Tag Archives: UK politics

What is socialism?

Socialism is a term that gets thrown about in politics, but I would imagine that most ordinary people have little idea what it actually means.

Let me begin by saying that it means something different to almost everyone you ask. It’s such a broad term that there is no one definition. It’s almost like saying well, I believe in God… well okay, which one? And which religion? Essentially it’s a very broad umbrella term to describe many different ways of achieving an end goal which is the reduction of inequality.

The term has become so stretched that politicians on the centre right, such as Tony Blair have described themselves as socialists, as well as those on the left like Jeremy Corbyn. They can’t both be right, can they? I would argue that no, Tony Blair was not a socialist but in fairness, it’s quite a subjective thing, there is no agreed definition, which leads to all of these confusing claims.

But what actually is it? If you take a strict, orthodox definition, it’s a society where the working class own and control the means of the production. In simple terms, ordinary people own the machines and infrastructure that make things in society, rather than rich people and the things that they make get distributed according to who needs them, not who can pay for them. In order to get there some socialists would argue for a violent revolution, or an authoritarian dictatorship of the working class, like in Russia.

The problem with this interpretation is that it’s a bit outdated and in order to get to that position you might end up crashing the economy, killing people, or just never get there in the first place.

Other interpretations have accepted that the orthodox approach isn’t very realistic or democratic and therefore more gradual reform is needed and society will slowly shift toward a system where the means of production are held in common ownership. These socialists tend to have sub group names and identities, such as ‘social Democrat’ or ‘democratic socialist’. They think we need to work within the existing system to get change. Jeremy Corbyn would fit into this camp, rather than with the anti democratic socialists.

What about me? I can’t claim my version of socialism is any more right than anyone else’s but in the short term I think we have to work within the existing system and win policy changes which improve peoples lives in the short term, like a higher minimum wage, better housing etc. For that reason, I am likely to vote Labour, despite not really agreeing with the leadership.

In the long term I’d describe my views as ‘market socialist’. I think that competitive markets, are pretty essential to economies and that states should not be in the business of running the whole economy. The big difference would be that the companies which exist today would cease to move profits to shareholders, instead they would become co-operatives. This is where companies are owned by workers and the profits they make get shared between the workers. People are not paid the same, but workers earn close to 100% of their labor value.

This system would mean that companies like Apple, Tesco, etc still exist and operate similar to how they do today. The difference is the workers would be paid an awful lot more because the profits are not going to shareholders.

In addition we would have more publicly owned companies. For instance I see a role for public ownership of water, rail, care, student accommodation. We would continue to be a prosperous, modern largely free market and free trading economy. The difference would be, our workers would be taking home £50,000 salaries instead of £17,000 salaries. There would also be an aim for some public services to be free, such as trains and busses.

The criticism of this idea is that it’s utopian. Yes it’s somewhat utopian, but so was shareholder capitalism (what we have now), before Margaret Thatcher came into power.

I think market socialism avoids the pitfalls of previous versions whereby the state tries to meet demand in the economy and runs everything, clearly that has never worked. Super high tax rates of 90% probably don’t work either, but super high taxes aren’t needed if companies are paying their wages super high, to workers.

The left in my view need to think outside of the box. High tax rates and government controlled markets aren’t the only way to get to socialism. In my view high tax rates in a capitalist economy just mean that we are capitalist but taxing people… what needs to change is ownership. We need a 21st century vision for socialism, but many socialists are stuck looking back to the 19th century. Karl Marx described an alternative to capitalism, but he could not have foreseen the global nature of capital which exists today.

Finally, I would add that this vision of market socialism is not something I expect to happen any time soon. Non of the UK parties believe in it, all I am saying is that neoliberalism re-invented the Tory party and won them elections… market socialism could do the same for the Labour Party. Of course it would have to start gradually, and is a decades long project, but look at what Thatcher got done in 10 years. She managed to change the whole economy, and also move the opposition to largely agree with her from 1997-2010.

Keir Starmer, Nick Clegg and Boris Johnson are united in an un-holy trinity of lies.

In 2019 Labour suffered a catastrophic defeat to an authoritarian, populist party, sailing the waves of Brexit into number 10.

Understandably, many in the Labour Party thought it was time for change, toward electability and winning. It was thought at the time that a more establishment figure, but with the same or similar radical politics would be the answer to Labour’s woes. I myself toyed with this idea, but on balance realised that Sir Keir was being supported by some very shady people and could not be trusted with the party.

In the 2020 leadership campaign, Keir Starmer presented himself as an electable version of former leader Jeremy Corbyn. He promised to keep the radical elements of the Corbyn leadership and assured the members that he was a friend of Corbyn’s, not an enemy. He promised that he would not do interviews with The Sun, he would nationalise utility companies, he would promote party unity and would end factionalism.

Following his convincing win, he has done the exact opposite of all of these promises. It is worth remembering that Sir Keir won the leadership with 40% of the votes from people who voted for Jeremy Corbyn for a second time, following the coup.

There are some who would never have accepted Sir Keir after he won, but I was open to it despite not wanting him to win. The things he promised were objectively good things, such as party unity, nationalisation, higher taxes on the rich, I just knew that he would not deliver it, because ultimately he is a dishonest man.

Sir Keir has clearly moved the party to the right, he has categorically ruled out nationalising private companies, he has gone against tax rises on top income earners, he has categorically said that party unity is not important to him. He has also brought on board previous right wing advisors to shape the direction and strategy of the party.

Changing direction is what leaders do when they win on a mandate of changing direction. However, Sir Keir won on a mandate of keeping the direction broadly the same. One can argue that perhaps the direction should change, but that is not how Sir Keir won, therefore his leadership is now illegitimate because it was won on mistruths.

Trust and honesty matters for politicians on the left in a way that it doesn’t for politicians on the right. Take Nick Clegg for example, he won on a platform of centre left politics; abolishing tuition fees, being the key pledge.

When he changed direction and voted to triple them, his career was rightly ended and he will be considered a villain for the rest of his days.

Whereas, Boris Johnson’s personality is built on being a liar- people know he lies it’s all part of the brand. In my view Sir Keir is no different to Nick Clegg, or Boris Johnson, they are united in a un-holy trinity of lying to get elected and then doing the opposite of what they were elected to do.

Some might argue that the left of the Labour Party are a ‘far left cult of cranks’ and should be lied to and disregarded. However, if Sir Keir lied to the left to get elected, then how can he be trusted to not lie to the country to get elected. It’s also worth remembering that Sir Keir has promised to abolish tuition fees… can we really believe it this time? I certainly don’t. 

Overall, I think it is bizarre for a man to build his brand on honesty and integrity, which Sir Keir has done, only to lie and cheat people. In politics you need a unique selling point. Boris clearly has politically incorrect ‘humour’ and being a bit of a joker regardless of wether you like him or not. If Sir Keir wants to claim honesty and integrity, then why is step one lying and cheating the members to win, only to then break most of his promises?