Socialist Tradition

Chapter 18. Postface

‘I should be inclined to say that history is a class war (1) when there are classes; (2) when they have antagonistic interests; (3) when they are aware of this antagonism, which would give us, in the main, the humorous equivalence that history is a class war only when it is a class war.’

He goes on to add that ‘in fact sometimes classes have not had antagonistic interests, and very often they are not conscious of them; of which the socialists are well aware when they endeavour by efforts not always crowned with success... to arouse this consciousness in the modern proletariat’ (Croce: Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx, p. 85).

(i) The London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 (23 Geo. 5, Ch. 14), made provision for the establishment of the London Passenger Transport Board. Even if the Government wished to decline all responsibility for the work of the Board, one would have thought that they might at least have pulled up their socks, and accepted responsibility for the appointment of the Board. But no: under section 1 of the Act this duty is entrusted to a body of ‘Appointing Trustees,’ comprising the Chairman of the London County Council, the Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Banks, the President of the Law Society, and the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The Poet Laureate is an obvious and inexplicable omission from the list. Thus the Government not merely wash their hands of the work of the Board: they even disclaim the responsibility of choosing the right men for the job.

(ii) When the Broadcasting Committee presided over by Lord Ullswater reported (1935), they pointed out that in the early days the Postmaster-General was a natural choice as Minister responsible for broadcasting services. But, in the intervening years, the service had acquired ‘a high and certainly unforeseen degree of educative and cultural importance, ‘and accordingly they suggested that ‘responsibility for the cultural side of broadcasting should be transferred to a Cabinet Minister in the House of Commons, preferably a senior member of the Government, and free from any heavy Departmental responsibilities’ (Cmd. 5091). The Memorandum of the Postmaster-General, embodying the conclusions of the Government (Cmd. 5207), is significant. On this issue, it is recorded that ‘the Government consider that if a Minister “free from heavy Departmental responsibilities” were specially appointed to be “responsible in respect of broad questions of policy and culture,” he would find himself more and more obliged to exercise actual control.’ In less official language, responsibility (such as it is) for the B.B.C. is better entrusted to an over-worked Minister, who will probably be compelled to take his responsibility lightly; if entrusted to one of the ornamental Ministers, without portfolio (worth mentioning), he might in his ample leisure be in danger of taking his responsibilities seriously, and might even become interested in the B.B.C.

In essence and despite appearances, a timorous and faint-hearted Leviathan.

It is assumed in the text, and probably most plain citizens assume, that a plan implies a period of currency. It may be a short-period plan, designed to take us to an objective not so remote; or it may be a long-period plan, which seeks to fix our eyes on a more distant future. But acts of decision, taken singly or in conjunction, do not constitute a plan. Mrs. Wootton, in the essay contributed to the Fabian publication Can Planning be Democratic? interprets planning as meaning that major economic decisions (on certain types of questions which are not specified) ‘are made deliberately by someone acting on behalf of all the people concerned’ (Op. cit. p. 38). But surely a plan should be something more than this.