keep him alive while he does it. That--only that!--think
of it--for the most precious things of this life, the things that alone
save this life from being a barren mockery and a grinning farce! And he can
not have them--and you, you enlightened society, you never care about it,
you never _think_ of it!

* * * * *

If he comes a master, he can force his way; or if he be rich, or if some
one honor him, then he can live his life and heed nothing. But when he is
poor! And when he is weak! And when he is young! God help him, God help
him!--for you, you great savage world, you _crush_ him.

* * * * *

You send him to the publishers! And he is young, and crude, and
inexperienced! He has not found himself, he has not found his voice, he
stammers, he falters, he is weak! And you send him to the publishers!

* * * * *

I have said it once, I say it again: that the publisher is part of the
world and his law is a law of iron--he publishes the books that will sell.
And this feeble voice, this young love, this tender aspiration, this holy
purpose--oh, it is a thing to make one shudder!

* * * * *

And these things higher yet, these things so precious that we dare not
whisper them--this new awe of righteousness--this new rage at what the
world loves best--this flash of insight that will astound a new age!

* * * * *

You send it all to the publisher!

* * * * *

But what _can_ you do? I will tell you what you can do--I will tell
you what you _will_ do when you come finally to honor what is truly
precious in this life--when you are really civilized and enlightened--when
you really believe in and value Genius.

* * * * *

You will provide it that your young poet, your young worshiper, come
elsewhere to receive a judgment than to the money-making publisher, and to
the staring, vulgar crowd. You will provide it that he does not measure his
voice against the big-drum thumping of the best-selling pomposities of the
hour. You will provide it that he come, with all honor and all dignity, to
the best and truest men that you can engage for the service; and that he
come to be judged by one standard, and that not the standard of sales.
Whether it be true, whether it be noble, whether it be sincere; whether
it show imagination, whether it have melody, beauty, love, aspiration,
knowledge; whether, in short, in those forms or in any other forms, it have
_power_! Whether the man who wrote it is a man worth training, whether
he will repay society for its trust, whether he will bring new beauty into
the world!--And then, if these things be true, so long as he works, and
grows, and proves his value, so long shall he have the pittance that he
needs until he be the master of his voice.

Yes, you never thought of that before! I read everything--everywhere--and
I never heard it before. And what does that tell about the poverty and
blindness and stupidity of this world? Are we not rich enough? Are we not
the richest nation in the world? Have we not railroads and houses, food and
clothing and bank-stocks enough to make the brain reel? And do we not call
ourselves a Christian land? And worship as divine the Teacher who said that
"man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God"?

* * * * *

Oh, you world!

* * * * *

And what would it do? What would it mean? I will tell you a few things that
it would mean.

First of all it would mean that the man who felt in him the voice of God
would know that there was a road he could travel, would know that there
was a home for him. He would no longer face the fearful alternative of
mediocrity or starvation. He would no longer be tempted, he would no longer
be forced to turn from his faith, and stunt his development, and wreck
his plans, by base attempts to compromise between his highest and what
the world will pay for. Can you have any idea what that would mean to an
artist? You say that you love art! Can you have any idea of the effect
which that would have upon art? Upon the art of your country--upon American
literature! To have a band of perhaps a hundred--perhaps a thousand, proved
and chosen--the best and strongest that could be found--and set free and
consecrated to the search for beauty! Try it for fifty years--try it for
ten years--try the method of raising your poets in your gardens instead of
flinging them into your weed-beds--and see what the result would be! See if
in fifty years American literature would not have done more than all the
rest of the world!

* * * * *

And what would it cost?--O God! Is there a railroad in this country
so small that its earnings would not pay for it--for the whole of the
thousand? Why, pay a poet five hundred dollars a year, and he is a rich
man; if he is not, he is no poet, but a knave.

* * * * *

And there would be waste?--Yes--where is there not waste? But grant that in
the whole thousand there is just _one_ who is a master mind; and that
him you set free and keep from defeat--that him with all his glory you make
yours--and then tell me if there be any other way in this world that you
could have done so much for man with your money!

* * * * *

--No, these are not your ways, oh you cruel world! You let every man go his
way--you let him starve, you let him die in any hole that he can find. The
poet--tenderest and most sensitive of all men! The poet--the master of the
arts of suffering! Exposed on every side, nervous, haunted, unused to the
world, knowing how to feel and knowing that alone! Is not his life an agony
under any conditions,--is he not tortured for you--the world? And you leave
him helpless, despairing!

