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.

Labour may not like the market but it needs marketing

What has marketing to do with the Labour Party? Surely, it is all about selling stuff that nobody needs? Well, irony aside, the answer is that it has everything to do with Labour today, anti-capital or not. The “M”-word actually has two meanings, both of which deserve consideration here. First, it is about aligning an organisation and what it does with the needs of those it seeks to serve. Second, it is about making as sure as possible that those it wants to serve actually  access what it offers; that it promotes itself effectively.

So, first things first: whom does Labour seek to serve? This used to be easy for the party to answer – the workers of industry. Perhaps this is not so obvious today, when “industry” is not what it was and workers are less organised. Maybe one could answer “everybody” – but this would be too trite. Of  course it is true but you have to start with a core vote; a target subset of the whole, who are most likely to need a Labour Party. Is this “hard-working families”? Is it the lower-paid; or the young [the future]; or the old {who vote]? If it is any or all of these, which party would it then like to speak up for the unemployed, the poor, disabled people, who seem to have been excluded of late? [In my view, if Labour is not for these, then it has no purpose at all]. Without being clear whom it believes it represents, Labour can produce pledges and policies galore but fail to align itself to its desired voters.

Then, there is the message. Voters in today’s world buy into not a list of policies but to religions. Not the theological sort but visions or congregations to which they want to belong; whose image or Big Idea they aspire to. This is how cars, clothes, holidays and even food are chosen. Politics is no different, in having to make itself attractive, not in the detail but first in the desire to belong. Just as a consumer may want to be sure the clothes fit, the food is fresh or the holiday as advertised, so s/he will indeed want a set of policies which they like the look and cost of. But this is uninspiring and insufficient; the technicalities to be taken for granted. Decisions are about being on this side, with this group, sharing these values. And quite correctly, surely, for politics should be on a higher plane than mere pecuniary or technical calculation. Jeremy Corbyn is currently repeating Ed Miliband’s mistake of trotting out nice sounding policy ideas whilst failing to give any sort of believable vision for the future, through which to inspire attention or voting:  the religious part. Without a good Big Idea, able to be communicated and promoted in a pithy sound bite or strapline, Labour will continue to fail to inspire. So come on Labour: decide what you are for and tell us, loudly. Do your Marketing.

Was Voltaire right?

In a previous blog, I mentioned Voltaire as a major figure in Europe’s and thus our culture. Challenging the roles of religions, rulers, war, and ideas then in the ascendency; wit; Anglophile; humanist and author, he is a towering figure in the development of political and philosophical thinking. In his great satire, Candide, his innocent young hero, is faced with the follies of the great and the good of the times but can find no sense in them, despite their being presented as inevitable according with the prevailing determinist philosophy of the times. If, regardless of circumstance, the well-meaning individual had no free will and could do nothing to change things, surely s/he should content him/herself with “cultivating the garden”. The inevitable conclusion of having no agency is to do nothing.

Today, politics and events seem to be approaching a condition of near-determinism: where nothing can be done to oppose those in the ascendency. Someone decrees that something is true: it becomes fact. Someone is appointed leader of the country, with no bow to democracy: then claims a democratic mandate to put into effect actions she had previously opposed. Someone opposes the policies being advocated as bad for the country: and is dubbed a traitor. An opposition party supports the greatest constitutional change in decades which its members oppose. Millions with a desire to oppose have no means to do so.

So what is today’s Candide to do? Is it the case that things are inevitable; that we have no agency; that we must merely cultivate our garden?  Philosophical thought has moved on. We are supposed to have and exercise free will. The belief system of the Right would hold that we should be in control of our own destinies; whilst the Left supports collective action for the wider good. This being the case, we should be in a position where citizens can vote against the prevailing authority; but with the official Opposition nowhere to be seen; and with large parts of the electorate living where they have no prospect of electing even a local councillor, how meaningful is enfranchisement?

