Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Harold J. Laski: The Liberal Manque' or Lost Libertarian?: Arthur A. Ekirch
Harold J. Laski: The Liberal Manque' or Lost Libertarian?: Arthur A. Ekirch
A generation after his death in 1950, Harold Laski, the eminent political
scientist, socialist, and British Labour Party leader, is almost forgotten
apart from an occasional monograph analyzing his political theories. Yet he
remains significant and, rather paradoxically perhaps, his ideas are impor-
tant for American libertarian thought. Laski, of course, from the time of
his World War I teaching at Harvard, while still a very young man in his
mid-twenties, retained a lifelong interest in the United States, which he con-
tinued to visit and write about. And, all his life, he never really resolved the
major tensions between his early radical individualism and pluralist theories
of sovereignty and the state, and his later socialism and Marxism. In his
many published works and extensive private correspondence with such
American friends as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Felix Frank-
furter, he developed themes which continue to inform and enlighten our
contemporary intellectual confusion.
In 1950 Max Beloff, the distinguished Oxford don, in his obituary assess-
ment of his fellow political scientist, called the modern period "The Age of
Laski." In intellectual history, Beloff believed, Laski has played a catalytic
role much like that of John Stuart Mill in the mid-nineteenth century.'
Carroll Hawkins, an American scholar, though critical of both his later
conviction that classical liberalism was the creature of capitalism as well as
of the unfortunate effect of his effort to marry modern liberalism to Marx-
ism, also noted that Laski, in his early devotion to liberty, "was essentially a
philosophical anarchist." "Man who does not voluntarily take out member-
ship in that steadily increasingly powerful organization, the sovereign state,
could be grateful for such a champion as pluralist L a ~ k i . " ~
In the flurry of tributes to Laski following his death, there was general
agreement that the well-recognized shifts in his thought had paralleled the
declining hopes of liberal democracy and the accompanying worldwide rise
of collectivism and statism. Laski, however, was no mere camp follower.
Though a practical politician, he was also an intellectual, an idealist and,
perhaps most importantly, a superb teacher. Thus Thomas I. Cook, an
140 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES Spring
tenets expounded by Locke, Adam Smith, and Mill. Locke's natural rights
were closely related to the question of freedom, and the separation of the
powers of government he accepted as "one of the great needs of the modern
State.. . ." In his treatment of Adam Smith and the foundations of econom-
ic liberalism, Laski wrote: "No poison is more subtly destructive of the
democratic State than paternalism; and the release of the creative impulses
of men must always be the coping-stone of public policy." But he added that
liberty was impossible without certain minimal standards of security
achieved through collective effort. Smith's Wealth of Nations, therefore,
was the creature of its age, while the problems of freedom changed with the
times.8
By the mid-twenties, Laski's liberal hostility to the state and his skepti-
cism regarding the bases of its authority were beginning to waver. The lib-
ertarian socialist, however, was not dogmatic about the forms community
ownership might take. "All that he insists is that until they are effectively the
possession of the community, they cannot be fully administered in the inter-
est of the community.. . . Implied in all this, of course, is the insistence that
the true Socialism is a libertarian, and not an authoritarian, socialism."
Although he placed Mill's individualism within the framework of nine-
teenth-century liberalism and noted his later vague modification of private
enterprise by socialism, Laski nonetheless concluded that "the ideal of Mill
is still as noble an ideal as a man may desire: the perception that the eminent
worth of human personality is too precious to be degraded by institution^."^
A Grammar of Politics, the last of his major early scholarly books, made
clearer Laski's growing ambivalence in regard to a libertarian philosophy.
The state remained the enemy, but now he was becoming more concerned
with the problem of achieving and enforcing equality. Sovereignty was lim-
ited, and men must be true to the "realisation of what is best in themselves."
Yet rights too were limited and included duties that were not independent of
society. "We have them because we are members of the State." Because the
state was, however, only a means and not itself an end, one's duty was "to
the ideal the actual State must seek to serve." While the state "should always
be called into account when it invades rights," Laski recognized that in the
complex modern world "State invasions of private liberty may be more
subtle." There must accordingly be a free press, greater access to formal
education, and economic liberty in the sense of security and opportunity.
Though equality did not "mean identity of treatment," it did entail "first of
all the absence of special pri~ilege."'~
Laski concluded that the modern citizen was being driven to look at the
nation-state in new ways even though he optimistically predicted that state
sovereignty was in the process of disappearing in international affairs."
This concern over foreign policy, as well as his developing Marxist inter-
pretation of history, increasingly dominated the new introductory chapters
with which he prefaced subsequent editions of the Grammar of Politics. Yet
1980 HAROLD J. LASKI 143
his about-face with respect to classical liberalism was still not complete. It is
necessary therefore to look carefully at the views which he expounded in his
books, The Dangers of Obedience and Liberty in the Modern State, both of
which were published in 1930.
Liberty in the Modern State reiterated in more popular form much of the
argument Laski had already advanced in the Grammar of Politics. He con-
tinued to be bothered by the problem of reconciling freedom and security.
