harry hanson’s arguments (“Socialism And Affluence”, NLR 5) are remarkably like those of Tony Gosland in the October issue of Encounter, though his conclusions are quite different. Unfortunately, while Crosland’s conclusions follow logically from his analysis, Hanson’s are so loosely attached to the body of his argument that they fall off at the slightest shake. He wants the Left to follow the sad example of the ILP, which disaffiliated from the Labour Party in 1932 and has hardly been heard from since. What is more, if his economic analysis is right, the prospects for a breakaway socialist party in the 1960s must be a good deal worse than they were in 1932, at the depth of a shattering world economic crisis.
Nevertheless, the substance of Hanson’s and Crosland’s critique of Crossman deserves serious attention. Is British Capitalism so stable and is affluence so assured as to make an unqualified socialist alternative electorally unattractive? Attention has rightly been focussed on comparative rates of economic growth. During the 1950s the Soviet National Income increased at more than twice the US and more than three times the British rates. Suppose, it is now urged, that such discrepancies persist for another decade or two, does it really matter? “What”, asks Hanson, “is the nature of the beating we are going to take?” He lists some ways in which Soviet expansion may make itself felt in Britain and wonders whether any of them are really significant for our political future.