Has some very interesting essays but unfortunately also quite a lot of reviews of things that aren't particularly illuminating - typically they don't run long enough to give enough depth to either his ideas or those of the person he's reviewing and there are some points that he covers again and again. For example, he regularly attacks Stalinism (although it's not his constant target, more a side issue) and tries to separate it cleanly from Leninism in general and Marx. But he doesn't really ever provide a good argument why this is a reasonable stance and it seems to me to inhibit analysis of the USSR. There's also a lot of stuff here that's either for a very specific audience (talking about Bettelheim's economic analysis of the USSR for example) or simply dated (although I suppose many current "new new left" stuff is very reminiscent of Eurocommunism) - there's always interesting things to pick out from what he says but it limits the wider appeal of it.

I highly recommend "The Coup in Chile", available online https://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/1973/10/chile.htm, that explains clearly both the specific situation of Chile and also the problems facing any serious movement of power and wealth from the hands of the current ruling classes in every country. "State Power and Class Interests" is an interesting attempt to work out what the "ruling classes" and bourgeois hegemony actually means and "Constitutionalism and Revolution" is dated because it's targeted at Eurocommunism but much of the attacks on their general principles are still relevant. Don't take my first paragraph as disparaging the book because there's definitely a lot of good stuff it's just sometimes buried and the topics addressed are very variable.

The essay "Military Interventionism and Socialist Internationalism" is notable for having aged extremely poorly. With regards to Afghanistan he says "It is of course convenient to argue that no alternative to Babrak Karmal existed save the blackest kind of reactionary regime, allied to the United States, Pakistan and China." He attacks the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea on the basis that the government they installed was no better than the Pol Pot one, set back the course of socialism through creation of nationalism etc, and disparages the idea that the Kampuchean incursions on Vietnamese territory were of any import. He ridicules the idea that a counter-revolution was possible in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 by describing such a thing in terms exactly describing what actually happened in the early 1990s - of course, this doesn't in any way provide a justification for Soviet actions at those times, but with hindsight it's quite awkward to read. To quote, because it's so exact:

"Properly speaking, a counter-revolution may be said to have occurred when a regime of the left, Communist or not, has been overthrown (or for that matter replaced by legal means) and where the successor regime pushes through a series of economic, social and political measures designed to assure or restore the power, property and privileges of landlords, capitalists and other segments of the ruling class who have been threatened with dispossession or who have actually been dispossessed by the regime which the counter-revolution has replaced. This involves the return to landlords and capitalists of their land and factories and banks, and of property in general, where it has been taken from them. It also involves the reaffirmation of their power and preponderance by the suppression of the defence organizations of the subordinate classes—parties, trade unions, cooperatives, clubs and associations. It further involves the suppression or drastic curtailment of civil rights; the physical suppression of opposition leaders, of agitators, subversives and enemies of the state; and the political restructuring of the state in authoritarian directions... Of course, there were, particularly in Hungary, people who had counter-revolutionary intentions: but that is obviously not the same thing... In both countries, there might well have come into being a coalition regime in which the Communist Party would not have been assured of an automatic preponderance; and other such variations can easily be conceived. The point is that, whatever may be thought of these possibilities, they cannot, on any reasonable assessment, be equated with ‘counter-revolution’, or anything like it. It would surely have been exceedingly difficult to unscramble long-nationalized property and to restore factories, mines or land to their former owners..."

Again, this isn't to absolve the Soviets of blame by using something that happened afterwards as justification. Just. Dang.

Ultimately the essay fails for the reason many of the essays that talk about "Stalinism" or generally try to put forward an international socialist viewpoint fail - everything is so hedged about with the necessity for "critical support", acknowledging "the progressive and regressive sides", not allowing yourself to ever for a moment say something is good. There are two bad sides - the capitalist West and the Stalinist USSR - but there's nobody to root for except in very specific situations, and there's no real alternative position because everything has to be hedged with criticality no matter what. By focusing on a certain narrow definition of "civil rights" all the time, it leaves the reader wondering why the author shows any support for the socialist bloc at all. And when he says that there are some extreme situations where interventionism is justified but decides that responding to attempted invasion by a country that borders you and is currently involved in mass murder of its own citizens doesn't count, it makes you wonder what on earth *does* count. Much of this kind of "non aligned communist" writing just gives off an incredible feeling of futility and total pointlessness - it's not advancing any cause, it's not giving material support to anyone, and even as criticism it's confused and aimless.

For the last few essays: Class War Conservatism is short and doesn't say much but is good. Socialist Advance in Britain is OK and relates pretty strongly to Corbyn but is pretty familiar stuff if you have a radical left background I think. Freedom, Democracy and the American Alliance is pretty good about attacking the "USSR expansionism" myth but again not too much new. What Comes After Communist Regimes is pretty prescient about the coming privatisation and its effects and what "democracy" the West imposed would really mean but it's not super relevant today.

Overall it has a few quality essays, some ok but not particularly groundbreaking ones and some dull ones (typically reviews etc). It's worth reading some of the specific essays and there's definitely interesting parts in all the essays, it's just often covered in mundane/tedious stuff. He *is* a relatively easy writer to read though so it's not a slog at all if you have a basic familiarity with political terminology, which is a big advantage. ( )

I nearly gave up on this book: the early chapters are an outdated vindication of Soviet style socialism. I appreciate that this might have been an arguable perspective when it was written but, surely is passé now.

Parts three and four are much more interesting to the modern reader. They concern Britain and the effects of the Thatcher/Reagan revolution and Neo Liberalism. It is helpful, sometimes, to go back to the view at the time of this cataclysmic event; from which we are still suffering the aftershock. ( )