Echoes of A New Tomorrow: Life after Revolution in the Commonwealth of Britain

[TheExecuter]

at the heart of Britain’s economic dominance was an unswerving faith in the principle of free trade, and a stable currency pegged to the gold standard.

We must remind everyone that 'free trade' in the British politicians understanding prior to world war 1 does not mean the same thing as 'free trade' today.

It usually meant England was free to have unfettered access to other markets...but this privilege does not apply to other nations.

Britain’s leaders after 1918 had on the whole managed the economy as if the Great War had not happened

And not just the economy...you see this baffling response in a lot of areas...

The ultimate aim was to insulate the British economy from the shocks of a volatile international market abroad, while creating artificial demand at home via a system of credit expansion amongst producers and consumers, the control of banking and monetary policy by the government, and the revaluation of Sterling according to a floating exchange rate.

So, the creation of an internal pricing bubble...ok in the short term, but did the planners foresee a way to ease out of the long term problems of distorting demand?

the government set about a vigorous assault on landlordism, confiscating all landlord-owned property and leasing homes back to workers at controlled rates.

So, instead of an aristocratic landlord, you have a bureaucratic one.

How is this an improvement?

Much of the old aristocracy had already fled to Newfoundland before suffering the indignity of losing their estates, taking with them as many liquid assets as possible.

So, how did the government get sufficient monetary reserves to invest in new agricultural equipment without creating inflation? Especially if most of the wealth of the rural areas has fled the country?

in some cases placated by the many subsidies extended by the state to prop up production

Even more inflationary pressure from this action...

Creating a bubble plus inflating the currency...this has to have had an effect within the decade as the bubble bursts or the people get tired of being kept poor.

with the former African and Indian colonies now exercising self-rule within the Union of Constituent Commonwealth States

UCCS?

Will we get to see how this comes about?

 

[TheExecuter]

They can’t just kick us out.

Ah, but they just did...

...and they may very well decide to kick us down some more.

Growing up in a company town where having your own land and autonomy was a BIG deal...

Claiming I should just trust a bureaucracy not to betray me is a step too far. Seen that side of the coin too much to ever trust it.

Want to know why people in the US are adamant about the ability to have their own car? Simple...they never wanted to be dependent on a 'public' transit system that could be and was used to oppress them. If you have a car, you can go where you want...the ACTUAL freedom is yours no matter what anyone says.

Again, this whole 'everything is fine' shtick from the authors is very much a propaganda line...it is not true.

All of these changing trends contributed towards making the first years of the Commonwealth something of a cultural golden age

Really? Was it?

The upper classes were presented in an almost uniquely bad light, and the few attempts to show more sympathetic characters were soon swept under the rug by the censors. An example is My Lady, an aborted romantic comedy starring Robert Donat as a young factory worker who falls in love with the daughter of an impoverished aristocrat (Anna Neagle) in the years after the Great War. While by no means a bad script, the portrayal of a relationship across class lines did not find favour with the directors of the Board of Film, and the scenario was rewritten to make Neagle’s character a young miner’s widow.

Because this is not how I would describe a golden age...

Yet it is important to bear in mind that, however free its characters and editing may have been, film-makers were forced to work under a strict system of management handed down from the Communist Party leadership. Censorship was commonplace, and many actors who had had some taste of fame in more middle-class roles before the revolution now found themselves out of favour. Even today, the debate over the extent of state control of the film industry continues, and last year the conviction of the Heatherden Twelve following their campaign of direct action in support of the Free Cinema Movement served as a timely reminder of the violence that surrounds this question.

Nor is this.

Yet more propaganda.

Much ado about nothing. So many leftists of my childhood...and today's politicians, seem to believe that you can warm yourself in the winter just by talking about a fire...as though the fire were real.

Meanwhile, everyone freezes to death...and the deaths are blamed on the fascists and the elites. You really can tell how folks like Pol Pot get a following.

 

[jak7139]

Perhaps against all expectations, the Windsor monarchy has survived two decades after the British revolution. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that it will not be here in two more.

So the Windsors just live in Canada then until there eventually isn't enough money or appetite to keep them around? What of the other aristocrat exiles? Where did Edward VIII go after his forced outing?

