The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[Bryn]

. . . it seems to me that the left-wing argument against the EU is most often just that it doesn't pursue socialist policies. If capitalism is seen as an evil which must be destroyed utterly, that probably explains why a pure socialist regime is hard to find anywhere.

Hmm. Let's not overlook that alternative left-wing argument that the EU should be remained in as a potential protective economic and political block against those of the influence of the USA, Russia and Chinse blocks, and that the struggle against right-wing populism in Europe is best fought from within the EU, rather than from without.

[Richard Barrett]

Nationalisation is socialist doctrine. The EU doesn't have its own 'doctrine'

The word "naïve" springs uncontrollably to mind.

[french frank]

The word "naïve" springs uncontrollably to mind.

Explanation for the benefit of the politically naive?

[french frank]

Hmm. Let's not overlook that alternative left-wing argument that the EU should be remained in as a potential protective economic and political block against those of the influence of the USA, Russia and Chinse blocks, and that the struggle against right-wing populism in Europe is best fought from within the EU, rather than from without.

Indeed. Let us not overlook that.

[Dave2002]

Railway renationalisation is a really popular policy, with a positive response in polls of about 65%.That would be a clear mandate for a Labour administration elected with that in its manifesto.

One virtue of course of 100% nationalisation is keeping greater control of where subsidies end up.

I can’t see what is more doctrinaire about nationalisation than having a raft of legislation which is clearly designed to promote competition.

Maybe popular, but perhaps amongst those who either don’t use rail transport, or many who don’t remember what rail travel was like 40-50 years ago. It was worse!

I agree it’s not always good now, and could/should be a lot better. The East Coast fiasco line shows how well private companies have done, and despite Richard Branson’s comment about his virginity (see his book) his company did exactly the same as those he’d previously criticised when then gave up on the West Coast - he “promised” they’d never do that!

[french frank]

Explanation for the benefit of the politically naive?

On second thoughts, it doesn't matter. I predict the answer would be, "I wouldn't know where to begin."

[teamsaint]

Maybe popular, but perhaps amongst those who either don’t use rail transport, or many who don’t remember what rail travel was like 40-50 years ago. It was worse!

I agree it’s not always good now, and could/should be a lot better. The East Coast fiasco line shows how well private companies have done, and despite Richard Branson’s comment about his virginity (see his book) his company did exactly the same as those he’d previously criticised when then gave up on the West Coast - he “promised” they’d never do that!

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-public-want-railways-renationalised/

Nationalisation of the railways is even more popular among regular users of the service than with the population as a whole.

[teamsaint]

About as clear a 'mandate' as an opinion poll. The best you could say is that anyone who voted Labour probably wasn't opposed to it, if it was contained in their manifesto. But, again, 'the best you could say': most people voting wouldn't be thinking about the nationalisation of the railways at all. "Time for a change" seems to be the usual reason.



You can't? Nationalisation is socialist doctrine. The EU doesn't have its own 'doctrine': it may act in ways which coincide with one doctrine or another, but there is no 'EU doctrine' as such.

As far as I am concerned, as a voter, nationalisation is not about doctrine, it’s about what is a practical, efficient, beneficial way to run a service. It may be a socialist doctrine, but that may not be why people approve of it.

So I could approve of Rail and Water nationalisation, and oppose electricity nationalisation quite comfortably.
But then I wouldn’t call myself a socialist.

[french frank]

It may be a socialist doctrine, but that may not be why people approve of it.

No, I agree. That would be saying the voters were voting for it because it was 'socialist policy'. Most voters vote either Conservative or Labour, their reasons for doing so too disparate to classify. Though, thinking about it, nationalisation might even ensure the trains ran on time … I'm not against nationalisation, but it shouldn't be used as a stick to beat the EU with.

I think it's a shame that people who have basically similar instincts are so divided on how to achieve a better society. For me it's a question of starting where we are and gradually improving what we have (Fabianism?), whereas for others it requires some version of revolution to overthrow a rotten system and build a new one. Just my naive take on it!

[Serial_Apologist]

I think it's a shame that people who have basically similar instincts are so divided on how to achieve a better society. For me it's a question of starting where we are and gradually improving what we have (Fabianism?), whereas for others it requires some version of revolution to overthrow a rotten system and build a new one. Just my naive take on it!

