THE RADICAL LIBERALISM OF TONY BLAIR
A review of David Halpern, “The Hidden Wealth of Nations”, Polity Press.
The biggest intellectual challenge for the left in Britain is to come to terms with understanding the degree to which Blairism, the phenomenon we know as New Labour, has transformed the Labour Party.
Certainly any such transformation has been mediated by the degree to which the Labour Party still has an organic and structural link to the inherently social democratic priorities of the trade unions; and the extent to which Labour voters carry with them expectations of egalitarianism, and identify Labour with representing the interests of the working classes.
There are two vital questions to consider. To what degree did Blairism represent a discontinuity with traditional centre-right Labourism (revisionism), and whether any discontinuity has resulted in a fundamentally and irrevocably changed social nature of the Labour Party.
In addressing these issues, we should certainly welcome and study David Halpern’s new book “The Hidden Wealth of Nations” . The author was a chief analyst for Tony Blair’s Prime Minister Strategic Unit – a department for inspiring evidence based policy; and he was instrumental in the Respect Agenda in 2005.
There are three very great strengths in this book; firstly in reminding us that Blairism had a distinctive political agenda of its own, the moral and policy framework of which it details convincingly; and secondly it provides a fascinating and evidence rich description of social issues ranging from crime, immigration, nationality, social mobility and attitudes to equality. This includes international comparisons, and historical context. The third pillar that the book stands upon is a rigorous discussion of social capital, and standards of happiness, and how contentment can be quantified and encouraged by government policy, hence the glowing endorsements it has received from experts in that field, Richard Easterlin and Richard Layard.
By any standards, Halpern’s discussion of the policy complexity of promoting social mobility or the issues relating to overcoming social exclusion are impressively nuanced and thought provoking. For example his convincing example of unintended consequences, that expanding access to higher education has paradoxically reduced social mobility; or that increasing meritocracy can add to social stratification, rather than reducing it.
To contextualise his arguments, perhaps we need to understand the political change represented by New Labour coming to power within the party, and the elements of continuity and discontinuity with the Labour’s own past.
Diane Hayter in her book “Fightback!” describes how the traditional revisionist right organised to reverse the gains of the left in the Bennite era, around the issues of One Member One Vote (OMOV) and campaigning for the expulsion of the Militant. The defection of a large section of the party’s centre-right to the Social Democratic Party (SDP, who later became part of the Lib Dems) was a defeat for the traditional revisionists who remained in Labour; but it was also a terrible defeat for the left, whose rising influence was seen by many in the trade unions and the party’s political centre as a threat to the broad coalitional nature of the party, and thus were regarded by many as being to blame for splitting the organisation.
The party was gripped by two simultaneous political crises. The crisis of the revisionist right was that their radical agenda for combating inequality required economic growth and stability, conditions that no longer prevailed, and which were predicated upon a Keynesianism that had proved unworkable; and the even more acute crisis of the left was that their transformative economic and social agenda was revealed to be connected to too narrow a social base to win elections. It is important to note that both the left and the right were within the envelope of Labourism: the paradoxical expression of trade unionism in the political field, which expresses opposition to manifestations of capitalism, and seeks to transform it without transcending it.
The key transitional figures of Neil Kinnock and John Smith represented complementary shifts: firstly of the Kinnockite left recognising that a General Election could not be won on the basis of the politics of the Labour left alone, and that a more coalitional approach was required; and secondly of Smith, perhaps the most heavyweight traditional revisionist in the party, and who was backed to become leader by some of the left, moving in the direction of Thatcherite economic policy. Arguably, Neil Kinnock’s 1989 policy statement “Meet the Challenge, Make the Change” approved by party conference was a complete assimilation by a section of the former left of Anthony Crosland’s revisionist agenda. A party that loses four consecutive general elections has considerable motivation for rethinking itself.
