Religions make poor rulers but so does capitalism

From two different sources in recent days has come an idea I had previously not considered: that religious control of a State may affect its economic performance. How was it, one asks, that the Middle East went from being the intellectual and artistic powerhouse of the World, via the vagaries of history, to being an under-performing group of still tribal countries which perform economically less well than their neighbours to the North in Europe? What happened to that intellectual drive? The second source suggests something similar in respect of Spain in the 18^th century: a State watching without emulating the scientific and artistic dynamism of France and Britain in the Enlightenment.

The answer posited by the respective authors lies in religious power in both cases: the Caliphate in the former; the Inquisition in the latter. In each, the defence of dogma is said to have prevented acceptance of new ideas, especially in science and technology, which elsewhere transformed communications, leading to economic growth among adopters. Religions, being based on fictions rather than reality, tend to defend the teachings of their hierarchies. Take the outlawing of Tyndale in the 16^th century as an example closer to home. Allow the combination of translation into common language with the printing press, and suddenly the people, or at least those educated enough to read, can see or hear the words as written in the Bible instead of being given selective extracts which suit the aims of those in power. Suppression of innovations can have a dampening effect on uptake and on the impacts on daily lives which should follow from them.

This analysis seems to confront religion as Luddite, which may be fair. It also assumes, it seems to me, that economic growth is all; that a capitalist economy is desirable. Philosophies, including religions, are not there to support economies but to guide people into a better way of life. It may be that the ordinary people of the Arab countries in the Middle Ages or of 18^th century Spain appreciated some aspects of the way they were governed or guided; and may not have been as comparatively badly off as their modern-day counterparts. Inequality is certainly plentiful in today’s capitalist model. Happily, modern, democratic Spain is a dynamic and cultural country. But look at the position of the Arab states, whether engorged with unearned riches, destroyed by religion-based wars or ruled by bigotry, they show little sign of restoring their intellectual capital or sharing wealth at all fairly among their peoples. Nor does secular, capitalist Britain.

What should a socialist do?

We live in a capitalist world. To aspire to or campaign for an isolated socialist model is unrealistic. No successful socialist state has yet to be experienced. But this knowledge does not mean that one has to like this truth. I want citizens to have ownership of crucial infrastructure and services; to enjoy equal opportunities for good housing, healthcare and education; to live free from discrimination in a fair society; and to share in the fruits of work. I am a socialist.

The essence of capitalism as an economic theory is that wealth creation must lead to more to go around. Over centuries as economies have grown, ever fewer people, it is true, are in absolute poverty but the reality is that the “going around” fails.  The economies of the most advanced nations are deeply unfair and unequal. Those who have the capital get more. Those who are employed to grow it do not. The desire for perpetual growth of capital leads to the retention of what should “go around” for those who have it to reinvest or, as dividend, to reward the brilliance of their decisions to enrich themselves. But it is no fault or disgrace not to be wealthy – merely the fall of the dice. For most of history, over 90% of populations everywhere have lacked any assets whatsoever, whilst those who have them pass them on at their own discretion.

There is surely a legitimate case for those of a socialist mindset not to attempt the replacement of capitalism but to mollify it; to demand the sharing around. In the capitalist world, “tax” is a dirty word. It suggests to those who like keeping all they acquire sharing some of their gains with those who either worked to create them or missed out on opportunities in life. Yet even for the Right the State has roles to perform, which they accept as requiring funding via the tax system. Defence and the justice system are commonly accepted uses for tax revenues, for example. Capitalists need educated workers to help grow their wealth, good transport, water supply and sewage systems. Socialists want that wealth more fairly distributed. So the key function of political discourse must be deciding the extent of the roles the State and thus the level of taxation required. Discourse, by its very nature, must allow for other ideas and beliefs. This discourse must begin with acceptance that taxation is an essential, ethical part of a democracy they should be proud to contribute rather than a dirty word.

Even if one’s vote counts for nothing, because of where one lives or because politics fails us, it is still possible and important that the discourse occurs, if only as a check on the anti-tax, anti-State brigade. We must recognise that the less the State is funded, not only the fewer public services will be afforded but also the more the State itself can be rejected or undervalued, opening the way for the Trumps, Le Pens and Goves. For those who care more for the needs of those in society who have not been blessed with capital, the use of tax to fund public assets and services is essential. This is what makes socialists continue to exist and to try to influence politics, but not, generally, to bring capitalism down. Anyway, why should anyone with socialist values deny these simply because they are in a minority? One day we may not be.

Who will dare to be different?

Argument between leading political parties is so often about relatively small differences in emphasis or detail of a shared strategy rather than real difference of strategy. No wonder polls often fail to separate them; and the public become frustrated with there being so little to choose between them. We, the ovine voters, must not be allowed real choices, if these could threaten the Establishment, which, across the political elite, has common interests.
"There is no alternative but to pay down[ or off] the deficit" is a case in point. Why should there be no alternative? They may wish to exclude other options but that there are others is not in doubt, as other economists can aver. Governments make choices about how they spend in our name. We should hope that we could choose between choices - but in reality the options we are given are already selected by them to maintain their power base. Increasingly, the choices made deprive people of well-being in favour of flattering the interests of the powerful. There is an alternative in which the wealth of the country is shared more widely - and this could have greater benefit to the economy by encouraging spending.
Another "given" is that we work all our lives in order to leave "something to the next generation". This is an invention of neo-liberal capitalism - promoting creation of more capital-owning which will ultimately lead to unearned income. It was not always thus. Workers worked for subsistence, with, if they were fortunate, a pension to live in in retirement. For some, there was not always work; let alone a pension - nor a nest-egg. Now we are told that right-thinking people first buy their own homes, then retain them even after they move themselves out into care, while the State pays the cost of the latter. This is apparently a policy shared across the political spectrum: to have tax-payers money used to pay for care whilst the person cared for owns a home they no longer need, except to leave it to their off-spring, who may by this time themselves be entering retirement. The family thus cease to be workers but capitalists, thanks to government policy and at our cost. There must be an alternative where we pay for our own care out of what we have accrued; or rely on the State if we have no such back-stop.
So why does Labour not have the courage to say this? Could it be that all who attain power become capitalists?