What is the matter with you?--How can you be so blind? There are some of
you who really love books--look and see the story of genius--if it be not
a thing to make you shudder and turn sick. It has been so through all the
ages, and it will be so through all the ages to come, until society has
a conscience and a soul. Tell me if there is anything in this world more
frightful than the lot of the poets who have been born poor--of Marlowe and
Chatterton and Goldsmith, Johnson and Burns and Keats! And who can tell how
many were choked before even their first utterance?

* * * * *

I can not talk of that, for it makes me sick; but I will talk of the poets
who were born rich. Is it not singular--is it not terrible--how many of the
great stalwart ones were rich? To be educated, to own books, to hear music,
to dwell in the country, to be free from men and men's judgments! Oh, the
words break my heart!

* * * * *

--But was not Goethe rich, and did he not have these things? And was not
Hugo rich? And Milton? When he left college he spent five years at his
father's country place and wrote four poems that have done more to make men
happy than if they had cost many millions of dollars.

* * * * *

But let me come to what I spoke of before, the seven poets of this century
in England.

* * * * *

I name Wordsworth and Byron, Tennyson, Browning and Swinburne, Shelley and
Keats. I said that six of them were independent, and that the other--the
greatest--died like a dog.

* * * * *

Wordsworth came first; he was young and poor and struggling, and a friend
left him just such an independence as I have cried for; and he consecrated
himself to art, and he revolutionized English poetry, he breathed truth
into a whole nation again. And when he was clear and looked back, he made
such statements as these: that "a poet has to _create_ the taste by
which he is to be enjoyed," and that "my poetry has never brought me enough
to pay for my shoe-strings."

* * * * *

And see how the publishers and critics--how the literary world--received
him! How they jeered and jibed, and took fifty years to understand him! Oh
think of these things, think what they mean, you who love literature! Think
that the world owes its possession of Wordsworth's poetry to the accident
that a friend died and left him some money!

* * * * *

I name Byron; he was a rich man. I name Tennyson; he had a little
competence, and he gave up the idea of marriage and for ten years devoted
himself to art; and when he was thirty-two he published his work--and then
they gave him a pension!

* * * * *

I name Browning; Browning went his own way, heeding no man; and he never
had to think about money. I name Swinburne; and the same was true of him.

* * * * *

I name Shelley; and Shelley was wealthy. They kept him poor for a time, but
his poems do not date from then. When he wrote the poetry that has been the
spiritual food of the high souls of this century, he lived in a beautiful
villa in Italy, and wandered about the forest with his books. And oh, you
who love books, stop just a moment and listen: I am dying, and the cry
of all my soul is in this. Tell me, you who love Shelley--the "pardlike
spirit, beautiful and swift"--"thyself the wild west wind, oh boy
divine!"--tell me how much you think you'd have had of that glorious burst
of music--that golden rain of melody, of heavenly ecstasy--if the man who
wrote had been a wholesale-paper clerk or a cable-car conductor! How much
do you think you'd have had if when he'd torn himself free to write Queen
Mab--or even if he'd been ripe enough and written his Prometheus--if he'd
had to take them to publishers! If he had had to take them to the critics
and the literary world and say, "Here is my work, now set me free that I
may help mankind!"

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

Extract: The Whales by Evie Wyld

Christos Tsiolkas and David Mitchell, both much-tipped when they appeared on the award longlist, have been overlooked in the six finalists

It headed the most controversial Man Booker prize longlist in years, but Christos Tsiolkas's The Slap has failed to make the final cut for the literary award, as has David Mitchell's much-tipped fifth novel, The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.

Judges overlooked Australian novelist Tsiolkas's tale of the consequences when a child is slapped at a suburban barbecue – which is either "unbelievably misogynistic" or "riveting from beginning to end", depending on who's asked – and Mitchell, twice shortlisted for the prize in the past, to select a shortlist which ranges from two-time former winner Peter Carey's Parrot and Olivier in America to Emma Donoghue. The Irish writer has also stirred up debate with her Josel Fritzl-inspired Room, the story of a boy and his mother imprisoned in a tiny room for years.

Orange prize winner Andrea Levy's The Long Song, about the last years of slavery in Jamaica; Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question, a cerebral comedy about grief and Anglo-Jewishness; experimental novelist Tom McCarthy's C, which tells the story of Serge Carrefax, a first world war radio operator who escapes from a German prison camp; and South African writer Damon Galgut's tale of a young man travelling through Greece, India and Africa, In a Strange Room, complete the six-strong shortlist for the £50,000 prize, announced this morning.

"It's been a great privilege and an exciting challenge for us to reduce our longlist of 13 to this shortlist of six outstandingly good novels," said chair of judges Andrew Motion, the former poet laureate. "In doing so, we feel sure we've chosen books which demonstrate a rich variety of styles and themes – while in every case providing deep individual pleasures."