Thus the book, which reads as a kind of running debate, reflected its
author's intellectual confusion-although its first sentence begins straight-
forwardly with the statement: "I mean by liberty the absence of restraint
upon the existence of those social conditions which, in modern civilization,
are the necessary guarantees of individual happiness." He pointed out,
moreover, that "though it is a condition without which liberty is never ef-
fective," economic security was not liberty. Unwilling now to go all the way
with Acton's famous dictum, Laski nevertheless agreed with Acton and Mill
on the dangers of tyranny. "Power as such, when uncontrolled, is always
the natural enemy of freedom." Liberty and equality, in Laski's opinion
"are not so much antithetic as complementary," but the "absence of equality
means special privilege for some and not for others."I2
Laski believed the true theory of liberty denied the assumptions of
Hegel's idealist theory of the state. "For as 1 encounter the state, it is for me
a body of men issuing orders." The citizen can obey most of the state's com-
mands but, as in the case of military service, not those which violate his
individual conscience or religious beliefs. As a realist, Laski, in his dis-
cussion of the Bill of Rights, the value of which he continued to affirm,
nevertheless pointed out that its efficacy depended more on the determina-
tion of the people than on constitutional guarantees. In the same way, to-
gether with checks on bureaucracy, he emphasized opposition to excessive
centralization and the granting of as much power as possible to local gov-
ernment. Vital still for him in his definition of liberty, along with the need
for social power, was individual intellectual freedom and respect for reason.
"Liberty means being faithful to oneself, and it is maintained by the courage
to resist. This, and this only, gives life to the safeguards of liberty; and this
only is the clue to the preservation of genuine integrity in the individual
life.""
The Dangers of Obedience was composed mainly of pieces on education,
interspersed with comments showing Laski's continued concern for the indi-
vidual. No state, he argued, citing the examples of objection to war and
American prohibition, "can act in the face of considerable opposition from
its citizens, if the latter are deeply and conscientiously moved by the issue in
dispute." But, as in the United States, where be believed Babbitt was king,
the average man, ever fearful of originality, moved quickly to suppress it.
"We are the slaves of custom, and we have begun to hug our chains."
Medieval superstition was being replaced by the witch-hunting of the
144 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES Spring
He repeated that three times."But the news from Germany, Laski observed,
"gets worse all the time-new streams of refugees." Although thoroughly
alarmed now by Hitler's consolidation of power and the triumph of fascism
in Spain, Laski, unlike such American friends as Frankfurter and Archibald
MacLeish, was not ready to lay the blame on the isolationism and pacifism
of the intellectuals and college youth-MacLeish's "irresponsibles." The fu-
ture for democratic government was grim, but no nation wanted war and no
class wanted revolution. Both, however, sought ends that were difficult to
achieve peacefully. Intellectuals could no longer afford the luxury of impar-
tiality in the coming world struggle, but MacLeish, Laski believed, was
wrong to pillory the younger generation for its finding that there was a dis-
crepancy between official pronouncements and the reality of facts."
In the spring of 1939, on the eve of the war, Laski was in America lec-
turing and traveling across the country. Much frightened at the prospect of
another imperialistic world conflict, he urged Roosevelt to use his influence
to "press the British government to hasten the completion of an Anglo-
Soviet arrangement." Back home by the end of the summer, he wrote FDR
that England was determined about the war, but, he added: "I do hope you
will be able to keep America out." The United States should be in a position
to offer a mediation consistent with international decency. "And it is more
than ever vital to go on full steam ahead with the New Deal."24
In his wartime correspondence with the American President, Laski as-
sumed that his own radical interest in democratic reforms was also Roose-
velt's major concern. While the latter found Laski a convenient unofficial
bridge to the British Labour leaders, he, in turn, wanted Roosevelt to push
the Tory Prime Minister Winston Churchill toward the left. Roosevelt, he
told Frankfurter, "is that rare thing, an aristocrat who understands demo-
cratic aspirations. Such a lot of the future turns on his power to commu-
nicate that understanding to Winston." Although each found the other use-
ful, it is unlikely that either was deceived in their correspondence. Laski
deeply admired both Churchill and FDR as war leaders, but after 1943,
foreseeing victory, he returned to his prewar Marxist attacks on capitalism
and the so-called negative freedoms of dem~cracy.~'
In the remaining few years of his life, following World War 11,
Laski was indeed the liberal mangut? with scarcely a trace of the old liber-
tarian individualism. State control of a planned economy was inevitable,
while American capitalism would lead to a massive postwar depression.
"Plan or Perish," he told an American audience. "There is no middle way.
Free enterprise and the market economy mean war; socialism and planned
economy mean peace. We must plan our civilization or we must perish."
Laski's criticism of the United States, which culminated in his attack on
American business and politics in his massive book, The American Democ-
racy, published in 1948, was coupled with a defense of the Soviet Union.