 

[DensleyBlair]

We must remind everyone that 'free trade' in the British politicians understanding prior to world war 1 does not mean the same thing as 'free trade' today.

It usually meant England was free to have unfettered access to other markets...but this privilege does not apply to other nations.

Good point. OTL Labour-era Mosley becomes more understandable within this tradition when we remember this.

So, the creation of an internal pricing bubble...ok in the short term, but did the planners foresee a way to ease out of the long term problems of distorting demand?

I’m not an economist so I don’t think I ever went into much detail, at least until actual economist @99KingHigh came along and started workshopping things with me, but from memory the Forties get pretty hairy and it never really picks up from there.

So, instead of an aristocratic landlord, you have a bureaucratic one.

How is this an improvement?

Well, one answer to this is absolutely “indeed”.

The other less dogmatic answer is that with state-run housing you get (in theory) rents being reinvested in upkeep and renovations, longer and more secure tenancies (quite likely even for a lifetime), and rent controls. Which to me… I’m a private renter in London, and I’ve lived in plenty of dire housing where I didn’t have any of these things, and my landlords still took more than half of my salary for the pleasure and kicked me out if I complained.

From our modern perspective it can be difficult to appreciate what sort of things would seem genuinely game-changing a hundred years ago. In the 1920s 80 per-cent of people in Britain rented their homes, most from private landlords, and lived in conditions which we hope would be unimaginable to us today but sadly and increasingly are not. The trend towards home-ownership doesn’t really begin till the Thirties, and even then it takes till the post-war to become significant. The people who moved into the first mass-built council housing weren’t thinking “oh no my fundamental liberties have been taken from me”. They were thinking “wow, isn’t my new indoor toilet really great”.

So, how did the government get sufficient monetary reserves to invest in new agricultural equipment without creating inflation? Especially if most of the wealth of the rural areas has fled the country?

Again, just not a question that was on my radar at the time of writing. Later on there was some speculation from @TheButterflyComposer et al that Mosley could well have done a deal with the City of London to recognise its ancient rights (and effectively give it special administrative region status) in exchange for continued access to credit.

UCCS?

Will we get to see how this comes about?

It certainly comes up again. I can’t recall whether the exact circumstances of its creation are detailed, but more of the story will emerge in time.

Ah, but they just did...

...and they may very well decide to kick us down some more.

Growing up in a company town where having your own land and autonomy was a BIG deal...

See above. No one in Britain had their own land and autonomy except for the literal feudal landlords. The move to private homeownership was a political trick pulled off in the post-war years to give the illusion of a growing economy through house-building and buying. The results, among other things, have been the transfer of staggering amounts of wealth out of public hands (estimates put the value of the privatisation undertaken as a result of Thatcher’s Right to Buy scheme at over £40bn) and at least two major recessions.

Freedom is little comfort when you find yourself in negative equity and you’re sternly reminded the banks owned your house all along.

Claiming I should just trust a bureaucracy not to betray me is a step too far. Seen that side of the coin too much to ever trust it.

Want to know why people in the US are adamant about the ability to have their own car? Simple...they never wanted to be dependent on a 'public' transit system that could be and was used to oppress them. If you have a car, you can go where you want...the ACTUAL freedom is yours no matter what anyone says.

I love this example. André Gorz takes it up in an essay which I think I cited somewhere in this thread, “The Social Ideology of the Motorcar”. You’ll take great issue with its premises, I’m sure, but M. Gorz raises the good point that, again, the actual freedom of car ownership, as you put it, is minimal. Where, actually, are you able to go in your car that proves you’re so free? The same way as everyone else, on roads specially designed for the purpose, at speeds dictated by the (imperfect, human) behaviour of everyone else driving at that time. Sure, you can maybe get a bit closer to your house without walking the last ten minutes, but that’s hardly a life-changing benefit when the costs (financial, but more to the point environmental) are so incredibly high.

Really? Was it?

IIRC there was a pop-up that fired quite soon after the revolution happened in-game that stated the country had entered a golden age. I had to rationalise it somehow and it seemed the most obvious place that could manifest would be in the arts. YMMV if you don’t like first-wave Modernism.

Nor is this.

Yet more propaganda.