The bright and shiny clique of New Labour succeeded in winning the party not by becoming a majority, but by developing a convincing coalitional strategy for winning general elections. This involved both the now famous arts of triangulation and spin, but also hollowing out any distinctive ideological content of labourism. In the absence of any other electorally credible strategy they won over the centre right, and support from the traditionalist trade unions. In contrast, the left lost this battle because they refused to budge on a political programme that was increasingly out of tune with the voters, and were unable to convince the party centre that they represented anything but a one way ticket to oblivion.
Considerable effort has been invested by the Blairites to establish ideological continuity between themselves and the traditional revisionists; for example, Patrick Diamond’s 2004 anthology “New Labour’s Old Roots” selects extracts of centre-right thinkers in the party from Evan Durbin to Giles Radice, and editorialises them into a specious narrative leading inexorably to Blair.
Superficially, Blair’s emphasis on community and mutuality, divorced from any commitment to social ownership is indeed resonant of traditional Labour revisionism. However, before we examine that question, it is worth considering the beguiling fallacy that Blairism was simply a continuation of Thatcherism.
This is not entirely without foundation, but it is also misleading. Blair and Brown both accept the idea of market efficiency as ideologically neutral; and this therefore represents continuity with the neo-liberalism of Thatcher in further dismantling the capacity of the state to intervene in the economy, and in degrading the traditional social-democratic institutions that produce a public service ethos and sustain communities of solidarity. Privatisation and PFI reduced the public sector, and macro-economic policy privileged the financial sector in London at the expense of perhaps a million private sector manufacturing jobs in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English provinces.
Nevertheless, there were policies directly to benefit trade unions – such as union learning, and rights to recognition; these were the result of the coalitional social nature of the Labour Party. But the value of Halpern’s book is the way he details the inherently radical nature of Blair’s social policies that were not derived from these traditional influences. Blairism was founded on the idea of creating a fairer, more harmonious society through an empowering partner state that provides conditions for individuals to help themselves.
Some gains have been realised, for example, when Labour took power in 1997, NHS spending was at around 5% of GDP, and the conditions had been created by the Tories for an expansion of insurance based private sector; instead NHS spending has risen to be around 10% of GDP today. Early years intervention, such as SureStart centres for the parents of potentially disadvantaged young children has been a great success; and working tax credit has enormously increased prosperity and independence of parents in work. Labour repealed Clause 28, and introduced civil partnerships
None of these policies could have come from the Tories, and many are under threat from David Cameron.
But what is interesting about Halpern’s books, despite its breadth, is that it is not at all self-critical or reflective about New Labour’s own limits. This is obvious both in the particular and the general.
Taking the particular example of how high house prices cause inter-generational wealth inequality, lack of social mobility, and a housing crisis for younger people of lower income; Halpern suggests extremely complicated changes to planning law and inheritance as a solution: the very simple idea of expanding social housing under municipal and state ownership is simply outside his mental horizon.
A clear weakness of Halpern’s approach is regarding social attitudes as obstacles to political solutions without considering the potential of ideology and political leadership to transcend these limitations. The example of Margaret Thatcher is the most recent example in British history of such a transformative politician. Of course we should not fetishise the ability of governments to transcend the constraints imposed upon them by the real world, and certainly, for example, Harold Wilson’s first government became almost a prisoner of events; but neither are governments and parties without choices. The type of tranformative leadership that Thatcher provided is incompatible with New Labour’s dark arts of spin and dissembling.
Halpern argues the advantage of an inspirational collective project, like the Beveridge report and the birth of the post-war welfare state; but New Labour has instead championed the end of ideology. Halpern correctly highlights the degree to which religious belief is positively correlated with happiness; but this effect is not unique to religion. The heritage of the labour movement has been to provide a secular and collective shared value system – as Harold Wilson said “Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing”. Instead of a collective sense of shared national purpose, Tony Blair’s government celebrated the most shallow satisfactions of endless, empty consumer choice.