Maybe Voltaire was right. We should cultivate our garden but not literally, as an expression of disengagement, but metaphorically, starting at the grass roots; working for the values we espouse within our communities, to be and feel useful. Like charity, politics can begin at home – or in the “garden”.

We ARE European, even the Leavers

Brexiteers frequently talk of protecting “our culture”, demanding that newcomers subscribe to it, pass tests in it or generalising that “they” do not understand it. Do those who have been born and brought up here understand even what it is, ourselves? Do we have the right to talk about “us” as if there were still some race of Britons who form the core of the population, which is gradually being eroded by the pollution of immigration?

What can “our culture” be? This is a hybrid country, a federation of nations with their own cultures, mixed with a long history of new ingredients contributed by arrivals from many and varied parts of the world. The truth is that this is a nation composed of a huge variety of ethnicities, forming a culture enriched by each and all of these. Whenever there was a British tribe, it was before the histories taught even in our most reactionary institutions. Angles, Jutes, Vikings, Romans, Huguenots, Irish, Jews, West Indians, Bengalis, Somalis, etc – these are the ingredients of our happy melting pot.

What are the fixed points, then, which we build on, using these new ingredients? The weather – for this occupies minds, typically? Nothing to be proud of there. Chaucer and Shakespeare – but how many citizens are familiar with them? Our history – largely related as kings and queens, wars and battles, imperialism and theft? Our sports – which may have been invented here but at which prowess is far from unique?

The truth is that whatever we can identify as indigenous, our political and moral philosophies are rooted in ancient Athens, our science in the Arab world, our art in Italy. More recent cultural icons in this country are not home-grown. Are not Dante, Beethoven, Voltaire and Leonardo influences on or of our culture?  Our museums and galleries are packed with the works of great artists from all over the world, to be admired and even [though I am not in favour] retained as national heritage against repatriation claims. This is not to decry our home-grown national treasures, merely to declare that we are a part of a Western European culture over 2 millennia old; and that to focus on home-grown alone is to narrow our appreciation of what makes us tick or the world a better place.

The mantra “British x is the finest in the world” is mere propaganda put about by those who lack the experience or learning about the wider world. It is bandied about nonsensically in relation to our army, our football, our beef, our healthcare, and more. Put any of these to true comparison and perhaps the jingoism will prove hollow. This country is a fine place to live, with fine people and much to celebrate but it is not so very different and doubtfully superior to others. Rather, it is a part of the cultural mix of a long-evolved international society, which it is folly or tragedy to deny. To claim superiority for it is sheer hubris.

 We could [and this seems to be where Brexiteers would take us] define our heritage on ethnic purity but this has been tried before, with disastrous results. We must not go there again. Anyway, who wants a dreary diet based on what our geology, climate and “true Brit” talent might allow us?

Heroes and villains

The controversy occupying the media over the legacy of Martin McGuinness is nothing new. It seems to suggest that people need to pigeon-hole the notable dead in a binary way. They must either be “a Good Thing” or “a Bad Thing” in a Sellars and Yeatman history. But how many people are really either good or bad, saint or sinner? Throughout history great impact has been made by figures whom you might not want to leave alone with a family member. Even the very great may have feet of clay. Occasional media surveys to identify “greatest Briton” regularly turn up Oliver Cromwell and Winston Churchill as candidates but both had bloody escutcheons. Then there are the “terrorists” turned “statesmen”, the judgement of whom depends as much on one’s political allegiance as on objectivity: Castro; Begin; Arafat; Mao and so many more.

Even in more peaceful arenas those on a pedestal of achievement may have pretty undesirable traits. Artists like Picasso, Simenon and Gill, whose work is so special, would not win many feminist votes; whilst Caravaggio, an artist of pivotal importance was a convicted murderer.