All your rhetorical attribution of evil to how socialists see capitalism, and such like, doesn't exactly help - at least one can only assume it's rhetorical - becuse it seems cruddish, uncharacteristic of you, and counter-intuitive. Whence does it emanate? Admittedly I and others here who think similarly to myself haven't done much to counter tabloidesque portrayals of our views - maybe we thought we could leave such misrepresentation to the likes of Scottycelt and Beef Oven! But I think I'm right in saying that our criticisms of capitalism as systemic - capitalism being wasteful: of resources, value (in more than one sense), and the planet's self-regulating means of natural sustenance - have probably not been adequately expounded, and that the fault for this lies with us. The values associated with different systems of wealth creation and distribution attach to who is in charge and how they account for themselves. And this could even be described as a kind of trickle-down system. If the system allows those at the top to act as the overlords and dispensers of not just largesse but how we should be expected to live, it is not difficult to adduce belief systems flowing from their lofty positions of self-empowerment to make it seem as though people are intrinsically predisposed to forfeiting their own powers and the associated responsibilities; and, hey ho, there are religions to hand to reinforce this, along with the social status quo, with the nuclear family acting as mediating agency.

Socialism has of course been as subject to self-distortion from within as misrepresentation, as too has religion. How social systems are seen from within and without, the means by which they are sustained and legitimised, really are intelligible - through the marshalling together of multiple disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, sociology, economics and ecology. Tracing the aetiology of socialist ideas is as interesting as following capitalism's evolution and understanding the reasons for its tenacity. The problem is we don't have a Higgs Boson equivalent for bringing the disciplines together into a single overarching theory of everything, and have to resort to cross-referencing between them. Compartmentalisation is naturally a part of the way common thought evolves. This is hard work and the pressures of life, often a product of the selfsame systemic malfunctioning, themselves militate against. It's no accident that original thinking along objective lines was once the preserve of leisured, privileged classes, neither is the fact that people succumb to persuasion: like all species we need to belong to survive. What are the intermediators to survival, and could they be better than the ones we have? I happen to think humans could organise civilisations better by being more collective and less individualistic about how we live, because life proceeds better by means of the principle of free unimpeded interrelational networks. These accord more closely with socialism than the siloing of the individual in struggle with all others for the few jobs the system allows at given times that are fulfilling capitalism insists on.

And next week's sermon will be on the subject of... (Contd. Page 999)

[Richard Barrett]

Explanation for the benefit of the politically naive?

What's naïve is the thought that the EU doesn't have its own doctrine: it certainly does!

But also, the term "doctrine" comes (to me anyway) with connotations of unquestioning belief, and it's important to remember that socialist thinking isn't a belief system but on the one hand a framework for analysing the inequalities and injustices of class society, and on the other a necessarily flexible and evolving body of strategies as to how they might be overcome. Taking (as a first step) structures which provide society's necessities such as water, education, energy, transport, housing and the rest out of the hands of profit-motivated capitalists and into those of the people who actually use them seems such an obvious component of these strategies that it might seem like a "doctrine" in the religious sense, but it isn't, it's just "common sense".

[french frank]

All your rhetorical attribution of evil to how socialists see capitalism, and such like, doesn't exactly help - at least one can only assume it's rhetorical - becuse it seems cruddish, uncharacteristic of you, and counter-intuitive. Whence does it emanate? Admittedly I and others here who think similarly to myself haven't done much to counter tabloidesque portrayals of our views - maybe we thought we could leave such misrepresentation to the likes of Scottycelt and Beef Oven! But I think I'm right in saying that our criticisms of capitalism as systemic - capitalism being wasteful: of resources, value (in more than one sense), and the planet's self-regulating means of natural sustenance - have probably not been adequately expounded, and that the fault for this lies with us.

It has taken you a few more words to explain your view than I used, so I apologise for the 'shorthand'; but it's the impression you yourself give that capitalism lies at the root of all social injustice (which suggests a wish to eradicate it as a system); and that on multiple occasions your own response seems to tend in that direction whereas others might not think to address the individual topic through the issue of capitalism at all. A question of, 'O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us': I plead guilty to that ignorance of myself and accept your portrait of me! But I have bolded something which I think might be true: is there a single word that would sum that up? 'Bad' and 'badness' are both given as synonyms for 'evil' - I certainly would happily rephrase to say that socialists, by and large, think capitalism is a Bad Thing, that Das Kapital needs to be reined in and that an entire system has been worked out to replace it (nationalisation being a part of it). And I don't think all the 'rhetoric' is on my side. From my political position, I feel more hostility coming from those from the left who will pick up on every misdemeanour as proof of political and moral bankruptcy! Leaving the urgency of Brexit aside, and the no less urgent problem of climate change, social inequality seem to be to be the huge issue which this country has to tackle, but even to say that will get the shrill comments of, 'Your lot propped up the Tories, you voted for austerity, and the bedroom tax, swine [sic].' I regret much of that (not that I was personally responsible), but it appears to be necessary to say that looking on, criticising and hurling insults is a lot easier than managing the affairs of state. Why anyone would want to take on that responsibility, I can't imagine; but firmness of belief is a great spur.