Much ado about nothing.

Again, you can’t just dismiss it all as propaganda so straightforwardly. Two things can be true at once. Bad systems can make good entertainment (and do, all the time). They can also make art and entertainment which would not be considered good at all if it weren’t novel, which is the point our author makes at the start. (Arguably this is still true today. The vast majority of what gets widely distributed is of dubious artistic merit and by design conceived principally to make a profit.) A lot of the excitement around the early Commonwealth film industry was simply the fact that Britain now had a film industry.

When the novelty wears off and people become more concerned about the quality, as the author describes happened in the Fifties and Sixties, then obviously the censors’ collective lack of imagination becomes more noticeable and people start to protest against it.

Incidentally, this is one of those examples of the timeline throwing into sharper focus some of the failings of our own history. Many of the details around the censorship and the protectionist ban on foreign films I drew from OTL.

So the Windsors just live in Canada then until there eventually isn't enough money or appetite to keep them around? What of the other aristocrat exiles? Where did Edward VIII go after his forced outing?

There’s a chapter on the exiles in the 1940s if I remember rightly. The Windsors are in Newfoundland for now (crucially not Canada yet) and safe to say not enjoying the standards of living to which they had previously become accustomed.

 

[TheExecuter]

Freedom is little comfort when you find yourself in negative equity and you’re sternly reminded the banks owned your house all along.

Ah, but in your example...moving from private landlords to public landlords changes nothing of this...

So how is it BETTER?

It's not really. Just like before, the tenant has to hope that the landlord will invest and not exploit him.

The lie here is that an external 'system' of authority automatically makes the exercise of that authority better or not. The truth is that the exercise of authority being beneficial really depends on the people in authority. Private and public landlords can be equally exploitive. Private and public landlords can be equally as beneficial.

Merely changing system does not automatically make things better.

Were pre-Commonwealth landlords worse? Maybe...but as the sheep farmer worries, he doesn't know if the Commonwealth landlord will be better...yet.

I love this example. André Gorz takes it up in an essay which I think I cited somewhere in this thread, “The Social Ideology of the Motorcar”. You’ll take great issue with its premises, I’m sure, but M. Gorz raises the good point that, again, the actual freedom of car ownership, as you put it, is minimal. Where, actually, are you able to go in your car that proves you’re so free? The same way as everyone else, on roads specially designed for the purpose, at speeds dictated by the (imperfect, human) behaviour of everyone else driving at that time. Sure, you can maybe get a bit closer to your house without walking the last ten minutes, but that’s hardly a life-changing benefit when the costs (financial, but more to the point environmental) are so incredibly high.

The ownership of an automobile allows the person to travel to a location dominated by a DIFFERENT landlord or government.

Had I not had access to a car, I would not have gone to higher schooling away from my company town...I would not have found employment in other geographic areas of the country...and I would not have the freedom to consider the options of living under other governments and rich people.

It forces those with power to compete for my labor...yes, it's expensive. Freedom always is.

That expense is damned WORTH IT.

There are many places in the US where the government is sufficiently beneficial to city dwellers that having a car makes no sense. I acknowledge that.

I grew up in a city with no public transit AT ALL. The city remains dominated by two main employers even today. It is entirely possible for cities run by leftist governments to so restrict access to public transit (or just not to provide it at all) that the people will be oppressed.

Again...the form of government is less important than the actions of those in authority.

 

[DensleyBlair]

Ah, but in your example...moving from private landlords to public landlords changes nothing of this...

So how is it BETTER?

It's not really. Just like before, the tenant has to hope that the landlord will invest and not exploit him.

The specific example you quote about negative equity doesn’t apply to renting because it’s something that happens (or hopefully doesn’t happen) if you have a mortgage, so I’m guessing that’s not what you wanted to highlight.

That said, in this case moving from a private to a “public” landlord does actually change things. In Britain you have different rights as a tenant if you rent privately versus renting from the council or a “social” housing association. You have a vastly more secure tenancy, it’s harder to kick you out and (in theory) it’s easier to get repairs done. Further, a public landlord isn’t exploiting you because they’re not making a profit out of you, as a private landlord is. They might be negligent or fulfil their duties poorly, but fundamentally the relationship is different.