Gladstone, Lloyd George, Major; and further afield Kennedy, Clinton, Mitterand, to name but a few, were far from pure when it came to behaviour yet remain respected in the rear-view mirror of politics. Perhaps hindsight, though, only works after memories had dimmed of the misdemeanours and when the legacies have been seen to have been sustained over time. One suspects that McGuinness will remain in the history books as the first republican power-sharing minister of Northern Ireland, whilst the number who cannot forgive his violent past will dwindle. Like everybody, he was not one thing or the other but a human being with different sides to his life which made him who he was. Perhaps we have to accept that there is a price to be aid for the Good Things.

As if things were not bad enough. Welcome to May's World

A common attribute attached by its friends in the media to the Tory Party in the past was that, whether or not you liked its politics, it was the party of competence. Can this still be said with today’s cabinet? Surely not. Whether because the new managerialism adopted by ministers exposes their inexperience; or through their mistrust of the professionals of the Civil Service; or because we have a cabinet appointed not for their abilities but to buy off party factions, the endless series of ill-advised and subsequently binned initiatives, mainly aimed at headlines more than the well-being of the electorate, suggests that we have a very poor government. The evidence? Nearly ten years on from the financial crisis, national debt remains unresolved and the only solution offered is to take ever more from the mouths of the less well-off of the electorate. After almost 8 years of Tories in charge, there are funding crises in health, social care, prisons, schools and local government; increasing child poverty and deprivation for disabled citizens; and shortages of nurses and GPs.

Last week, the Prime Minister begged priority for Brexit in aid of avoiding a second Scottish referendum. It looks very much as though this same pretext applies to every aspect of government responsibility. Does this mean that we can at least be confident in her running a good Brexit? Again, let us look at the evidence. Who does she entrust with the ministerial responsibilities associated with this top priority but three rejects, egged on by others: Johnson, Fox and Davis all yesterday's rejects who have reason never to have been given any sort of responsibility; whilst their cheer-leaders are the bastards of the past, IDS, Redwood et al. No cause for confidence here.

Through no fault of the Tories, we have a pathetic official Opposition, which spends most of its energies pleasing its fan club or fighting with its internal opponents instead of calling the government to account, led by someone without the intellectual sharpness to do so. More effective opposition comes from a country, Scotland, with an ejector seat to threaten, which, if exercised, will actually destroy the United Kingdom. She sidelines this but at her [and our] peril.

As if the unnecessary Cameron referendum was not bad enough, we have a worse future ahead in Brexit, made yet worse by the paucity of talent negotiating it, whilst the country goes to the dogs in the hands of second-rate, inexperienced, self-justifying ideologues who care more for money than for people. Welcome to May’s World, our future.

The Will of the People

Remember “taking back control” and “America First”? Meaningless yet seductive slogans which opponents failed to counter. Now, “the will of the people” has taken over, sucking in not only the very people whose will is to be obeyed but almost every opponent of Brexit, so much so that the official Opposition imposed a 3-line whip to support the government, in favour of what most of its own voters rejected.

Of course, in a democracy it would seem that the will of the people should be paramount. But should it, when those same people and their ancestors have won the right to delegate their decisions to elected representatives? Then there is the breath-taking idiocy of presuming that “Yes” or “No” to a simple question can represent the will of the people over the most complex political issue they will ever face.

Now, this 2016 Yes/No “will of the people” is to be exercised regardless of the outcome of two years or more of multi-faceted negotiations. If the Prime Minister in 2019 or 2020 says she has a satisfactory parachute for our flight into the unknown, adopting it will be called “the will of the people”. If she says that she does not and we must leave Europe via ejector-seat, this too will be “the will of the people”. Two utterly different solutions, both ascribed to the Leave vote. Whatever one person, the PM, says, will be treated as “the will of the people”.

Not only is this palpable nonsense but it is alarming in two further respects. First, there appears to be no significant opposition to it, leaving us as if in a one-party State. Second, it removes all vestiges of democratic legitimacy from the greatest change to our governance in decades. This stands to add UK to the growing list of countries being run as unopposed virtual dictatorships: Turkey; Zimbabwe; Russia etc. What are we doing to our children’s future; and all for a slogan? Who will dare to go against the so-called "will of the people"?

Tom Serpell