REVIEW OF BOOKS
Sir Oswald Mosley on doing it his way
A distinguished scholar has written a biography of me* which has taken some of his time for twelve years. I am happy to recall that when he began it never occurred to me he would reach conclusions often favourable. For the present ornament of Johns Hopkins, Washington and previously of Nuffield was some years back the most incisive of my undergraduate .opponents at Oxford. It is agreeable to imagine that time and learning have combined to affect him as beneficially as my own experience, during inadvertent pursuit of Plato's advice to withdraw from life for a period of intensive study before the last phase of action; my less convenient university was gaol. His background associates were particularly hostile to me. Yet in this biography it appears that he who was brought to curse stays, if not to bless, at least to discover some redeeming qualities.
Anyone reading his own biography is tempted to alternate between warm acceptance of praise and cold rebuttal of criticism; in these circumstances, error or misapprehension are all too easily recognised. A perspicuous relation who read the proofs wrote to me: "Although the Skidelsky book must at times seem intolerable to you — the good will be undeniable just because it is not written by a worshipper. It takes your life, your actions and thought immensely seriously — and how few, biographers of politicians manage to do that! I expect you regret that he does not write more of the last twenty years — but this has not become history yet. Yesterday cannot be seen by a historian until further events have happened." This seems to me a fair summary.
My regret is certainly that the book does not deal more with the twenty or thirty years since the war. Thought which in my view is far and away the most important that I have to offer, and occupied half of my adult life, is crowded into 6 per cent of the book so far as the practical suggestions are concerned, and 11 per cent if the philosophic and metaphysical reflections born of the prison years are also taken into account. "A few leading themes must be briefly discussed" observes the author on page 494 of a 520-page book: this is certainly irksome to me because I feel it is all that matters. Naturally I have a past and am always available to defend it when attacked, while also ready to admit errors on the principle that any man who lives a long time without learning anything is a fool. Yet to be asked to turn and regard the often inaccurate and sometimes trivial tales of the past is exasperating to anyone acutely conscious of standing in face of the greatest moment in all history. This is the first time that mankind has acquired the power to destroy the world, and it can occur not only by nuclear fission but also by sufficient incapacity in handling the miraculous endowment of science in the economic sphere. The breakdown is now expressed in the inflation which threatens to. destroy society in default of a viable area within which government can act effectively and of a government with the will to act; two vital necessities which I have urged in vain until now the need begins to become obvious. In these circumstances someone at all perceptive may be forgiven for sharing in some degree the Bonapartist complex: "To him it was always today, there never was a yesterday."
A complex might also conceivably be caused by being extremely praised in immaturity and then boycotted in a maturity felt to be superior. Yet I must gratefully acknowledge that in the post-war years of exclusion many of the leading intellects of our time have generously approved not only my past but still more my present work. Such accolade from opponents would not easily have been accorded by fellow countrymen in any other land, and this may be affirmed by an experienced European who is also familiar with the media in America; the stranger is often more easily appreciated. So arises a paradox of time: "You are a man of the elite, but not of the mass" I was told recently by a leading journalist. "Just the opposite of old days" I replied: "I was then a man of the mass — look at my election-winning and conference record—but detested by the elite of the period who attacked me for policies which the new elite regard in retrospect as having been right." "A hatchet job has been done on you since the war," continued my friend, but personally I have not found the effects have extended far beyond the square mile covering Westminster, Whitehall and the media. It was the middle layer which did that job, and even at the height of attacks upon me during the war for an opposition which I feel events have already justified and the author has covered fairly, the British people met me with the friendship natural between us and by me deeply valued. What then have I been doing during the period of 'certified dead'? First the effort of the last twenty-four years of living, travelling and working in Europe to make myself very completely an European in pursuit of the idea of Europe — a Nation which I first declared in 1948. This concept of government on three levels — central for foreign policy, defence and main economic questions; national as today in the whole social and cultural sphere; regional for necessary devolution — has been presented throughout not as an abnegation of sovereignty, practical or spiritual, but as the only means to preserve it in face of external pressures. Common Market before common government always seemed to me in some degree putting the cart before the horse and present tendencies stress the need now to rectify this.
Continental systems, when Bretton Woods and the international system break down, have been a main theme of mine for some years past: a fact which Skidelsky considers lucidly on page 489 of his book. When the dazzling fact finally penetrates that all cannot at the same time sell more than they buy, statesmen may turn their attention to organising viable areas which contain their own raw materials, their own market and a productive capacity with the aid of modern science surpassing that of the whole world a few years ago. When the battle for world markets is thus eliminated, practical success will tend to settle the system of the future, whether it be American, communist, or the third and best method combining private enterprise with central leadership which we are capable of creating in Europe. Till then both Europe and America must match communist armaments to prevent a decision by force. (Mr Skidelsky by the way is wrong to write that I began to agitate for rearmament in 1934 — he must be thinking of Sir Winston Churchill who started then — I began in 1932 a demand for the rearmament of Britain, and persisted until I was put in prison.) At present the incipient breakdown of the international system indicates a possibility of reaching continental systems through a compulsive protectionism and defensive improvisations rather than considered plan. Yet I am still optimistic that men may eventually move under impulse of mind and spirit rather than of the kick behind from an adverse fate evoked by their own lethargy. When crisis rouses we shall see as often in our history that Britain awake is a very different country from Britain asleep; true of everyone, but particularly of the British. Way-out policies of yesterday can become plain sense with a sudden change of scene. Meanwhile the orthodox will still regard my opinions as disruptive during this last tea and games, a period of new jargon redecorating very old and long discredited policies. The creation of continental systems will at last enable a central authority in essential economic matters to undertake effectively the equation of production and consumption Without the chaos caused by external factors.
Do my own policies predicate what I have described as a different order of mind and will in government? Yes, but these are qualities Which both our country and Europe as a whole are capable of producing. In time of crisis men of previously very different opinion can come 'together to meet an actual and menacing situation. My ambition is always to be a man of sYnthesis. Many of the differences are misunderstandings of basic facts. In simple illustration, it is impossible to have progress without order and it is finally impossible to have order Without progress. We need a synthesis of many old conflicts at a higher level. Perhaps it is these thoughts in another region which led Mr Skidelsky to depict me on occasion in rather romantic terms, while I regard myself as Primarily a very practical person. Yet without some glimpse of what the author calls the vi, sion splendid, however imperfect, little of lasting significance in history has been achieved on the great scene of world politics.
Previous page