In general, if we contrast Halpern’s “The Hidden Wealth of Nations”with the most authorative statement of revisionism, Crosland’s “The Future of Socialism”, we can see that addressing the inequality of power that follows the inequality of wealth is a concept completely central to even centre-right Labourism; whereas in contrast Halpern’s Blairism falls foursquare within the limits of political liberalism, whereby all individuals are regarded as citizens, and the horizons of government are only to remove obstacles to individual liberty and choice.
This also explains the inherent social authoritarianism of New Labour. Having identified well-being as a form of value within human society, and particularly that bonds of trust are a form of accumulated social capital in developed industrial societies, the government has sought to combat anti-social behaviour. This reflects Tony Blair’s interest in the communitarian ideas of the Scottish philosopher John MacMurray.
However, because neo-liberalism wages war upon and dismantles the communities of solidarity that have been accumulated by the labour movement; Blair’s communitarianism relied not on reinforcing bonds of community support and pride but instead upon authoritarianism; not only lowering the thresholds to introducing young people into the criminal justice system, but also doubling the prison population.
Even policies, such as welfare reform, (where there is a strong evidence base that incentivising claimants back into the world of work would increase their individual self-esteem and happiness), are compromised by New Labour’s obsession with spin and the private sector. The policies were distorted by the desire to sell them to Tory swing voters as a crack down on cheats, which of course undermined the faith of claimants; furthermore credulity about the value of private sector experts led to the distrusted Freud policy review; and inbuilt conflicts of interest are inherently created by relying upon the profit motive to inspire decisions of who is entitled to benefit.
Blairism is revealed as form of radical liberalism, but is outside the traditional parameters of Labourism. Yet, within the institution of the Labour Party, the New Labour clique still retains disproportionate influence, and the constitution has been changed to resist challenge.
But as long as the big trade unions are aligned to the party, pick up its bills, and motivate members to vote labour, the power potentially exists to change the constitution. What is not clear, and will not become clear until after the next election, is whether the big trade unions can or will reassert their traditional regulation of the party.
Interesting - although I can imagine that the more libertarian-minded Liberals might argue that New Labour’s authoritarianism has more to do with its socialist heritage (stripped of its egalitarian impulses) than Blair’s economic liberalism.
Can the trade unions salvage Labour? Last time they did it, after 1931, there was much more of a labour movement, with genuine mass participation, than there is now. But they did it in response to a massive electoral wipe-out for Labour and the defection or defeat of most of its existing leadership. The implications of the analogy are disturbing.
Comment by Francis King — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
I think Monthly Social Security Stipends PLUS Licensed Pistols will drive away social and economic FEAR and improve the social mobility.
Comment by Police Officer — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Well, all that just sounds like an eloquent rerun of the bullshit that Blair originally sold himself on - communitariansism, stakeholder society, the Third Way… ” Blairism was founded on the idea of creating a fairer, more harmonious society through an empowering partner state that provides conditions for individuals to help themselves. ” No it wasn’t; it was founded on the idea of getting the Murdoch press onside, and selling a pro-business agenda to the Labour support base with the language evolved out of the ‘Eurocommunist’ Marxism Today, Democratic Left, Demos think-pool. “Looking at how markets can provide desired outcomes more efficiently… blah blah ” plus trendy consumerism and meaningless pomo feelgood noises. It was about POWER and the getting of it, and then the keeping of it, and ultimately the getting what they can out of it which is still the agenda.
Blair could sincerely believe anything it was convenient for him to sincerely believe. Brown just took the money.
Comment by jock mctrousers — 16 November, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
#1
“Last time they did it, after 1931,”
more recently, the “st Emins group” of union general secretaries formed in 1981 was the powerhouse behind the defeat of the Bennite left, but it was all much more claok and dagger
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
“Even policies, such as welfare reform, (where there is a strong evidence base that incentivising claimants back into the world of work would increase their individual self-esteem and happiness), are compromised by New Labour’s obsession with spin and the private sector.”