You are of course free to oppose public housing on ideological grounds, but there does come a point where the “it’s all the same” argument becomes reductive.

The lie here is that an external 'system' of authority automatically makes the exercise of that authority better or not. The truth is that the exercise of authority being beneficial really depends on the people in authority. Private and public landlords can be equally exploitive. Private and public landlords can be equally as beneficial.

Merely changing system does not automatically make things better.

Of course system change doesn’t automatically make things better. That’s not the argument I’m making at all. I’m saying there are very concrete differences between the two systems, which I know from my own life and work, and I’m arguing that one is better (less exploitative) than the other.

Were pre-Commonwealth landlords worse? Maybe...but as the sheep farmer worries, he doesn't know if the Commonwealth landlord will be better...yet.

Sure. No one can predict the future. But as @jak7139 wisely said the other day, you can’t live your life worrying about everything.

The ownership of an automobile allows the person to travel to a location dominated by a DIFFERENT landlord or government.
Had I not had access to a car, I would not have gone to higher schooling away from my company town...I would not have found employment in other geographic areas of the country...and I would not have the freedom to consider the options of living under other governments and rich people.

It forces those with power to compete for my labor...yes, it's expensive. Freedom always is.

That expense is damned WORTH IT.

There are many places in the US where the government is sufficiently beneficial to city dwellers that having a car makes no sense. I acknowledge that.

I grew up in a city with no public transit AT ALL. The city remains dominated by two main employers even today. It is entirely possible for cities run by leftist governments to so restrict access to public transit (or just not to provide it at all) that the people will be oppressed.

Again...the form of government is less important than the actions of those in authority.

The thing is, all of this is just as possible (arguably more so) if you just have a proper public transport network. No need to privatise costs of buying and keeping a car (never mind the costs of learning to drive it in the first place). Buses, trains and teams will do the job much, much more efficiently and cleanly than everyone having a car.

 

[TheExecuter]

In Britain you have different rights as a tenant if you rent privately versus renting from the council or a “social” housing association. You have a vastly more secure tenancy, it’s harder to kick you out and (in theory) it’s easier to get repairs done. Further, a public landlord isn’t exploiting you because they’re not making a profit out of you, as a private landlord is. They might be negligent or fulfil their duties poorly, but fundamentally the relationship is different.

You are of course free to oppose public housing on ideological grounds, but there does come a point where the “it’s all the same” argument becomes reductive.

It's harder to kick you out, IF the government is willing to abide by its laws. But that is not a given...

The idea that government isn't trying to make a profit is ALSO an interesting assumption. See student loan setup in the US...it IS setup so the government makes a profit...

I'm not opposing this on ideological grounds...but on the grounds of experience.

There is no guarantee even a government will honor it's legal commitments...and there is no barrier to a government seeking to profit off of exploited citizens...see prison farms in the US for other examples...or eminent domain abuses...or the history of land appropriations from minority and indigenous populations...the holodomor...etc...etc...etc...

The thing is, all of this is just as possible (arguably more so) if you just have a proper public transport network. No need to privatise costs of buying and keeping a car (never mind the costs of learning to drive it in the first place). Buses, trains and teams will do the job much, much more efficiently and cleanly than everyone having a car

I agree...IF the government is actually committed to providing the services in an ethical and beneficial way.

But there is no guarantee that is what will happen...

The worry is real...now, what actual power you have to affect things? What good does the worry do? All reasonable questions.

But, it is an entirely reasonable fear to be concerned over whether a government that just violently overthrew the previous government and extra legally stole a bunch of land and assets would follow through on promises to protect the interests of all of the people, including...for lack of a better term...the kulaks.

We cannot just cherry pick examples of when government abided by its agreements and then say all governments WILL abide by their agreements in the future. If you want to make that argument, you need to consider when governments didn't do so...and understand that the people know those examples too and are fearful of being victimized and exploited by the government.

 

[DensleyBlair]

It's harder to kick you out, IF the government is willing to abide by its laws. But that is not a given...

Sure. My point is that hypothetical worst-case scenarios aside there is still a material benefit in the meantime.

The idea that government isn't trying to make a profit is ALSO an interesting assumption. See student loan setup in the US...it IS setup so the government makes a profit...