The panel of judges had previously read 138 books to select the 13 titles for their longlist, with Martin Amis's new novel The Pregnant Widow and Ian McEwan's venture into comic fiction Solar both overlooked and Carey the only previous Booker winner on the longlist.

His inclusion on the shortlist today for Parrot and Olivier in America, a reimagining of Democracy in America author Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the New World, gives him the chance of becoming the first ever writer to win the Booker three times, having previously taken it in 1988 for Oscar and Lucinda and 2001 for True History of the Kelly Gang.

"The omission of both David Mitchell and Christos Tsiolkas from the shortlist is a real shock. While both writers might rightly feel aggrieved at being overlooked, I imagine it took some wrangling amongst the judges to reduce one of the best longlists in years to six," said Jonathan Ruppin at independent book chain Foyles, who, while praising all six books for their "lightness of touch which means the reader doesn't get bogged down in something worthy or dull", predicted that Room was the most likely title to go on to win the award.

Waterstone's tipped C to take the prize, with fiction buying manager Simon Burke calling it "a challenging yet dazzling novel". "The news that David Mitchell has not made the shortlist will cause great wailing and gnashing of teeth across the bookworld, but perhaps is a useful reminder of the independence and unpredictability of the Booker," he said. "But this is still a hugely varied and exciting list, worthy of the Booker brand. Carey and Levy have to be strong contenders, but our money is on Tom McCarthy. The more people that read [C] the better."

The bookies agreed, with William Hill immediately installing McCarthy as 2/1 favourite to win the prize. "There has been a considerable media buzz around all of the books on the shortlist, and literary punters have staked more money in total on Tom McCarthy to win than any of the other authors, so he is a worthy favourite," said spokesman Graham Sharpe. Donoghue and Galgut came in second at the bookmaker, both at 3/1, with one customer so sure that In A Strange Room would win that they placed £400 on Galgut at 7/1, the largest single bet on the prize "for a few years", said Sharpe.

Carey came in fourth, at 5/1, with Levy at 7/1 and Jacobson the 8/1 outside to take the prize.

The opinion-splitting novels picked for this year's longlist have helped make it the most popular since 2001, with Tsiolkas's novel selling the most copies, followed by Donoghue's. The winner, who will join a roster of former winners including Margaret Atwood, Roddy Doyle and JM Coetzee, will be announced on 12 October. Last year's winner Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel is the fastest-selling Booker winner ever, with sales of around half-a-million copies to date.

The Man Booker shortlist in full:

Peter Carey's Parrot and Olivier in America

Emma Donoghue's Room

Damon Galgut's In a Strange Room

Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question

Andrea Levy's The Long Song

Tom McCarthy's C


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The books that send me back to school

For Ralph Miliband governments could never tame capitalism. New Labour thought otherwise – and then came the financial crisis. But what will David or Ed do if they gain the leadership? By John Gray

Viewed from one angle Ralph Miliband was a theorist of revolution who failed to notice the radical transformations going on around him. A lifelong Marxist, he never doubted that the future would be shaped by the struggle against capitalism. In fact it was capitalism that proved to be the revolutionary force in the late 20th century, consigning socialism to the memory hole. By the time Miliband died in May 1994, the Soviet system had been replaced by a type of resource-based authoritarian capitalism, while China's Communist party was overseeing the development of an unbridled market of a kind that Milton Friedman could only dream about.

In Britain in the 1980s Miliband managed to convince himself that Labour, which he had always bitterly attacked, might, under the influence of Tony Benn, turn into a genuinely socialist party. In fact Labour split, which more than any other single factor enabled the continuing dominance of Thatcher. Probably only the battles fought by Neil Kinnock prevented Labour disintegrating altogether. When John Smith became leader, the party began the "prawn cocktail offensive", a rapprochement with the financial sector pursued through private lunches with leading City figures, which formed the prelude to New Labour. Only weeks after Smith died (in the same month as Miliband) the party would start burying any trace of its socialist past.

When he gave the Bennite wing his intellectual support, Miliband was colluding in the politics of make-believe. Yet in one vital respect this intractably oppositional Jewish refugee from nazism had a firmer grip on reality than the social democrats who eventually prevailed in Labour's internecine conflicts, and when he ridiculed Anthony Crosland's vision of a domesticated and pacified capitalism, he left the party with a dilemma it has not been able to resolve. Like Marx, Miliband understood that states and governments are never autonomous actors; their options are shaped, and often foreclosed, by the distribution of power and resources. This was the central theme of Miliband's The State in Capitalist Society (1969), a penetrating assault on social-democratic thinking in which he developed and extended the argument against revisionism of his earlier Parliamentary Socialism: A Study of the Politics of Labour (1961).