Except that this evidence is invariably shaped by private companies or quangos sympathetic to or beholden to the neo-liberals who commission them.
Apart from the benefit of having more money and some element of social interaction and structure during the day it does not follow that working in a low paid job because you’ve been forced to benefits the mental and physical health of anyone. That’s the logic and agenda of neo-liberals like Blair when they trot out this stuff. The problem is when this is taken as fact rather than spin. This ideology is being used to try to force the unemployed and sick and disabled people into low paid, non-unionised work with terrible conditions.
I’m sure that a life of popping out for an afternoons shopping or an exhibition, then a meal in town and cocktails at the club as many of the Blairites manage to do would be rather more therapeutic than working shifts below minimum wage.
Comment by Ray — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Can the trade unions salvage Labour? Last time they did it, after 1931, there was much more of a labour movement, with genuine mass participation, than there is now.
The unions were suffering a massive period of decline by 1931, and in 1933 hit an inter-war low of 3.5m million (cf. around 6.5m today).
Just a point of pedantry really.
Oh and Andy #4, I’d say the TU gen secs you mention had far more to do with the lurch to the right than the left having “refused to budge on a political programme that was increasingly out of tune with the voters, and were unable to convince the party centre that they represented anything but a one way ticket to oblivion”. Diane Hayter’s book is great for showing how the right won the battle largely through bureaucratic manoeuverings and block votes rather than winning arguments.
Comment by Rory — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
#6
“Diane Hayter’s book is great for showing how the right won the battle largely through bureaucratic manoeuverings and block votes rather than winning arguments.”
Indeed rory, but I am sure that you remember like me the debates in the CLPs at the time; and there was a certin discinnection between what was being argued in the party, and the reality of what voters wanted.
the concern that Labour was too left to be electable was a nagging doubt for many who emotionally identified with the left. At least some of those general secretaries were out and out right wing shits, but some of them were genuinely concerned to make labour more electable.
If I am honest, there were also those who on principle were opposed to the witchhunt of the Militant, but in practice were glad to get shot of them.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
I think the idea of being “too left to be electable” (or indeed “too right to be electable”) is a nebulous concept. The whole purpose of serious politics is to change what is regarded as “electable”. We have seen since then the price which is paid by accepting what is “electable” rather than having the patience to change it.
And I have to say, what I remember most from the 1980s is Farley’s rusks and going round and round on a tricycle.
Comment by Rory — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Rory
maybe, in policy terms that is correct.
A very left radical programme may be the foundation for a successful electoral coalition reaching beyond the party’s core base of support.
The more specific problem with the Labour left in the 1980s was their old fashioned social image, nostalgia for labourist iconogroahy past its sell by date, that only appealed to a minority of voters.
this is really what i am getting at by pointing to the space opened up that allowed Blairism to triumph.
If the left had been a little more tacticaly nuanced, keeping the core of the policy platform, but repackaging it to make it sound more modern, we might have won. Where we failed was in not finding a vocabulary to win back the skilled workers and middle class professionals who were voting for Thatcher.
that is the trick. To create an electoral coalition, as labour have done in the past, that reaches beyond the core labour vote towards the middle classes, but without ditching the core objectives.
Where Blairism waa wrong was thinking you had to pretend to be a Tory, and then actually become a Tory, to win over Tory votes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
“Even policies, such as welfare reform, (where there is a strong evidence base that incentivising claimants back into the world of work would increase their individual self-esteem and happiness), are compromised by New Labour’s obsession with spin and the private sector.”
Interesting that you use the word, ‘incentivising’ especially as it is overly used by the NL apparatchiks former and current secs of state for work and pensions. What evidence are you citing re work and self-esteem? Because the work NL is forcing people into by benefit sanctions and conditionality will not instil much happiness. The work is inconsistent and short-term and badly paid….and claimants find out that the ‘work’ found for them by the private companies is usually unfulfilling and doesn’t last that long as many of these private companies, how shall I put this politely, are economic with the truth ‘cos it is profit led where people are either ‘parked’ or ‘creamed’… in others words, bloody exploited.