I’m not making assumptions about government activity in general. I’m talking specifically about public housing in Britain.

There are plenty of quote-unquote “social” housing providers who are theoretically non-profit but still act like for-profit corporate landlords, of course. But they’re not strictly state providers.

I’m not saying any of these are perfect solutions, either. But the original point was that there’s no difference between private landlordism and treating housing as a public good, and I maintain that this is not the case.

There is no guarantee even a government will honor it's legal commitments...and there is no barrier to a government seeking to profit off of exploited citizens...see prison farms in the US for other examples...or eminent domain abuses...or the history of land appropriations from minority and indigenous populations...the holodomor...etc...etc...etc...

But, it is an entirely reasonable fear to be concerned over whether a government that just violently overthrew the previous government and extra legally stole a bunch of land and assets would follow through on promises to protect the interests of all of the people, including...for lack of a better term...the kulaks.

I’m not really a pro-government person when it comes down to it, and I don’t dispute this at all. Governments will get away with whatever they think they are capable of getting away with.

The point of the original post you were quoting is that, alongside the uncertainty, there was plenty of optimism among people in Britain that the new Commonwealth might actually lead to improved standards of life. I suppose also I want to reiterate that the world is infinitely complex and contradictory and, to go back to the discussion about film earlier, good things can come from bad circumstances. The author-personae are of course intentionally biased, but equally saying that everything positive they suggest about life in the Commonwealth is propaganda is simplistic. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio…

Anyway, I’m glad the work is provoking discussion like this. Hopefully a sign of some depth of thought that went into it. Or something.

 

[StrategyGameEnthusiast]

Catch-up complete.

Given Mosley's character and lust for power, I'm surprised he didn't try - that we know of - to make a comeback after Bevan died (or now that Lewis appears doomed to fall). The instability in the Commonwealth (three leaders in just over a year) doesn't bode well for the future...

 

[DensleyBlair]

Catch-up complete.

Thanks a lot for reading! And welcome to the thread. Great to have you commenting.

Given Mosley's character and lust for power, I'm surprised he didn't try - that we know of - to make a comeback after Bevan died (or now that Lewis appears doomed to fall).

It’s a fair shout. Mosley’s in what he would call self-exile in Bermuda, and while he still has plenty of admirers in the Commonwealth I think even he’s astute enough to realise his time’s up. His lieutenant Strachey is still around, albeit incapacitated, so it falls to John Freeman to lead the Mosleyite party. But there are a few claimants trying to tout themselves as his natural successor. Enoch Powell is probably the most dangerous.

The instability in the Commonwealth (three leaders in just over a year) doesn't bode well for the future...

Quite so, and I’m glad this come across. The country is in the grip of a pretty deep crisis going into the Seventies, far beyond just the problem of the coal industry or Welsh autonomy. There’s a very urgent question being asked about just what exactly the Commonwealth is after Mosley. It’ll take a few more years yet for things to settle down properly and everyone to get an definitive answer.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Again, just not a question that was on my radar at the time of writing. Later on there was some speculation from @TheButterflyComposer et al that Mosley could well have done a deal with the City of London to recognise its ancient rights (and effectively give it special administrative region status) in exchange for continued access to credit.

I'd have to read all again to see if I could have been right. Certainly London as a finacial centre for global trade, capital and credit would have ended after basically everyone there ran away to Canada, taking as much of their money and papers as possible.

There are reasons why London would again become a finance hub... being the largest and wealthiest city in the commonwealth, the most industrilsied, lots of big impressive buildings and a history of being the place you put stuff like that...and later on, being the largest city in Eurosyn with a massive port would also help out a lot.

By the 80s, it might be back up to speed as a global city of commerce and trade...though who knows really?

 

[DensleyBlair]

I'd have to read all again to see if I could have been right. Certainly London as a finacial centre for global trade, capital and credit would have ended after basically everyone there ran away to Canada, taking as much of their money and papers as possible.

There are reasons why London would again become a finance hub... being the largest and wealthiest city in the commonwealth, the most industrilsied, lots of big impressive buildings and a history of being the place you put stuff like that...and later on, being the largest city in Eurosyn with a massive port would also help out a lot.