As for 'socialism' as I see it practised in the Labour party (which, of, course, isn't actually 'socialism', I know), I see intolerance of dissent in Parliament (my utopian view is that there should be no public dissent because differences should be sorted out in private). Look at the expulsion of Alastair Campbell from the party - at once 'the Rule Book' is invoked - he should have been expelled years ago. Look at that fine, upstanding Labour MP, Tom Watson - he survives but is barely tolerated. Look at Owen Smith - sacked for dissenting over Brexit. There are some things which should never be tolerated - but dissent isn't one of them. Self-professed socialists seem .. too rigid and rule-based for my temperament: I do think social improvement and individual freedom must go together.

The values associated with different systems of wealth creation and distribution attach to who is in charge and how they account for themselves. And this could even be described as a kind of trickle-down system. If the system allows those at the top to act as the overlords and dispensers of not just largesse but how we should be expected to live, it is not difficult to adduce belief systems flowing from their lofty positions of self-empowerment to make it seem as though people are intrinsically predisposed to forfeiting their own powers and the associated responsibilities; and, hey ho, there are religions to hand to reinforce this, along with the social status quo, with the nuclear family acting as mediating agency.

Socialism has of course been as subject to self-distortion from within as misrepresentation, as too has religion. How social systems are seen from within and without, the means by which they are sustained and legitimised, really are intelligible - through the marshalling together of multiple disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, sociology, economics and ecology. Tracing the aetiology of socialist ideas is as interesting as following capitalism's evolution and understanding the reasons for its tenacity. The problem is we don't have a Higgs Boson equivalent for bringing the disciplines together into a single overarching theory of everything, and have to resort to cross-referencing between them. Compartmentalisation is naturally a part of the way common thought evolves. This is hard work and the pressures of life, often a product of the selfsame systemic malfunctioning, themselves militate against. It's no accident that original thinking along objective lines was once the preserve of leisured, privileged classes, neither is the fact that people succumb to persuasion: like all species we need to belong to survive.

I think that, as you describe it ('through the marshalling together of multiple disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, sociology, economics and ecology [… ] we don't have a Higgs Boson equivalent for bringing the disciplines together into a single overarching theory of everything'), socialism appears still at a theoretical stage, not yet an instrument for solving global problems.

[french frank]

What's naïve is the thought that the EU doesn't have its own doctrine: it certainly does!

Well, that can't be debated. The EU doesn't have 'set of principles' to use your phrase, comparable to socialism.

But also, the term "doctrine" comes (to me anyway) with connotations of unquestioning belief

I'm afraid I can't legislate for how you interpret other people's words.

[Richard Barrett]

Well, that can't be debated. The EU doesn't have 'set of principles' to use your phrase, comparable to socialism.

This is the thing: it actually does.

[Serial_Apologist]

It has taken you a few more words to explain your view than I used, so I apologise for the 'shorthand'; but it's the impression you yourself give that capitalism lies at the root of all social injustice (which suggests a wish to eradicate it as a system); and that on multiple occasions your own response seems to tend in that direction whereas others might not think to address the individual topic through the issue of capitalism at all.

