Monday, 23 September 2013

Bringing back socialism

While Labour’s leader was speaking on the streets of Brighton last Saturday in advance of his party’s conference, one member of the audience asked when he would “bring back socialism”.  Miliband’s response was “That’s what we’re doing, sir.  It is about fighting the battle for economic equality, for social equality and for gender equality too.”
Now I don’t for one moment question the importance of all three of those equalities.  I do question though whether they are enough in themselves to equate to “socialism”, which is the way Miliband presented them.  I’m sure that they are values which all socialists hold, but they don’t strike me as being an adequate and complete definition of socialism, or even a sufficient starting point.
I suppose it depends on how one defines one of the three equalities in particular – namely economic equality.  The economic system under which we live is ultimately based on power relationships - where power resides with those who have the economic wealth, not with those who do not.  Any meaningful move to economic equality has surely to tackle that inequality of power.  Without addressing that basic fundamental inequality of power, the words ‘economic equality’ are mere spin. 
To date, I see nothing in what Labour is saying which suggests they have any real intention of tackling that basic fundamental inequality.  And without that, “Bringing back socialism” is something we going to be waiting for some time to see if it depends on the Labour Party.

3 comments:

Spirit of BME said...

“The economic system under which we live is ultimately based on power relationships - where power resides with those who have the economic wealth, not with those who do not. Any meaningful move to economic equality has surely to tackle that inequality of power. Without addressing that basic fundamental inequality of power, the words ‘economic equality’ are mere spin”.
Not being a Socialist; surprisingly I concur with your words, except “equal wealth” .If everybody was paid the same and had the same, we would be on a spiral of poverty (as I saw in the USSR) and risk takers would be heading for the hills.
However, your first sentence does sum up the inequality as I see it of access , there is no “American Dream “ here and mobility is stifled by Stateism and Corporatism.

Gav said...

Labour lost its soul when Mr Blair lost Clause 4. They don't look likely to find it again in a hurry.

John Dixon said...

Gav,

Whether it's fair to pin the blame entirely on Blair depends on whether you see him, to adapt an over-used cliche, as an event or as part of a process. I tend to the latter.