By the 80s, it might be back up to speed as a global city of commerce and trade...though who knows really?

I’ve actually got to do a research project on the history of the City for work this month, so maybe by the end of my ready I’ll feel inspired and enlightened enough to have a go at resolving this one.

My feeling is that the financial institutions are flexible and pragmatic enough that it would be possible to facilitate some sort of rapprochement once the initial chaos of the revolution and the threat of the Communist government has disappeared (its not as if banks are that choosy about which regimes they elect to profit off). Mosley is fundamentally a class ally of theirs, so perhaps once things have settled down internationally and the CW has recognition from Washington by the Forties there’s more scope for London’s return as a financial centre?

As the Cold War heightens in the Fifities I’m sure impetus would follow US capital and coalesce around Frankfurt as the principal European node, but as you say when things calm down again in the latter stages of the century I don’t see why London can’t retake its place. Without getting ahead of ourselves, we are going to see some more capital-friendly British governments in the Seventies…

The port maybe only gets us into the Sixties if containerisation becomes the standard in this world too and everyone starts having to dock at Tilbury instead, but no doubt it’s still a pretty major trading centre for much of the mid-century till then. Even if it’s not the powerhouse of capital it was in the previous century, it’s not as if our Commonwealth is entirely isolated from global markets after all.


*

Thanks @Wraith11B and @Ix:Risor for the continuing love on the reactions, by the way. Please do feel free to chime in with any thoughts on the last chapter. Would love to know what you both thought of our conclusion.

 

[Wraith11B]

I'm just sorry that I don't have nearly as much time to be reading and really getting in deep to the discussions as I did when I was a mere college student!

 

[Ix:Risor]

Many thanks, @DensleyBlair , for the long-sought culmination to a long-running series, and further for the mention! I echo the sentiment of needing to reread the earlier sections of this, if only to re-experience the work as a whole and appreciate the shifts and throughlines. I note also here my failure to return and provide the recap of my reading experience that I once promised, as memory serves, and so I will attempt to provide my version of this here.

On reading this last chapter and the pursuant conversations, I had cause to reflect on the degrees of congruence and difference between my personal expertise (historically generalist, literary, philosophical) and the basis of Echoes (academically-particular historical, cultural, economic). It's a very interesting work that manages to combine such a particular medium with such a striking emotional response, inspired to no small degree in myself and also quite visibly in other readers. Echoes served as the introduction for me to a particular world of left-libertarian thought (and centrist-authoritarian politics masquerading as such) that had been somewhat alien to me in its particulars and jarring in its predilections, as well as a world of British history, politics, and culture that had been entirely skimmed over by my own self-education on the matter as an American (and indeed, only dreamed of in other such AARs, if in their nightmares). In this context, the academic angle of the work has proved most illuminating, though I think my enjoyment and comprehension of the narrative layers present in this work would be enhanced with a rereading under the auspices of more a critical and discerning eye towards the academic objectivism presented by some narrators. Certainly I am more sympathetic than some readers to the aims of this British Revolution and Commonwealth, and thus have read Echoes with a rather persistent dismay (as I believed I expressed in brief and particular with the outcomes of a particular US election!).

Personally, I have always considered Echoes to be a work of magical realism, or surrealism, or fantasy, or some sort of fairy tale.

I find this a fascinating lens by which to view the work as a whole, as it certainly lends itself to a particular Orwellian (if one excuses the term) analysis of the failures of a cause to which one is largely if not always uniformly sympathetic through the influence of malign actors and the pervasive doublethink that can suborn even largely benign or benevolent figures. If one is inclined as I am to think of the world as working towards some manner of ultimate good, even if not in a linear path, a work of this sort serves as a vital corrective to the assumption that others feel and indeed act in a similar manner. In another manner, a means of describing the difference between political sentiments and political thoughts, as Echoes does quite a fine job of illustrating where someone might feel in the right even as the Empire or Commonwealth is actually crumbling.

I have perhaps expended a great many words in saying that I have enjoyed Echoes quite thoroughly even as and indeed because it has been at turns overwhelming, inspiring, and demoralizing. It has been an occasion to consider my own beliefs on a matter of subjects and compare them to convictions evidenced. Altogether, a triumph of form, tone, and narrative! Huzzah!

