In regard to my comments about socialism and the need to recognise a social system of living on my main politics page, I should like to add that this is a system necessarily compromised by economic matters, something which the majority of left wing journalism currently fails to acknowledge. It saddens me that the pursuit of idealism should so often involve a rejection of realism, making it look as if the left has no real solid theories to offer. It's easy to tear down capitalism as it currently operates, especially where it is most notoriously abused by corporate giants; however, this can do nothing to bring about useful change in the absence of alternatives.
Although, at their extremes, socialism and capitalism seem inherently opposed to one another, I would assert that, in practical politics, it doesn't need to be that way. Every political and economic system will eventually snap and result in chaos if taken too far. There is the risk of destructive anarchistic feudalism at one end of the scale, and the risk of totalitarianism and fascism at the other. The only practical option is for us to concern ourselves less with the expression of pure theory and more with the demands of human nature, which means compromise at social, economic and personal levels.
Both pure socialism and neo-liberalism are flawed in their search for a society based (at least to begin with) upon equality, because people are inherently not equal. Some are stronger than others, some smarter, some more charismatic - some are ill or disabled or find themselves responsible for numerous dependents - all these things factor into their potential to contribute to society and their level of dependence upon it. Anyone who ever has an advantage is faced with the temptation to abandon society (to whatever degree - here we see civil wars, independent survivalism, and petty crime) and gain greater rewards as an individual. Why should the strong carry the weak? Time is an issue; we all grow weaker and more dependent with age, and we never know what disasters fate may bring down upon us. Furthermore, when we live in crowded conditions, the strong individual is always vulnerable to alliances of the weak. Yet even when those in a strong position recognise this, and agree to remain a part of society, there will inevitably be tension. Social living will always compromise the individual on some levels, whilst benefitting hir in others.
The principal advantage which capitalism offers within a society is motivation - in theory, the provision of greater reward to those who work harder (and more effectively). This works very well at a low level. Provided everybody has enough to live on (food, shelter, heating and lighting as required, clean water, clothing, and a reasonable allowance for leisure activities), it seems reasonable to most people that those who choose to, say, work longer hours, ought to be able to receive some extra money in return for that labour. Those who make risky investments so that new business ventures can develop, and those who trade in ideas, must have the potential to be similarly rewarded. Where modern left wing movements often fail is in demanding that everybody be brought down to the same level of living, rather than asserting that everybody should be lifted up to a comfortable level, that they might then work from there. With our current balance of resources and energy there is no need for any human being on this planet to lack the basic standard of living described above. There is no reason why we should all be poor (or feel guilty for our wealth). We can all be reasonably well off. It is a myth that people will only contribute to society when they are forced to do so out of desperation, due to a lack of personal resources. There will always be some who do not want to contribute, and a means of dealing with them (even if we choose not to deal with them) must be decided upon, but that happens under any system and it is a distraction from the real issues. Most people want to work, and need not be forced to. Give people a basic standard of living, so that they need no longer fear destitution, and then there will be something much closer to the equal starting conditions which enable laissez faire capitalism to function successfully (without anything approaching the same level of resentment). This requires the existence of a welfare state and proper support for those who are not able to work, as well as for those who can work only with help (eg: wheelchair access in public buildings). The welfare state and the capitalist system of motivation need not be opposed to one another.
The welfare state has other things to offer to society. It can take the place of private insurance schemes wherein the profit motive frequently creates higher costs. It also ensures that society's investment in individuals is not wasted. If a society invests in educating its young people until the age of sixteen or eighteen, what sense does it make then for them to starve because they cannot find work for six months, or for them to be excluded from the labour market because they develop disabilities which could be compensated for at a cost smaller than that of the lost revenue? Opposing these advantages is the fact that the welfare state can often develop into a labyrinth of beaurocracy which has the potential to waste more money than it saves. The primary reason for this in a democracy (liberal or popular, thus Communism runs the same risks) is the temptation for leaders who desire re-election to make their presence felt when in office by adding layer upon layer of new legislation. It is a problem of politics rather than a necessity of government. When something is wrong, leaders wish to be seen to be doing something about it, and when all they are able to do is make laws, they add new review bodies and overseers to the beaurocracy. In the UK, the latest of these endeavours involves the private finance initiative, which aims to bring private money and expertise into public organisations, but which simply adds another layer of middle-men which soaks up as much extra money as is generated. PFI is often seen as a failure of capatalist thinking; on the contrary, it is a failure of socialist thinking; and yet again, neither system, in isolation, can resolve the matter.
Might we not take the motivational benefits of capitalism and the security benefits of socialism and meld them together into something whose first focus is pragmatic? We can, and, in fact, most successful modern nations do; however, we are in danger of losing sight of this. It is always more fashionable, more exciting, to pursue pure ideas. Successful government, as opposed to successful politics, must prioritise people over ideology.
Go back to Jennie's page about politics.
This way to go back to Jennie's personal pages.
Last updated 7th December, 2005