Socialism, ethics, and humanity (I)

Owen Jones, you will remember, claims that Jeremy Corbyn lacks a clear vision. This was utterly confused, and therefore considerably better than the rest of Jones' now infamous article, which wasn't confused but just wrong. In spite of this, like the proverbial stopped clock, Jones was accidentally onto something true. There is something in the region of vision that the Left around Corbyn does lack; and this is a problem.

We fail in not having a clearly articulated long-term goal, nor any kind of strategy for getting there. By any criteria this is a pretty big absence for a political party. It is, in this particular case, a problem not just for our day to day political activities and ability to communicate our politics, but also for our culture, individual lives, and thought. In is in this last area that it might be thought that a remedy could be found, but here the historically anti-intellectual Labour Left, steeped in a pragmatic empiricism suspicious of anyone who knows too much about Adorno without a concomitant experience of housing committees, is at a disadvantage. Why theorise when there are leaflets to be delivered?

But what do I mean by saying that we, as a movement, I mean the pro-Corbyn Left particularly as grouped around Momentum, lack a goal? Surely we have one that can be summed up with pleasing economy in one word: "socialism". Well, yes, perhaps. But if that word is to serve as anything other than a synonym for "social democat" or a placeholder for vague thoughts of niceness and community, the problems have only begun when we claim an allegiance to socialism.

Scour the blue skies thinking documents of contemporary political parties and you will find affirmations of fidelity to the free-market economy, working families, home ownership, economic growth and various other unremarkable desiderata designed to please the perennially sensible occupants of Middle England. This wish list, which reads too much like the contents of a Telegraph columnist's wet dream to be entirely comfortable reading, is unified by the fact that meaningful steps can be taken towards realising each strategic goal by government policies implemented during the course of a five year parliament. Or, to put the point more carefully (with "economic growth" in particular in mind), it doesn't seem implausible from the perspective of dominant schools of thought to suppose that such steps can be pursued. Crucially, policies directed towards these ends will in no way threaten prevailing structures of economic power nor the organisation of the state. They could be implemented at the level of the nation-state, possibly in concert with other nation-states acting through bodies like the IMF or the EU, or through trade agreements or treaties.

Contrast this will the goal of socialism. This has none of these unifying features. Socialism is a much bigger deal than increasing the number of households with mortgages. As I understand the word it involves the human race moving beyond capitalism and replacing it with collective ownership and control of the earth's resources and our creative activity with them. This is a more ambitious project than improving recycling facilities. It can, in my view, be established only internationally and through the collective action of the mass of working people. As such it does not sit comfortably with the view that political change best happens by parliamentary vote or ministerial announcement. Marx described the institution of socialism as the beginning of human history. The Diggers foreshadowed the modern doctrine with their talk of the earth as a common treasury. None of this would fit well in an election manifesto.

Socialism simply doesn't accommodate itself to the norms for political strategies. This is one excellent reason that those committed to those strategies think that socialism is unrealistic, as indeed it is within the confines of politics-as-usual. Those of us who are socialists think, conversely, that socialism is the only reality-based response adequate to a world which combines starvation with plenty, industrialisation with slums. We also take the cautious view that it will probably be centuries before the issue is decided to everyone's satisfaction. For these reasons socialism is automatically disadvantaged by any approach to politics which demands results within five years, directed towards goals within the remit of government policy. The entire set-up of the political game functions to preserve the status quo.

How to break the impasse? It is undeniable that in order to win the enthusiasm and allegiance of millions for socialism we need a goal that inspires. Yet this can't be provided in the terms that we have grown to expect in Western democracies. And even if it could, oughtn't we to be wary? The history of blueprints for socialism is hardly auspicious. As I see it, the problem is urgent, and only not seen as such because there is not nearly enough clarity around as to what we ourselves mean by "socialism" (and, after all, if the issue does dawn, there will always be an opportunity to put off thinking about it with a clear conscience: let's sort out this immediate crisis first...). In the next post in this series I'll suggest - no doubt to howls from some of my comrades - that the way forward requires us to have a more substantive ethical basis for our socialism.