Oh, and the Welfare Reform Bill is now an Act, Goodbye income support hello workfare.
Comment by HarpyMarx — 16 November, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
#6. Good point.
The labour movement and unions were weakened by the Depression. People who still clung to their jobs were less militant, as they could be fired easily and replaced by people plucked from the throngs outside labour exchanges.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Excellent point made by Adny at number 9. In fact it is someting I have been saying since I joined the socialist movement.
The left needs to sell its politics better and win the allegiance of the middle and aspiring working classes. Too often the left talks in a way which is archaic and appeals only to a small minority of the population.
Comment by Owen — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
“If the left had been a little more tacticaly nuanced, keeping the core of the policy platform, but repackaging it to make it sound more modern, we might have won. Where we failed was in not finding a vocabulary to win back the skilled workers and middle class professionals who were voting for Thatcher.”
I don’t think it would have made any difference. I don’t think vocabulary wins people. It was the defeats that the labour movement suffered which created the conditions for Blair’s ‘coup’: demoralisation, defeatism, and acceptance of anything which offered the prospect of electoral victory. The trade union leaders, opportunist bastards that they were, facilitated it.
Moreover, when a class movement is defeated, a collective outlook gets weakened, and workplace organisation declines. If collective action is defeated workers have to fall back on their own devices to survive as individuals.
Council tenants who bought their homes at knock down rates were acting on the basis of self-interest, and buying in to the ideology of the ‘home owning democracy’. They could not see, or were not interested in the social consequences of their personal gain, which helped to create today’s housing crisis.
Why Thatcherism was successful is an important question which I have been thinking about of late. One of the reasons I think, in relation to the trades unions, is the idea that ‘militancy’ was a good thing per se, rather than recognising that it could be self-interested. The craft unions and the mentality which went with them constituted a drag on the union movement and an obstacle to wider working class unity.
The predominant class consciousness which existed at the time was too narrow. It was not a political consciousness which saw the connection between the day to day struggles and the struggle for a new society. Perhaps trades union were seen as too self-interested rather than as organisations which fought for the interests of the poorer and most oppressed sections of society.
And finally, faced with a ruling class strategy to defeat the power of the unions, the unions had no strategy for defeating the government. They largely appeal to the government to return to the post-war consensus.
By the way, all the stuff about the ‘innovative’ nature of Blairism which has been written about, is not true. The turn of social democracy to neo-liberalism began with the Mitterand government, moved on to New Zealand and Australia and other places. Blair was following their lead.
Comment by Martin Wicks — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Rory @ No. 6 - quite so. What I had in mind, though, was that in the early 1930s relations between the Labour Party and the trade unions were much closer, both nationally through things like the National Joint Council/National Council of Labour and locally through the trades councils, and participation in trade union life was much greater, even if people only turned up to meetings to pay their subs. In other words, it was possible to talk about a “labour movement” as a real, living entity. Can we really talk about that now? Of the 6.5 million union members, how many of them have ever attended a meeting?
Comment by Francis King — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Francis-surely todays housing crisis is caused by Government’s systematic lack of investment. I dont think its fair to be blame people because they bought their council house-it is afterall possible to square self interest with egalitarian politics.
Comment by Owen — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Owen, fair point about the government’s refusal to spend on council housing.
But people weren’t forced to buy their council houses were they?
It’s perfectly fair for to point out that they did so from totally selfish motives and that they disregarded the social cost of what they were doing.
And let’s not forget those principled socialists who did not buy into that Thatcherite betrayal.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
You are right they were not forced to buy-but under socialism they would have been forced to stay in council housing.
They were simply given a choice and it was in many peoples self interest to buy. Nothing wrong with that in my book! Of course some people had traditional principles routed in old labour values and I’m not knocking that either. But you cant blame many of aspiring working classes who got on the property ladder and did ok for themselves.
