Harold Laski Quotes (1893-1950)

“Who does not know Tocqueville cannot understand liberalism. A case of unanswerable power could, I think, be made out for the view that he and Lord Acton were the essential liberals of the nineteenth century.”

“The great joy I have had is a long dose of Gibbon, quite incomparable, especially on the Eastern empire. I know no other panorama quite like that. Finlay, I daresay, goes deeper, but he hasn't quite the same magic.”

“Then—with confessional tears—I tried, through something Haldane said when I told him you had been reading Carlyle's French Revolution, to read his Frederic the Great. I couldn't do more than the first volume. The manner drove me wild. The continuous exhibition of the Medicine-Man's paraphernalia made it like a mad mullah's dance.”

“[T]he Oliver of these pages [i]s essentially an incipient fascist... His ideal clearly is the nation-in-arms, internecine differences abolished, the country disciplined and organised for action. Himself an eminent businessman, accustomed to the autocratic exercise of power, he conceives of national organisation in similar terms. His only object is to win.”

“Your remark that Rousseau is Hegel is I suppose true; I add that only makes me more hostile. Undoubtedly he stirred men's hearts, but if you turn to him for concrete hopes, the little institutional suggestion that counts so much more than pages of rhetoric, you find nothing except high-flown phrases. I distinguish between two types of political writers—those who write argument and those who write perorations. Rousseau is the high priest of the second type. I remember having a long argument about him with Vaughan, much the best of his editors, and an ardent devotee, and putting to V. a series of definite questions—did Rousseau want this, or that; and in each case Vaughan had to admit that it was possible to compile an anthology which worked both ways.”

“At bottom, the main passion by which he was moved was the passion for justice. He may have hated too strongly, he was jealous, and he was proud. But the mainspring of his life was the desire to take from the shoulders of the people the burden by which it was oppressed. He realized that what, in all varieties of time and place, has caused the downfall of a governing class, has never been some accidental or superficial event. The real cause of revolution is the unworthiness of those who controlled the destinies of a people. Indifference to suffering, selfishness, lack of moral elevation, it was for those defects that he indicted the class from which he sprang. He transformed the fears of the workers into hopes, he translated their effort from interest in political mechanisms to interest in social foundations. He did not trust in the working of laws, he sought always for the spirit that lay behind the order of which they were the expression. He was often wrong, he was rarely generous, he was always bitter; yet when the roll of those to whom the emancipation of the people is due comes to be called, few will have a more honourable, and none a more eminent place.”

“His lectures taught more, much more than political science. They taught a faith that ideas mattered, that knowledge was important and its pursuit exciting.... His seminars taught tolerance, the willingness to listen although one disagreed, the values of ideas being confronted. And it was all immense fun, an exciting game that had meaning, and it was also a sieve of ideas, a gymnastics of the mind carried on with vigour and directed unobtrusively with superb craftsmanship. I think I know now why he gave himself so freely. Partly it was because he was human and warm and that he was so interested in people. But mainly it was because he loved students, and he loved students because they were young. Because he had a glowing faith that youth was generous and alive, eager and enthusiastic and fresh. That by helping young people he was helping the future and bringing nearer that brave world in which he so passionately believed.”