 

[TheExecuter]

and among the working classes, who were, as we know, to be the prime beneficiaries of the instability opening up in the bourgeois world.

Publicly proclaimed, so it must be true...and who is left to argue besides history herself...

particularly women like Virginia Woolf and Jean Rhys. Many of whom, it should be pointed out, duly signed up as good antifascists when the time came.

...and to ensure their works remained in print and they didn't starve...

Perhaps they weren't quite as antifascist as the state believed...but we will never know now...

Graham Greene, to use an earlier example, came to prominence in the early Commonwealth for his unsparing accounts of people trapped in modest circumstances, though what he would call his more ‘serious’ manuscripts were usually far too morbid for the censors and more often than not had to be injected with a dose of optimism inspired by the new workers’ collective. To get around this, he crafted a successful career writing gritty thrillers starring working men and women, gradually translating his improving status into the latitude to inject nuanced social critique and more honest accounts of working-class subjectivity. We’ll all be familiar with 1938’s Brighton Rock as an example of this sort of double game

Claiming his stories were more 'honest accounts' in the same paragraph as discussing how he had to adjust his plots for the censors is an amusing use of doublespeak by the historians here.

Both statements can't be true...and so something is definitely flawed with the reasoning...

 

[DensleyBlair]

Claiming his stories were more 'honest accounts' in the same paragraph as discussing how he had to adjust his plots for the censors is an amusing use of doublespeak by the historians here.

Both statements can't be true...and so something is definitely flawed with the reasoning...

The paragraph is describing how Greene translated his improving status as a successful writer into being able to be more daring in smuggling critiques past the censors. I.e. he moved beyond “just” writing genre novels to be able to write more honest accounts later in his career.

 

[TheExecuter]

The paragraph is describing how Greene translated his improving status as a successful writer into being able to be more daring in smuggling critiques past the censors. I.e. he moved beyond “just” writing genre novels to be able to write more honest accounts later in his career.

More 'honest' accounts...because the censor is 'always' on the side of truth.

For me, the dismaying thought is that this would be true even in OTL Britain and the US. The censors are omnipresent and inescapable...

 

[DensleyBlair]

More 'honest' accounts...because the censor is 'always' on the side of truth.

For me, the dismaying thought is that this would be true even in OTL Britain and the US. The censors are omnipresent and inescapable...

No, sorry – it’s not referring to the censors making his work “more honest”, it’s saying that he was able to use his increased prominence and some canny leveraging of genre to smuggle honest accounts past the censors.

You’re right, though. Censorship is of course present in our timeline. And just as often of course a desire “not to offend the sponsors” as state agencies meddling.

 

[DensleyBlair]

Many thanks, @DensleyBlair , for the long-sought culmination to a long-running series, and further for the mention! I echo the sentiment of needing to reread the earlier sections of this, if only to re-experience the work as a whole and appreciate the shifts and throughlines. I note also here my failure to return and provide the recap of my reading experience that I once promised, as memory serves, and so I will attempt to provide my version of this here.

Apologies, @Ix:Risor – I almost forgot to respond to your very generous comment. Thank you very much for both your kind words and the detail of your response! It’s wonderful to hear your perspective.

On reading this last chapter and the pursuant conversations, I had cause to reflect on the degrees of congruence and difference between my personal expertise (historically generalist, literary, philosophical) and the basis of Echoes (academically-particular historical, cultural, economic). It's a very interesting work that manages to combine such a particular medium with such a striking emotional response, inspired to no small degree in myself and also quite visibly in other readers. Echoes served as the introduction for me to a particular world of left-libertarian thought (and centrist-authoritarian politics masquerading as such) that had been somewhat alien to me in its particulars and jarring in its predilections, as well as a world of British history, politics, and culture that had been entirely skimmed over by my own self-education on the matter as an American (and indeed, only dreamed of in other such AARs, if in their nightmares). In this context, the academic angle of the work has proved most illuminating, though I think my enjoyment and comprehension of the narrative layers present in this work would be enhanced with a rereading under the auspices of more a critical and discerning eye towards the academic objectivism presented by some narrators. Certainly I am more sympathetic than some readers to the aims of this British Revolution and Commonwealth, and thus have read Echoes with a rather persistent dismay (as I believed I expressed in brief and particular with the outcomes of a particular US election!).