Comment by Owen — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
I hope to get my teeth into this more later, but I think you’re too hard on New Labour.
I think it’s worth remembering how many left-wingers are, or at least have been most of the way) pro-New Labour. Michael Foot (a hero of mine), Dennis Skinner, Chris Mullin for example.
And how many old Left Socialists have done no favours to the party or the movement. Tony Benn is one who puts himself before either.
Comment by Bearded Socialist — 16 November, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
I think it’s worth remembering how many left-wingers are, or at least have been most of the way) pro-New Labour. Michael Foot (a hero of mine), Dennis Skinner, Chris Mullin for example.
Bearded Socialist
left-wingers!!
Labour is a corrupt and Neo Liberal Government.
The Labour Party membership sits up wagging its tail whilst its government participates in 1000,000 Iraqi civilian dead and nothing said.
Labour MPs and members continue to support a Government that has introduced Workfare, Privatised the NHS, wants to build a new generation of Nuclear Weapons on top of upgrading the current load of Nuclear Weapons
Labour, Torture, Rendition and Detention
Comment by Michael Foots Donkey Jacket — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
But Owen,
The whole point is that we do not believe in the very concept of “ownership.”
It’s a fundamentally selfish idea and its abolition is what we’re striving for.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Speak for yourself Karl-it all depends on what you own mate.
But I happen to like my house, my car, the finer things in life, oh and I’m still a socialist.
Comment by Owen — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Funny how there is as far as I can see absolutely no mention of the continuation of imperialism under the guise of the so called dont make me laugh ‘ethical’ foreign policy and humane liberal interventionism not.You cant look at the contiuation of neo liberal capitalism separate from imperialism it just doesnt make sense.
Comment by Fleabite — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Why do you want to “own” property Owen?
To live in a house - of course, that’s a necessity.
To drive a car - yes, great fun.
But why the perceived need or desire to “own” either?
That’s not a socialist mentality at all.
Surely our aim is the abolition of private property altogether and that all goods are held in common - for the use of all.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
I thought you were joking! Actually from your last post I detect you are being serious-I’m just glad that in the real world the vast majority of people do not support this type of dangerous utopia.
But nice to see that there are some romantics out there.
You ask why do I want to own propety? Well that really is a silly question-I own property to make money and have a bit of status. What other reason could there be?
Comment by Owen — 16 November, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
Perhaps what is necessary at this juncture in time is a great discussion about what excatly does constitute a ’socialist mentality’.
As far as I can see there are still 57 different varieties of barely complementary socialist mentalities going round and round the block, which leaves the average alienated , disaffected and disillusioned person hostile at the very least and sadly bemused at the very best and that’s only if they have even heard of any of the multitude of squabbling Left sects, groupuscles and factions in the first place.
As long as the Left is seen and perceived as squabbling interminably, fragmented, intransigent and invisble then we dont have a hope in hell of gaining any credibility whatsoever.
From inside the belly of the beast The British Left or at least large parts of it appear like squabbling geese.Isnt it time it took stock, stop and took a long deep breath ,looked around and started to listen and learn onorder to move forward.
To all intents and purpose it seems to have put itself in a catch twenty two sitaution.
There is a little give there then a retreat here and back and forth it goes, twoing and froing and apart from a few exceptions it seems no closer to working together or being prepared to even consider the possiblity and urgent necessity of working towards creating a possible new democratic broad left party with trade union backing.
As far as I can see this is the only thing capable of winning significant support from millions of disillusioned Labour members and voters past and present from the cluches of the tories and BNP alike and give hope to millions of disaffected and discontent workers and the unemployed.
Comment by Fleabite — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:08 am
On a serious point Karl; is the aim of socialism not to ensure that the major points of production and resources are socialised and run for the benefit of the majority and not the few?
