Crosland arranges his exposition under five headings: the transformation of capitalism, the aims of socialism, the promotion of welfare, the search for equality, and economic growth and efficiency. The broad pattern of his thinking may be stated somewhat as follows: the British reforms of the past two decades have been so far-reaching that the appellation "capitalism" is hardly applicable in the sense in which it was applicable for the preceding century. The resulting subordination of private industry to social purposes and social control has brought into effect much of what the older socialists sought: the end of primary poverty, full employment, stability of livelihood, and greater equality of both personal and real income distribution through the social services. On the economic front, further rise in the standard of living depends upon increasing productivity. There is no prima-facie case that this will be promoted by much extension of nationalization. As a basic industry, laggard in development and monopolistically controlled, steel should be renationalized; but there are few other good candidates for this treatment. In general, the proper role of the state can be defined by operating pragmatically without too much regard to older socialist doctrine. In the context of rising income, greater economic equality can be achieved by a variety of means—through higher wages, extension of social services, taxation, dividend limitation, death duties, capture of capital gains and so on. Where capital investment and technical innovation lag, government can intervene to force the pace, as it can also to minimize the effects of private monopoly.
Looking over this statement of directions for economic policy, an American Fair Dealer might find them on the whole both familiar and acceptable. This effect is, however, somewhat illusory, since Crosland is more of a "statist" than one would normally find in American policy-making circles. He finds more probable occasions for state intervention and a higher degree of necessary state control than would appear in any programmatic statement in the United States.
In any case, these precepts of economic action, while essential, do not provide the central focus to Crosland's agenda. To him, "socialism is about equality," but the greatest barrier to the kind of equality which should exist in a just world is social inequality. The peculiar British class basis of educational opportunity greatly restricts the field of "careers open to talent," poisons all social relations and exacerbates social resentments. The breaking down of class barriers therefore appears to Crosland as the first priority of social policy, and this cannot be directly accomplished by economic reforms, but only by a thorough-going revision of the educational system. Within the context of this reform, the approach to practicable degrees of economic equality, consistent with efficiency and growth, would be so much the easier.
From the economist's viewpoint, no doubt the most interesting point in Crosland's analysis is his treatment of the reasons for adjuring extensive nationalization. On this point he is detailed, pointed and persuasive. Part of
the reason is the unsatisfactory performance of the industries already nationalized. The bill of particulars is extensive, including the administrative difficulties of monolithic monopolies, the failure to attract the best administrative talent, and so on. As an economist, Crosland lays special emphasis on their failure to contribute to the essential process of capital accumulation, comparing them unfavorably with private industry on this point. Their price policy has been a cost-covering one only.
This leads to a broader conjecture whether the democratic pressures on nationalized industries will not normally be toward low prices and high wages at the expense of business saving. From this, he presses on to analysis of reasonable expectations concerning progressiveness, flexibility, foreign trade, labor relations, wage levels, managerial structure, and so on. He finds no reason to suppose that nationalization, as a general rule, will either improve economic performance or contribute materially to a scheme of social relations conforming to the ideals of socialism. Given the powers of the state backed by a proper attitude toward their use, he finds the specific matter of ownership highly irrelevant. In developing this theme he provides a cogent refutation of Marxist thinking, as well as a deadly account of the Russian outcome.
Since social ownership of the means of production is usually considered the benchmark of socialism, one begins to wonder how Crosland, repudiating this approach, can call his book, The Future of Socialism. A better title would have been In Place of Socialism. One might attribute his title to the time-honored practice of retaining "good words" with emotive power while their meanings turn sharp corners—like "democracy" in the contemporary dictatorships. But there is no chicanery in Crosland. The semantic point does not bother him, since he is writing to persuade people who call themselves socialists, and who entertain certain ideals which they have heretofore thought could best be attained through particular institutional forms. To him the heart of the matter is in the ideals and not in the means. The economic role of government is large, its responsibility for promoting stability and growth is overriding, and its concern for just relations fundamental. These conditions place no taboo upon using private enterprise to the extent of its useful economic function consistent with pursuit of those ideals. The lines of policy already firmly embedded in British practice are described by Crosland as follows: ". . . it constitutes a major victory for the Left . . . that the majority of Conservatives today would probably concede the right, indeed the duty, of the state to hold itself responsible for (1) the level of employment, (2) the protection of the foreign balance by methods other than deflation, (3) the level of investment and the rate of growth, (4) the maintenance of a welfare minimum, and (5) the conditions under which monopolies should be allowed to operate" (p. 499).