By Brian Dickinson
Thomas Paine: At the Limits of Bourgeois Radicalism. By Anthony Arblaster. In SOCIALISM AND THE LIMITS OF LIBERALISM. Edited by P. Osbome. Verso, 1991. £12.95
It is refreshing to read an essay about Thomas Paine which not only places him in his historical context but also emphasises his relevance oday. This essay is part of a book which was compiled in 1991, when the dust created by the fall of the Berlin Wall had not yet settled, with the aim of rescuing socialism from its many jubilant critics.
In the introduction Peter Osborne writes: ‘To write of the future of liberalism in Britain at the end of the nineteenth century was, of necessity, to write also about socialism. Today, a hundred years later, the reverse is true: it has become impossible to write off the prospects for socialism without raising once more its relation to liberalism.’ It is in this context that Arblaster writes about the liberal radicalism of Thomas Paine. He starts his essay by placing Paine in the context of the radicalism of the French Revolution. He points out that the ideology of the American and French Revolutions was a bourgeois ideology of the most radical form. A radical ideology with its limitations and impediments but still challenging and relevant. Arblaster argues, ‘This radical ideology points both backwards and forwards – backwards to pre-capitalist notions of a ‘moral economy’, forwards to socialism – but it also intersects the central liberal ideology of the market. All three elements are present in Paine, but also in the French and American Revolutions of this period.’
Arblaster then sets about explaining Paine’s liberalism by showing that Paine does not see a political or economic cause of war but rather its roots lie with the dominance of societies by hereditary monarchs. Get rid of them and there would be no wars. He also shows that Paine’s liberalism is closely linked to Adam Smith and believes that free trade benefits all. His attack on hereditary monarchy was also for economic reasons as monarchs put an unnecessary burden on taxation. However, Paine was not an advocate of economic egalitarianism, as Arblaster points out that even in Agrarian Justice Paine believes that some economic inequalities are justified and even desirable.
Arblaster is aware that Paine’s liberalism could easily be used by conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, so he is keen to redress the balance by showing Paine’s radicalism. While most of Paine’s contemporaries saw poverty as undesirable but nevertheless a natural consequence of over-population, Paine could never bring himself to blame the poor for their condition. He clearly started to move towards a class analysis of poverty and wealth. Arblaster points out that Paine not only goes a lot further than most of those around him but also a lot further than many people today in his solutions to end this problem. He does not see this contradiction of Paine’s belief in minimalistic government while advocating intervention to end poverty as a problem with Paine, because they are central to the bourgeois assault on feudalism and absolutism, and the liberalisation of capitalist enterprise; but also because at this point in modern history no one… is formulating a theory of interventionism, of positive state action.’ Therefore, ‘Paine stands at the most radical edge of bourgeois liberalism in theory, and could even be said to go beyond it in his detailed practical proposals.’
Not only is an excellent essay on Thomas Paine which clearly and concisely explains his ideas and places them in their historical context, but Arblaster also successfully shows that Paine is still relevant today. He points out that ‘Recent vast increases in capitalist power and in the huge wealth of a small minority, coupled with attacks on the poor and their minimal entitlements, have returned these issues to the centre of the political stage. With the Labour Party currently debating the future of Clause 4 (A clause in the British Labour Party constitution) those who want to ditch it and embrace the market economy should read Paine and this essay. This is an essay which would be welcomed not only by scholars of Paine but also be a good introduction to his work. We need more essays of this calibre.