Thus he apologized for Stalin's dictatorship, the lack of civil liberties in the
148 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES Spring
Soviet Union, and Russian conduct in the Cold War. While Russia admit-
tedly did not enjoy political democracy, Laski wrote that a Russian citizen
would say: "Western exponents of 'classical' democracy ought sometimes to
bear in mind that its institutions have application only in 'classical condi-
tion~.'''~~
Although an increasingly doctrinaire socialist in the latter half of his life,
taski was not shrill or strident in his Marxism, and he continued to reject
violent revolution. Ever the urbane, civilized English scholar in his manner,
he remained an intellectual as well as a politician. Concern over equality
and dislike of privilege were at the bottom of his abandonment of pluralism
and classical liberalism. But he always retained a certain nostalgic libertar-
ianism in his moral defense of the individual conscience against the dictates
of the state. In his American Democracy, for example, he observed that
Americans still accepted the old Puritan idea that a person could be made
good by legislation. "And once there is a law which touches a theme from
which men desire to escape, it is obvious that they will pay for their libera-
ti~n."~'
It was clear, however, that Laski no longer adhered to his original defini-
tion of liberty as the absence of restraint. In thus yielding the antistatist
views on which he had built his scholarly reputation, he was unwilling to
admit that collectivism would forge new constraints by its planned regula-
tion of the economic system, constraints that would be impossible to recon-
cile with his old hope of eliminating the absolute sovereignty of the state.28
In the best classical sense therefore, Laski's lost liberalism was indeed a
tragedy for libertarian thought.
NOTES
I. Max BeloE, ',The Age of Laski," Formightly, n. s. 167, (June 1950): 378-84.
2. Carroll Hawkins, "Harold J. Laski: A Preliminary Analysis," Poliricol Science Quarrerly
65 (September 1950): 376-92.
3. T.I. Cook, "In Memoriam," American Politico1 Science Review 44 (September 1950):
738-41.
4. Harold J. Laski, "The Personality of the State," Nolion 101 (July 22, 1915): 115-17; "The
Apothesis of the State," New Republic 7 (July 22, 1916): 302-304, "A Philosophy Embat-
tled," Dial 62 (February 8, 1917): 96-98; Laski to Oliver Wendell Holmes, August I,
September 13 and 16, December 16, 1916; January 2, 1917, Holmes-Loski Leflers: The
Correspondence of Mr. Juslice Holmes and Horold 3. Loski, 19/6-1935. ed. Mark De
Wolfe Howe, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953). 1: LO, 19, 23,
42-43, 50: Laski to Felix Frankfurter, May 3, 1917, General Correspondence, Box 74,
Frankfurter Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
5. Laski, Srudiesin 1hePmblem of Sovereignty (orig. pub. 1917; New Yark: Howard Fertig,
1%8), pp. 21-24, 277-83; Laski to Halmes, March 14, 1925, HolmesLnski Letters, I:
720-21.
6. Laski, Aulhorily in the Modern Slore (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919), pp. 37,
54-58.
7. Ibid., pp. 87, 94, 98, 107-10. See also Laski, The Foundotiom of Sovereignly ond Other
Essays (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1921), pp. ix, 100-101.
1980 HAROLD J. LASKI 149
25. Laski to Frankfurter, November 4, 1940, July 2, 1941; March 31, August 16, 1942, Gen-
eral Correspondence, Boxes 74, 75, Frankfurter Papers; Laski to Roosevelt, August 26,
November 6, 1940; February 18, 1941; December 27, 1942; December 5, 1944, PPF3014,
Roosevelt Papers; Deane, Political Ideas of Loski, pp. 227-28. See also Laski, Refections
on the Revolurion of Our Time (New York: Viking, 1943), posrim: M.M. Kampleman,
"Harold J. Laski: A Current Analysis," Journal of Polilics 10 (February 1948): 131-54.
26. Laski essays and articles: "Choosing the Planners," in G.D. H. Cole elal., Plan forBritain
(London: Routledge, 1943). pp. 101-27; "The American Myth and the Peace,"Nafion 158
(February 12, 1944): 180-84; "Plan or Perish," Nation 161 (December 15, 1945): 650-52;
"The American Political Scene," Nation 163 (November 23, 1946): 582-84; "My lmpres-
sions of Stalin," New Republic 115 (October 14, 1946): 478-79; "Civil Liberties in the
Soviet Union," New Republic 115 (October 21, 1946): 507-508; "Why Does Russia Act
That Way?," Notion 164 (March 1, 1947): 239-42; "What Democracy Means in Russia,"
New Republic 165 (October 28, 1946): 551-52: "Getting On With Russia," Nafion 166
(January 10, 1948): 34-37; "Reason and Russia," New Republic 119 (December 6, 1948):
22-24. See also Laski to Frankfurter, May 29, 1947, General Correspondence, Box 75,
Frankfurter Papers.
27. Laski, The American Democracy: A Commentary and an Inlerprefarion (New York:
Viking, 1948), p. 160.
28. Deane, Political Ideas of Laski, pp. 47, 253-54.