This is really interesting to hear. Certainly, I think a lot of what you say rings true for me in how I approached formulating and writing the work. The 1929 was always a bit of a red herring in that it didn’t really last, and in many ways the actual ”revolution” that Echoes illustrates life in Britain after is the attempted counter-revolution in 1933-34 and the resulting coup by Oswald Mosley. It’s so subtle, and Mosley played such a key role in the 1929 events anyway, that maybe it risks slightly slipping under the radar, but as you astutely mention, much of this story is about centrist (or even “apolitical”) authoritarians who still dress in leftish habits. (In game terms, as a belated explanation of what was actually going on under the hood, the anarchist–communist revolution that succeeded in 1927-29 was overturned in 1933-34 by an uneasy coalition of fascists, reactionaries, liberals and conservatives. Then the game needed in 1936!)

The real triumph was always scheduled to appear at the end of the Sixties. Finally, we’re getting there – slowly and steadily as ever.

Reading back early chapters thanks to prompting from @TheExecuter and @jak7139, there’s much I would change about the tone and tenor of many of them. I’d perhaps be a little less shy of describing in detail the erosion by Mosley and his cronies of democracy in Britain. I’d also like to pay more attention to the brief CPGB years to give them life beyond the rhetoric. Similarly fleshing out the way Mosley was able to use the wars in Europe and the Middle East to extend his grip on power in the 1940s is something I didn’t feel too capable of doing justice to at the time, but would be more interested in tackling one day now I’ve read more about our own wartime government and society.

Would people be interested generally in some occasional revisionist chapters looking at periods we’ve already covered? They could either work as a stand-alone postscript or I could work them into the fabled volume 2.

I find this a fascinating lens by which to view the work as a whole, as it certainly lends itself to a particular Orwellian (if one excuses the term) analysis of the failures of a cause to which one is largely if not always uniformly sympathetic through the influence of malign actors and the pervasive doublethink that can suborn even largely benign or benevolent figures. If one is inclined as I am to think of the world as working towards some manner of ultimate good, even if not in a linear path, a work of this sort serves as a vital corrective to the assumption that others feel and indeed act in a similar manner. In another manner, a means of describing the difference between political sentiments and political thoughts, as Echoes does quite a fine job of illustrating where someone might feel in the right even as the Empire or Commonwealth is actually crumbling.

Definitely you’re right in there being a big element of doublethink throughout much of the worst of the Commonwealth’s history. I think this element of being fundamentally sympathetic to what characters are trying to do is important, too. Possibly one of the things about this project that disappoints me most is that, as you say, I set out wanting to portray a genuinely optimistic (if not exclusively “good”) society gradually being eroded and replaced by an authoritarian one. Judging by a lot of the responses over the years, I think it’s fair to say I overestimated how much people would be willing to suspend their disbelief far enough not to see the end of Westminster-style democracy in Britain as a totally catastrophic premise to proceed from.

I have perhaps expended a great many words in saying that I have enjoyed Echoes quite thoroughly even as and indeed because it has been at turns overwhelming, inspiring, and demoralizing. It has been an occasion to consider my own beliefs on a matter of subjects and compare them to convictions evidenced. Altogether, a triumph of form, tone, and narrative! Huzzah!

Thank you again, @Ix:Risor! It is a pleasure having you on board, and I’m very glad to have had the chance to hear your thoughts in such detail.

 

[filcat]

It took a while crawling through the comments to find the actual post. Also to prevent self to join in the discussions; but @Ix:Risor 's commentary put it more elegantly than whatever own rubbish criticisms could have added.

Here to just provide kudos for the amazing world-building with incredibly detailed sections from a range of perspectives once again, and this time for its completion. Have to add also that it has become a bookmark, and if you remember, intrigued by its wonderful title but upon reading initial chapters the first time and seeing the name (faqing m*sley; no, will never forgive), was compelled to quit and cleared the browser history, therefore your high-quality writing of this fantasy world gave this reader quite the journey.


Kudos.