Two decades ago, in these pages, John Goldthorpe launched a devastating critique of the dominant diagnoses of the crisis of British industrial relations, and prescriptions for reform." In the early 1970s two main versions of reformism, liberal-pluralist and Tory reformism, emerged in response to the problems widely considered to be afflicting British industrial relations: a high strike rate, inflexible and restrictive labor practices, and uncontrolled labor costs. Liberal-pluralist reformism, which was intellectually dominant at that point, argued that these problems reflected a widespread “disorder” or “anomie” in the industrial relations system, and recommended efforts to institutionalize formal collective bargaining in the workplace and reassert both managerial and union authority through education and persuasion. Tory reformism, to which Goldthorpe devoted much less attention, on the grounds that it had been tried and found wanting, shared much of the liberal-pluralist diagnosis but identified trade union power as a prime culprit and prescribed legislation and sanctions to prevent the “abuse” of union power, Goldthorpe, from the perspective of radical sociology, argued that reformers failed to recognize that the problems of British industrial relations were symptomatic of a fundamental shift in the balance of class power in the postwar period, which had created something akin to an industrial relations stalemate. As a result, reformism both misdiagnosed the problem and promoted utopian solutions.