Surely private ownership of goods is acceptable. Surely even under your socialist utopia there would be a role for small business to play. You are not planning to nationalise the fish and chip shop or the hairdressers are you?
Comment by Owen — 17 November, 2009 @ 12:12 am
#13
I sort of agree with you Martin, but I think we are arguing about different constituencies of labour voters.
To win a general election Labour has to both turn out its traditional working class vote, and also develop a coalitioonal approach to winning over a significant section of the middle class.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 November, 2009 @ 1:37 am
Owen, I agree the first stage of socialism would be public ownership and democratic control of the major areas of the economy of course.
But our ultimate aim would be to move towards the end of private property altogether.
There’s no reason in principle why the local fish and chip shop or barbers shop could not be socialised too.
There are many examples of small units - whether producing goods or services - which are in the public domain already.
It’s interesting that your reason for wanting to “own” stuff is for “status” i.e. What your peers think of you.
But I don’t see how your ownership of a car or a house or a chip shop or a barbers would make you more admired by your peers.
But skill at driving or repairing a car, or house building and maintenance, or cooking good food or providing the people with great haircuts, these qualities are far more socially useful and to be admired.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 17 November, 2009 @ 7:38 am
I don’t understand why it is that socialists get upset about people wanting to have status. Also there is nothing wrong with being admired by one’s peers. You seem to think in terms of complete opposities Karl. Your world is either:
Capitalism or Communism
Private Ownership or Collective Ownership
Self interest or egalitarianism
I’m also not sure that any of the things you propose would come about with through consent. It seems to me that what you call Communism is just a materialist version of what religious people call heaven.
Comment by Owen — 17 November, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
“I’m also not sure that any of the things you propose would come about with through consent. It seems to me that what you call Communism is just a materialist version of what religious people call heaven.”
I don’t really agree with that, but I sort of see where you’re coming from there mate. It’s certainly crucial to be on one’s guard not to slip into scary cultism - shades of Maoism etc - and it’s always important that people maintain their sense of individuality.
But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being admired or indeed of wanting to be admired - just that I don’t think people really admire others for their property ownership.
Do you? Which people do you admire and why?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 17 November, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Karl and Owen - you are rehearsing one of the oldest debates in the socialist movement: how far would people’s psychology and outlook need to change before socialism becomes possible? What used to be called the maximum socialist programme clearly required a massive change in people’s social psychology, or - as the critics of socialism liked to point out - an all-pervasive despotism. Over 100 years on, and the topic is still live…
Comment by Francis King — 17 November, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Thanks Francis for teaching clearly what you received from us confusedly
Karl Said: I don’t think people really admire others for their property ownership.
I’m not so sure about that one-we live in a very consumer/materialistic society and I think many people are shallow at that level. Our society does tend to encourage people to worship at the alters of the good looking, rich and powerful.
On another level I was reading something just the other day about what women find most attractive in men; chief among them was a good job with a good income. So status is important which is why people devote so much resources to aquiring it. And there is nothing wrong with this per se.
I’m sure that under socialism people will still be self-interested-although sometimes I get the impression that people on the left want us all to live like Mahatma Gandhi
Comment by Owen — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Owen mentions the dead word STATUS: like Model Workers and Heroes of Socialist Labour and being a Queen’s Guide or the winner of the Sixth Form Essay Prize.
These are all taboo to TRUE egalitarians likle the Harperson! [But look where SHE went to school!]
For TRUE LEFTISTS, there are obvious SHIBBOLETHS - like daring to say aloud that mass Third World immigration - and even the temporary presence of East European sojourners - has harmed the interests of the Traditional Working Class.
If the BNP weren’t such a visually unappealing bunch they’d have had their first HIGH STATUS LABOUR DEFECTOR by now.
Comment by Lenny — 18 November, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Aren’t immigrants traditional working class then? Untraditional working class?
Comment by these BNP trolls don't get any better — 18 November, 2009 @ 12:33 pm