Which seems like an excellent point, but the further conclusions are wrong, and part of the problem, not the solution, or a self-fulfilling prophecy.
'The truth is that the Left has been forced by its weakness into a conservative position of protecting things worth conserving - ecology, the welfare state, civil liberties - from the revolutionary energy of capitalism. ....As it is, it would seem that a certain kind of conservatism is a valid strategic orientation.'
There is an historical precedent. There always was a current of conservatism that emphasized the social order in the face of change: like those Tory socialists John Ruskin, Charles Kingsley and so on. But the point of Marxism was that it turned solidarity into a revolutionary force.
Richard thinks all change is overwhelmingly bad under capitalism. That was never Marx's view, and it is not mine. The last thirty years have seen the end of Stalinism in the East, with democratic elections, and civil liberties expanded; living standards, life expectancy and literacy climbing in much of the developing world, and new technologies that have greatly improved the quality of life. Those are achievements of human labour and creativity, that are not cancelled out because they are subordinated to capital accumulation - though they are certainly curtailed.
One thing is for sure, though, whatever gains have been made will be lost, and the chance that working people could secure the full fruits of their labour too, if all we do is hang on to what we have and set our faces against changing things for the better. The truth is that it always was the key to Thatcher's success that the left adopted a defeatist and conservative approach, and abandoned ambition to the right.