He sees in this some possibly uncomfortable realities about the past: "Few radical movements were genuinely intent on social 'levelling,' and even those figures who did advocate land reform ... largely did so with the dream of creasting a Britain of self-sufficient, independent smallholders. The urge remained at root individualist, or at best localist, rather than collectivist. This historical preference for a smaller rather than a bigger role for the state was scracely surprising, given that for most of British history the main business of government was to wage war, to raise funds to pay for it and to recruit men to fight for it."
He notes also another trend in British radicalism — a veneration of the law as the embodiment of liberties. Even where the law was seen as repressive, this was often seen as an innovation — at some past Utopia, often Anglo-Saxon times, it had done fufilled its "proper" role of protecting liberties. This, Vallance says, combined with another aspect of the radical tradition, its essentially patriotic outlook, leaves it open to Conservative cooption and even far right manipulation. The Levellers talked of the rights of the "freeborn Englishman" as the birthright of a particular nation.
So this is a history, but an intensely political, engaged with the present history. But it's not a polemic, and blessedly, it's highly readable and entertaining. Anyone who claims themselves a radical, or is heading perhaps in that direction, should read it, and have some idea of the successes — and failures — of those who came before.
Article comments
1 - Bob Lloyd
A minor detail: the East end battle in the 30s was Cable Street, not Able Street. By the way, the modern equivalent was the Battle of Lewisham in August 1977.
Civil liberties are always an area of contest because rights only exist in reality to the extent that they can be claimed so it is interesting that radical movements are seen as individualist. Certainly in both Cable Street, and Lewisham, it was the voluntary mobilisation of very large numbers of people that opposed fascism on the streets, in very much a collectivist way.
It's also curious that radical movements are seen as venerating the law as the embodiment of liberties. In the UK, the growth of legislation against trade unions, the right to free speech, the right of assembly, the powers of arrest and monitoring, are all targets for radicals and have been for decades.
One wonders about whether Vallance is too much the ivory tower academic. He seems to be keen on the radical individual rather than the radical masses who, I suspect, he somewhat fears. Radical individuals can only be effective if they are backed by radical movements with collective strength.
2 - Natalie Bennett
Thanks for the noting of the Cable Street typo - now corrected in the copy.
I don't think Vallance is individualist, in fact the opposite. He thinks that British radicalism has traditionally (and here of course he is talking over centuries) been too resistant to any communalist action or approach.
I didn't much go into it in the review, but in terms of today, Vallance is clearly standing against the great ongoing erosion of civil liberties.