In The Future of Socialism (1956), Crosland had argued that Labour must distinguish between means and ends (a theme pursued later by Blair). Capitalism had changed fundamentally, and rather than opposing it Labour should use the market to advance socialist values. Properly managed to ensure steady economic growth, free markets could be used to promote an egalitarian society in which everyone could live the good life. Against this rosy vision, Miliband urged – rightly, I've always thought – that the world had not changed as much as Crosland and his fellow-revisionists imagined. Capitalism remained an unruly beast, and the idea that governments had learnt how to tame it was just an illusion.

The oil shocks of the 70s were an early warning of the fragility of the postwar order. The shocks were not fatal, and capitalism survived the crisis (as it will survive the present crisis, in one form or another). But it was already becoming apparent that while governments could withstand upheavals in the global economy, the state was not the directing agency social democrats imagined it to be. As Miliband saw it, the state was a servant of these forces rather than their potential master. Of course he exaggerated. The interests of capitalists are often at odds, and in any case politics is driven by far more than class conflict. Even so, Miliband's view that the state is constrained, reactive and hemmed in by market forces has become increasingly plausible with the passage of time. But if this is so, what role can there be for a party that aims to make capitalism a force for the collective good? Can a future Labour government succeed where past governments have failed and harness capitalism to a vision of social improvement? Or should Labour accept that it is capitalism itself that must be changed?

These are precisely the questions that face Miliband's sons as they contend for the Labour leadership. The clash between the two has an undeniable drama, and it is not just a matter of sibling rivalry. It occurs at a time when the world economy is in a crisis the founders of New Labour believed to be impossible. Lacking the Marxian insight that capitalism is inherently volatile and constantly mutating, they never doubted that the deregulated finance-capitalism that developed in the US towards the end of the past century would last. The left had to overcome its suspicion of the free market, and accept that only by exploiting its productivity could government improve society: social democracy and neo-liberal economics were actually complementary.

Just like Crosland, though without his Keynesian grasp of the dangers of recurring boom and bust, New Labour believed capitalism had been tamed. But as Ralph Miliband suspected and events have confirmed, the anarchic energy of the free market is not so easily controlled. The fall of communism was celebrated as a triumph of capitalism, which now became practically world-wide; but the effect was to make capitalism more unstable, as disturbances in one part of the system were rapidly transmitted to all the rest. The fragmented world of the cold war was more resilient to shocks, and also more hospitable to social democracy, than the world that ensued. Governments found that few of the levers they used to control the economy worked as they had before. New Labour did not want to control the market. A feature of the understanding it reached with the City was that financial markets would continue to be deregulated. In part this was accepted as the price for power, but it also reflected New Labour's Fukuyama-like faith that market capitalism was the final stage of economic development; the future lay with the self-regulating market.

As could be foreseen, things turned out rather differently. With regulatory controls relaxed or scrapped the financial institutions whose support Labour had wooed became predatory, raking in vast profits from strategies whose risks they did not understand. Inevitably this hubris led to their downfall, and the financial system imploded. The market millennium lasted hardly more than a decade, leaving a legacy of unsustainable debt.

The happy conjunction of neo-liberal economics with social democracy on which New Labour was founded is now history. This is the truth evaded in Tony Blair's autohagiography. If New Labour is obsolete it is not because of the personal defects of Gordon Brown, Blair's delusional moral certainty and incessant war-mongering or even the dysfunctional relationship between the two leaders. It is because American finance-capitalism, the model for virtually everything that New Labour ever did, has blown itself up.

The problem with the debate between the Milibands is not that it risks turning into a public family feud. It is that neither of the two contenders has come to terms with the bankruptcy of the New Labour project in which each of them was involved. Neither has acknowledged, or perhaps fully understood, the implications of the financial crisis for a future Labour government. It can only mean an erosion of the very foundations of Britain's social democratic inheritance. Yet in different ways, each of the Miliband brothers still sees government as capable of controlling market forces – the illusion their father presciently exposed.

In his Keir Hardie lecture in July, David Miliband spoke eloquently of moving away from state paternalism and reviving Labour traditions of mutualism. The state can no longer be the centre of knowledge and initiative – its function is rather that of empowering society. Top-down Fabian control must be replaced by open democratic relationships. No doubt these are desirable goals, if very much in the spirit of the prevailing conventional wisdom and perhaps not so different from Cameron's fluffy "big society". The larger difficulty is that Miliband is harking back to Crosland (whom he recently cited as his political hero) at a time when Crosland's thinking is no longer applicable.

