Home > General Politics, Labour Party News, Marxism, Socialism > Ed Miliband: Dangerous Revolutionary?

Ed Miliband: Dangerous Revolutionary?

Potential leader of the proletarian revolution Ed Miliband, standing in a field.I’ve just read this post over at Max Atkinson’s blog, which admittedly I would have never encountered were it not for an eye-catching tweet containing the link, which insinuated that if elected, Ed Miliband would take the Labour Party back to the dark days of 80′s class warfare.

The main point being made in the post is best summed up in the following paragraph;

Now that Ed Miliband has won the backing of the big unions, whose support Ed Balls had been hoping for, the question is: can Labour afford to back Ed Miliband on his journey back to 1979 and the wonderful world of old Labour?

The implication, that Ed Miliband is some sort of militant figure one might expect to find on the hard left, wo is comparable to the likes of Michael Foot or Tony Benn, is simply laughable, and is something I’ve heard repeated several times recently.

After showing a 5 second long clip of Ed in which he says, “I’m standing because of my values, values my parents taught me” Max go’s on to say;

Although I know nothing at all about his mother’s values, I do know that his father, the late Ralph Miliband, was a militant Marxist and a highly influential member of a generation of sociological theorists who (in my opinion) contributed towards undermining the credibility of a once respectable discipline

Well Max, his mother said Jon Cruddas would be her preferred candidate in the contest if that helps at all…

Quality of Ralph Miliband’s work aside (which I would recommend by the way), there is nothing about Ed Miliband’s ideas on the practical approach to politics, which would lead one to believe he is following in his fathers ideological footsteps. Indeed quite the opposite is true. One of Ralph’s key works, Parliamentary Socialism: A study of the politics of Labour, he questioned the possibility of advancing the Socialist cause through parliamentary politics, as opposed to more militant mobilisation of the working class favoured by his father. So we can safely assume that in this regard Ed isn’t following in his fathers footsteps. Perhaps his mothers more centric, Crudassite tendencies balanced him out a bit!

This kind of lazy, sensationalist analysis bores me. The fact that anyone to the Left of Tony Blair is instantly labelled as deluded, unelectable etc. is a common knee jerk response from anyone who views center ground politics as the Holy Grail of modern political thought, the expression of which sometimes borders on McCarthyism.

So besides the fact that at least one half of his moral inspiration was a Marxist academic, is there any other evidence that Ed is the Revolutionary Class warrior some seem to view him as?

The main philosophical points of Ed’s campaign, that there is more to society than the market, that the state has a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable from the excesses this market produces, and that greater social equality leads to a more cohesive society. All pretty common amongst the left of center, Social Democratic lexicon. As Comrade Doran quite eloquently articulated it recently he is a ”Moderate Radical“.

Indeed, when the leadership candidates were asked at a recent hustings event, “are you a Socialist – and what does the word mean to you?”, Ed’s answer certainly seemed to confirm his commitment to Social Democratic Reformism;

“Being a socialist for me is about being willing to criticise capitalism – and saying capitalism produces many injustices, which politics must tackle. It is not about abolishing capitalism but it is about changing it”

It often annoys me how people who claim to want to see “change” in British politics are so wiling to denounce anything that appears to step even slightly outside the current status quo, and to do it with such half-baked observations as this is even worse.

The whole debate about center ground politics in Britain, and more specifically the urgent need to hold on to it, is often distorted by highly opinionated, stubborn points of view, that essentially end up with two sides who disagree shouting long-held, fiercely rigid dogmas at one another, bringing into question its right to even be called a debate anymore.

That in mind, I don’t have any desire to get into the “center ground debate” today, which Carl decided to start some discussion on last night. I just wanted to point out how bloody stupid it was to try to imply Ed Miliband might be the next Tony Benn.

Advertisement
  1. July 27, 2010 at 2:04 pm | #1

    No Bennite ever wanted to “change” capitalism, that’s for sure

  2. July 27, 2010 at 2:18 pm | #2

    My point exactly..

