An early work (1825) by a Ricardian Socialist

After a year of left leadership the word “socialist” is in vogue again. Not so long ago even the word “equality” had become suspect. Few now would be “intensely relaxed” about people getting “filthy rich so long as they pay their taxes” (Peter Mandelson, 1998). Nearly everyone agrees that massive inequality reveals a deep social fault line. Now “socialism” is once again part of Labour rhetoric.

We expect it from the left. Jeremy Corbyn promised Conference 2016 a “socialism for the 21st century”. John McDonnell added that we no longer have to whisper the word “socialist”. But now everyone’s at it – well nearly everyone, some still find the “s” word difficult to pronounce.

Owen Smith went so far as to speak of “socialist revolution” during his leadership bid. Luke Akehurst has even claimed that socialist talk is nothing new. He says of the Labour Party twenty years ago (i.e. with the rise of Tony Blair to leadership):

It took its socialism very seriously. For a year we held big meetings round the country where we earnestly debated what it meant to be a democratic socialist in the modern age, examined the ideas of Gramsci, Marx, Robert Owen, and how these might be applied to the challenges Britain faced. … [we] came up with a new constitution which for the first time included the “s” word and stated that we were a “democratic socialist party… [that] believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create … for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few …

Keir Hardie argued for public ownership of capital and land.

In 2011 when there was media chatter about Chuka Umunna as a potential Party leader he said that he “prefers not to be called a socialist”. The impression given was reinforced in 2014 when he told The House Magazine that he was “intensely relaxed” about being compared to Peter Mandelson. But in 2016 he warmed to the word. In September he wrote that the problems of the Labour Party were no reason to junk “our social democratic and democratic socialist ideals”.

So, we are all socialists now

But what does it mean? Confusion abounds. “Reform”/“revolution” and “revolutionary socialism”/“democratic socialism” are generally assumed to be mutually exclusive. Socialism based on “values” is posed against socialism based on historical analysis just as “pragmatic socialism” is opposed to “doctrinaire socialism” (i.e. anything explicitly theoretical). Lack of knowledge of the interaction of these traditions in their real development allows them to be presented in the form of opposing mantras.

Anthony Crosland (1956) claimed that Britain was no longer a capitalist society

Broadly, in the Labour Party tradition the right (which always designates itself as “centrist”), favours “pragmatic socialism” and claims to go for “what works”. The left appeals to Labour’s alleged founding principles and to the moral superiority of social (as opposed to private) solutions to social problems. Both are equally inarticulate when it comes to analysis of the concepts (implicit or explicit) on which their views are based. There is virtually no debate between these views – just shouting when the other side is on the pitch.

This problem is well illustrated by the current phase of Labour Politics. A left-wing party leader was elected in 2015 and his position was reinforced in the election forced by the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2016. But the large-scale support for Jeremy Corbyn does not come from people convinced by his view of socialism. Rather it comes from a general sense that Labour had lost its way, that the old leadership had become part of the establishment furniture. Corbyn is supported by people who want a break from that.

The surprise elevation of Jeremy Corbyn to party leader provided a great opportunity for promoting and developing socialist ideas. We need to recognise, however, that so far this has not happened. The materials produced by Labour’s Policy Commissions as a basis for feedback to the National Policy Forum were weak beyond belief and offered no basis for debating contending viewpoints.

The reality is that the contending ideologies in Labour currently are left wing social democracy (Corbynism), right wing social democracy (the soft left) and Blairism which is a form of liberalism. There is no serious advocacy of even a pale or timid socialism that maps out a credible transition to a socialist society.

What are the contending views?

Tony Blair explained his concept of socialism in 1994

Socialism has come to mean for some no more than a more humane form of capitalism. It means a society clearly based on the private ownership of the great bulk of society’s productive, distributive and communicative capacities. According to this approach the profit motive is the driving force of a dynamic society but its destructive tendencies need to be held in check by government. Also, government’s role is to skim off some of the surplus generated by capitalism for provision of such things as social services. Socialism on this view is humanely managed capitalism through the offices of government.

For others socialism means a qualitatively different type of social organisation. On this view, managing capitalism, while often desirable in the short term, will never overcome the problems of capitalist instability and its constant pressure to generate inequality. It also fails to tackle the problem of a social ethos in which the drive for personal gain is seen as the most reliable motivator. Socialists of this stripe believe that socialism is a system that should replace capitalism and that dominant forms of the sources of society’s wealth should eventually come under democratic control to ensure that the satisfaction of needs takes precedence over the pursuit of private profit.

Alec Nove’s proposals (1991) have been little discussed

These incompatible views lie behind the civil war in the Labour Party. The first view is that of traditional social democracy. It had its hay day in the long boom of the post WWII period in conditions never to be repeated. It is now an ideology without a historical basis, which is why it is floundering all over Europe.

The second view of socialism is still more of a dream than a set of policies, or even clear objectives. It may lie behind the views of the Party leadership but it is not actually reflected in anything that is advocated. Its policies, where they exist at all, do not go beyond those of traditional social democracy and in many respects are to the right of that tradition.

A proposal

Since Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader in 2015 it has often been said that the main objective is to put party members in charge of the party. The clear message was that there was to be an end to manipulation, control freakery and opaque methods. I voted (twice) for him on that basis. Those things all still remain a promise rather than a reality. Labour doesn’t have a culture of informed debate but now we desperately need to create one. It is time resolve differences where they clearly lead to entirely different and incompatible policies. Labour can no longer survive in its traditional way by fudging the issues. They must be met head on.

We need a series of ‘great debates’ throughout the party on the major issues. That will not be possible without good quality information about the contending views. Different issues need to be dealt with in a systematic way throughout the party in a way that engages all active party members and connects their views to policy alternatives placed before the National Policy Forum.

There is no way of resolving differences on the scale described here without the fullest possible informed debate about the contending views. Luke Akehurst’s claim that this has already happened is unconvincing. Perhaps he really believes that “For a year we held big meetings round the country where we earnestly debated … the ideas of Gramsci, Marx, Robert Owen”. I suspect that he confuses passing references to these people as an “earnest debate” about what they actually wrote. I doubt that there are many takers for his view.

My proposal is that the party should set up a magazine for debate to be made available to all members. In it, people representing alternative views and approaches to all the main topics should be invited to lay out their ideas as clearly as possible. This should be linked to a programme for discussion of different topics tying the magazine contents to National Policy Forum deliberations in time for branches to discuss the issues presented in the magazine in order to feed through to the NPF (possibly through Constituency Labour Parties). This proposal goes far beyond the feeble attempts of the NPF to stimulate discussion with one-sided and totally inadequate documents. I can see no other way in which a meaningful debate aimed at generating policies debated by the members in an informed way could be produced.

I would be interested in the views of others on this proposal. Should it be something that we all start pressing for?