Middle Class Communists Seminar (Part Three): Discussion - Denis Healey, Peter Hennessy and Panel

TL;DR

The panel discusses why educated and middle-class people could reasonably find communism attractive in 1930s Britain despite objections based on capitalism, religion, and human nature. Speakers argue that Soviet communism’s failure was not yet clear in the early 1930s and identify the Communist Party’s organization, internationalism, working-class commitment, and appeal as an alternative to a Labour Party in crisis. Read on for the panel’s contrasting arguments.

Transcript

we now have an opportunity for uh just under an hour and a half if we want to use it to um uh discuss what has been said and and to ask questions of the panel um uh I guess we have a roing microphone um do we um and uh we will use that um so that as far as possible everybody can hear everybody else um so can I simply ask for comments or questions a... Read More

Key Insights

• 🖕 Middle-class recruits joined the Communist Party in 1930s Britain due to its anti-fascist stance and belief in fighting against social injustice.
• 🥳 The party struggled to gain influence and support due to the dominance of the Labor Party and strong loyalty from trade unions.
• 🖐️ The Soviet Union, under Stalin's rule, played a role in shaping attitudes towards communism and contributed to the decline of the Communist Party.

Questions & Answers

Q: Why did educated and middle-class people support communism in 1930s Britain?

The discussion suggests that supporting communism was not necessarily illogical because, in the early 1930s, it was still too soon to conclude that Soviet communism would fail. The Communist Party also attracted support through its organization, internationalism, commitment to working-class struggle, and position as an alternative to a Labour Party described as being in crisis.

Q: Could people in the early 1930s have known that Soviet communism would not work?

One speaker argues that they could not yet have reached that conclusion sensibly or logically. From the perspective of the early 1930s, it was still too early to know whether Soviet communism would achieve its intended results.

Q: Was communism treated like a religion by its supporters?

An audience member raises that comparison, describing adherence to communism as hope prevailing over experience. The panel does not fully endorse the analogy, though Peter Hennessy says he prefers the Sermon on the Mount as a manifesto to the communist one.

Q: How did the panel respond to the claim that redistribution conflicts with Christian teaching?

The chair recalls Jesus saying to give what one has to the poor and calls that a good description of redistribution. The response directly challenges the audience member’s distinction between voluntary Christian giving and enforced redistribution.

Q: What role did human nature play in the argument against communism?

The audience member argues that people naturally want to keep and build upon what they produce, presenting this as a reason communism could not work. Peter Hennessy responds that people exist on a spectrum from altruism to monstrosity and may occupy different points on that spectrum in different circumstances.

Q: How was Adam Smith’s invisible hand used to criticize communism?

An audience member argues that allowing people to follow their own inclinations enables figures such as the baker and butcher to benefit society. He presents this invisible-hand idea, alongside the history of Western capitalism, as evidence that educated advocates of communism ignored established lessons about economic behavior.

Q: Why was the Communist Party attractive as an alternative to the Labour Party?

Jeff Andrews suggests that the Communist Party’s appeal may have been understated, especially while the Labour Party was in crisis. He points to its organization, internationalism, commitment to working-class struggle, and appreciation among Labour students in Oxford.

Q: Why does the discussion distinguish middle-class recruits from intellectuals?

Jeff Andrews notes that histories of the 1930s often focus on writers and intellectuals, producing a particular interpretation of the period. He argues that middle-class communist commitment was broader and more deeply rooted when student activists are also considered.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The Communist Party in 1930s Britain appealed to middle-class recruits who were drawn to its anti-fascist stance.

• The party faced challenges in gaining influence due to the Labor Party's dominance and strong loyalty from trade unions.

• The Soviet Union, under Stalin's rule, influenced attitudes towards communism and contributed to the party's decline.