  3. July 27, 2010 at 3:19 pm | #3

    Jeez, that post you link to is pathetic. Patronising and reactionary, illogical and smallminded. None of the leadership candidates are perfect but out of all of them I’m most persuaded by Ed Miliband’s political analysis and the policy direction he supposedly wants to take the party in. Plus I think it’s important that Ed Miliband has managed to attract supporters from both the left and right of the party. David Miliband’s inability get any of the major trade unions to endorse him is worrying.

  4. July 27, 2010 at 3:25 pm | #4

    Jako – when I saw your first line my heart skipped a beat, luckily for me you mean Max’ nonsense

  5. July 27, 2010 at 4:53 pm | #5

    Absolutely spot on. There’s an article by Patrick O’Flynn in today’s that expresses much the same sentiment as the blog you link to; complete nonsense. The idea that Ed Miliband is some kind Trotskyist monster just because the unions happen to prefer him over the other candidates is laughable. I agree that he is, if anything, a social democrat at heart; certainly much more accepting of capitalism and the role of the markets in the economy than the Militant left of the Labour Party three decades ever would have been. If this is all the Tory bloggers and right-wing press have to throw at this Miliband, they’re going to have try a lot harder.

  6. July 27, 2010 at 5:31 pm | #6

    A key query here is whether there is room for an old-style social democracy any longer, without some wider change and mass mobilisation the likes of which Ed Miliband will (if safely ensconced at the top of the Labour Party) likely oppose?

    Perhaps – and here’s a bone to Paul Cotterill – the best thing for the development of Ed Miliband’s political sensibilities, as an individual, would be for him to lose the leadership contest. Maybe then he’ll appreciate the need for and role of a mass movement, if that’s what Labour is to return to, as so many soundbytes from the candidates seem to hint.

    My iffy attitude to Miliband Jr is coined precisely by Jako, above. He is attracting people from Left and Right – not by convincing either of his capacity for a new departure but by appealing to some policies acceptable to the one and some policies acceptable to the other. And this is before he’s cocooned inside the Westminster comfort zone as Leader of HM Opposition.

  7. July 28, 2010 at 2:26 am | #7

    Comrade White quotes my blogpost on “Next Labour” – the challenge that the other Miliband brother has laid down for us to consider (http://hands-of-the-many.blogspot.com/2010/05/next-labour-will-change-be-moderate-or.html).

    Far from being a Bennite, Ed Miliband has the backing of notable moderates like Luke Akehurst (http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/) and John Gray (http://grayee.blogspot.com). Far from being a Blairite, David Miliband’s radicalism includes support for a British Investment Bank (a Labour policy during the late 80s / early 90s), living wage campaigns, and reform to company law to give ordinary workers representation on remuneration committees. His recent speech on job creation and industrial policy could just as easily have been made by Ed (http://www.davidmiliband.net/2010/07/24/reducing-the-jobs-deficit/)

    So, I have been cautioning against people using the spatial metaphors of left, right, and centre – and urging instead that we talk about the interests that are at stake. For people on modest to middle incomes there is a common interest in defending public services – we should therefore have no truck with talk of left/right etc., because it avoids the issues that lost our party votes. That Ed rather than David has the backing of trade union executives owes more to the younger brother not being so closely associated with the New Labour project than substantive policy difference from his brother.

    The view that was held of the Labour Party by people it needed to win in the early nineties no longer exists. Times have changed – where once people might have entertained the idea that industrial militancy caused economic woes, since the financial crisis more people see the greed and recklessness of those at the top as a problem.

    My hopes for this leadership contest were that it would advance the party’s approach beyond acceptance of the existing power relations towards greater democratic control by ordinary people (http://hands-of-the-many.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-future-of-labour.html).

  8. July 28, 2010 at 8:27 am | #8

    A tip: not everyone who has a blog is worth responding to. This guy is, what, a ‘consultant’ in some capacity? A fucking mediocrity off and online, who probably had about two readers before you sent traffic his way? He’s a moron and a massive bluffer (like he knows the first thing about sociology or what Ralph Miliband stood for). Ignore him.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,183 other followers