Crosland's vision was based above all on economic growth – steady, continuing and robust. Following Keynes, he believed that wise economic management could create a society of abundance. But the effect of the financial crisis has been to curtail growth, at least in developed economies. Even if the economy recovers, governments will not have the largesse he assumed would be available. Bailing out the banks has passed the burden of debt on to the state, and no British government can expect to avoid large-scale cut-backs in borrowing and spending. Instead of the market generating wealth that could be used by governments for collective purposes, the resources of government have been pre-empted for the repayment of debts incurred by the market's excesses. Against this background, the post-paternalist state is likely to mean higher unemployment and cash-starved public services.

Unlike his brother, Ed Miliband has chosen to define his candidacy explicitly in terms of New Labour's failings and argues forcefully for the need to remodel capitalism. "Britain's big question of the next decade," he has written, "is whether we head towards an increasingly US-style capitalism – more unequal, more brutish, more unjust – or whether we can build a different model, a capitalism that works for people and not the other way around". Once again these are noble aspirations but far removed from reality. Globalisation is an idea that has been greatly over-hyped, yet governments' freedom of action has without question been reduced as capital has become more mobile. Even the US may soon find it difficult to fund its ballooning federal debt. But if American capitalism is entering a crisis zone, Britain will not have the luxury of forging a new economic model; it will have trouble just staying afloat. Ralph Miliband's pessimistic assessment of the future of social democracy could well be vindicated.

If one of the Miliband brothers wins the Labour leadership and becomes prime minister he will confront in an acute form the constraints on the power of the state his father astutely identified. Rather than controlling or reshaping capitalism, a Miliband government would find itself struggling to preserve Britain's social democratic inheritance in the face of capitalism's renewed disorder. Ralph Miliband seems never to have lost the Marxist faith that history would eventually open the way to a truly socialist society. He would surely have appreciated the curious dialectic through which it has fallen to his sons to defend the social democracy he so fiercely attacked.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Booktrust teenage prize shortlist spans time, space and genre

It's the start of another school year and I'm dreaming of new pencil cases, satchels and the books I read in class. But what are the books you remember from your own school days?

Fourteen years after I finished school, there's still something about September which feels like the start of the year, and I'm nostalgic this morning for new pencils and felt tips, satchels and packed lunches. As the hope of the nation barrels back into classrooms, I'm also thinking back to the books I read in school.

I was away last weekend and talking about how we all read William Golding's Lord of the Flies (and no, the weekend wasn't that bad, it's just that one of my friends is currently making her way through his complete works, to settle a bet). I was 14, and I think there couldn't have been a more perfect book to pick for kids of that age – if you're not going to be hooked by Ralph and Piggy and Simon and Jack, and "kill the pig, cut his throat, spill his blood", then you're not going to be hooked by anything. This was the edition we had – just looking at it casts me back to yellow highlighters and doodling and the horrors of reading aloud.

Anyway, the shocking gloriousness of Lord of the Flies made me hungry for more Golding. Our school library was pretty small, but it did, impressively, have a copy of Pincher Martin. I am quite sure I failed to get any allegorical, existential meaning from the book, but it successfully terrified me, burning an image of Martin clinging to his lonely rock into my brain. In typically disorganised fashion, I promptly lost the book for about a month and was subsequently banned from the school library for giving it back so late – obviously as a sop to all those Golding fans clamouring for more of his work.

Golding and my thieving tendencies aside, Jane Eyre bored me, King Lear enthralled me, and I described Romeo and Juliet in my mock GSCE as a novel – so something clearly went wrong there (thankfully I'd got the right end of the stick by the time the real thing came around). But the other book which really stands out in my memory from schooldays is Wuthering Heights. I was on to A-levels by then, but for some reason we were still going through the purgatory of reading (droning) aloud in class – possibly one of the best ways to make a group of teenagers lose interest in a novel. I was lazy, more interested in messing around than working, but I was so caught up in the melodramas of Cathy and Heathcliff ("Do not leave me in this abyss where I cannot find you! Oh God! It is unutterable! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!") that I'd be pages ahead when it came to my turn to read and would get in trouble for not concentrating. And I distinctly remember spending a break time racing to the end.

The rest of it, though, the years of English classes and essays, revising and exams, has largely faded into oblivion, which is rather worrying. But how about you? Indulge my nostalgia and tell me what you remember of your own literary school days.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Copyright (c) 2007. booksboost.com. All rights reserved.