Yes I do agree with that "accusation"! It does seem to me that most of society's problems can be traced to capitalism in one way or another. In fact, in so many ways, I could spend some considerable time listing them. But I don't imagine this would be a very good place for that! I will just limit myelf to my view that "human nature" is malleable - our need to belong is something we share with all living beings; but we differ inasmuch that as humans, "intelligence" predisposes the capacity to formulate and share concepts adaptable to all areas of living together, from such abstract concepts as sustainability and fairness to planning for the future, based on past evidence. This specifically human form of intelligence is inborn in each and every one of us, and there to be nurtured and optimised in whatever opportunities life permits, according to the way life is organised. Capitalism limits the rationing out of our potential life capacities and chances as individuals, establishing the models by which we self- and inter-relate, mistaking reductionist identity impositions that limit our expectations to what society in its capitalist form can afford to deliver, and thwarting the ambitions thereby created when inimical conditions directly attributable to capitalism's inner contradictions pertain: typically its tendency to periodic overproduction arising from the anarchic way it accumulates wealth, leaving even mitigatory strategies wanting because of undermining the profit priority that equals success in its terms. People thus become categorised in the name of divide-and-rule strategies which deflect blame away from those in charge who most benefit by creating secure ghettoes for themselves, leaving those thus categorised no choice but to rebel or succumb to mental breakdown. Having (as one does!) great faith (!) in the human capacity to create fulfilling lives and livelihoods that are inclusive of differences in ability, without the perpetual stimulation of needs through publicity and advertising pressures to "keep up with the Joneses" is part and parcel of a "socialist mentality", and this goes hand-in-hand with a critique of a system which is by its own mechanisms self-limiting, by virtue of locking up so much capital in so few hands when the going gets tough, and in turn fails to make full use of the human capacity that gets pushed to the wayside. That's why yes, it mostly does devolve onto capitalism'as failings.

A question of, 'O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us': I plead guilty to that ignorance of myself and accept your portrait of me! But I have bolded something which I think might be true: is there a single word that would sum that up? 'Bad' and 'badness' are both given as synonyms for 'evil' - I certainly would happily rephrase to say that socialists, by and large, think capitalism is a Bad Thing, that Das Kapital needs to be reined in and that an entire system has been worked out to replace it (nationalisation being a part of it). And I don't think all the 'rhetoric' is on my side. From my political position, I feel more hostility coming from those from the left who will pick up on every misdemeanour as proof of political and moral bankruptcy! Leaving the urgency of Brexit aside, and the no less urgent problem of climate change, social inequality seem to be to be the huge issue which this country has to tackle, but even to say that will get the shrill comments of, 'Your lot propped up the Tories, you voted for austerity, and the bedroom tax, swine [sic].' I regret much of that (not that I was personally responsible), but it appears to be necessary to say that looking on, criticising and hurling insults is a lot easier than managing the affairs of state. Why anyone would want to take on that responsibility, I can't imagine; but firmness of belief is a great spur.

Well there are other ways of looking at the problems of the world, and while they're accessible it's no bad idea to check them out!

As for 'socialism' as I see it practised in the Labour party (which, of, course, isn't actually 'socialism', I know), I see intolerance of dissent in Parliament (my utopian view is that there should be no public dissent because differences should be sorted out in private). Look at the expulsion of Alastair Campbell from the party - at once 'the Rule Book' is invoked - he should have been expelled years ago. Look at that fine, upstanding Labour MP, Tom Watson - he survives but is barely tolerated. Look at Owen Smith - sacked for dissenting over Brexit. There are some things which should never be tolerated - but dissent isn't one of them. Self-professed socialists seem .. too rigid and rule-based for my temperament: I do think social improvement and individual freedom must go together.

I could take each case and argue the pros and cons, but all this is a secondary symptom of, rather than a critique, of socialism, which does have an honorable tradition.

I think that, as you describe it ('through the marshalling together of multiple disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, sociology, economics and ecology [… ] we don't have a Higgs Boson equivalent for bringing the disciplines together into a single overarching theory of everything'), socialism appears still at a theoretical stage, not yet an instrument for solving global problems.

I would argue that Marxist dialectical materialism still has much to offer since it is open to elaboration in the light of evidence from other fields, but that it's largely still at a theoretical stage because it hasn't been allowed! This is not to say that lessons weren't and aren't there to be learned by the left in its many varieties. But this is not to overlook the fact that at every point where radical left governments have taken power, whether through insurrection, as in the case of Russia and Cuba, or reformist parliamentary means as in the cases of Chile in 1973 or Portugal in 1975, the old ruling orders have used means ranging from propaganda, law, and economic blockade to violent physical repression and external invasion to unseat them, or to create the conditions for circumstances that will then be used as pretexts for disparaging the very idea of change. Its basic premise, that all wealth is created by transforming raw materials into commodities, and that the surplus over and above that required to pay for said commodities furnishes the privileges and power of a few who operate a system which is environmentally and of itself unsustainable and under-utilising of human endeavour at the expense of the rest, who perpetually have to be coerced into divide-and-rule tactics and strategies that prevent them from uniting to replace it with something rational, for which I don't have a better word than socialism.