Conservatives tend to be anti-theory. Indeed, in the Johnson Government there was even an anti-expert movement – not very plausible if you are applauding the rapid development of Covid vaccines. The problem for a discussion of socialism is that it is at the other extreme: it is top-heavy with theory and light on examples of successful socialist practice.
It is common to think of socialism arising in reaction to the harsh and grotesquely unjust working practices which arose out of the Industrial Revolution.
The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, the same year as the opening of the Carron Ironworks at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Smith prophesied the hardships which would follow for workers: he predicted that the combination of free trade and industrialisation would cause 'a sort of mental mutilation, deformity and wretchedness' unless a government 'took some pains' to mitigate this. But governments began 'taking pains' in a welfare direction only from the 20th century.
The gap from 1776 until 1947 was filled with socialist theory. But it is a mistake to think of socialism beginning during that period in the copious and difficult writings of Marx and Engels in the 19th century. In fact, there was a home-grown English socialism dating from the second half of the 14th century. Here are the central points.
The Black Death decimated the working population of England during the early part of the 14th century. Landlords were therefore desperate for labour for their estates. Awareness of this led peasants to revolt, against both landlords and the corrupt and wealthy church. Writers of the time, such as Chaucer, and Langland in
Piers Plowman, expressed the many social and religious abuses and grievances, but they are succinctly summed up in a couplet:
When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?
The peasants, led by Wat Tyler, revolted in 1381. The dramatic events of the summer of 1381 had their roots in social rather than political causes, but the revolt was precipitated by – wait for it – a Poll Tax. This was a method of taxing the poor for the war against the French, at a time when that war was unsuccessful and unpopular. An agreement seems to have been reached between the rebels and the Mayor of London in the presence of the hated Richard II and the rebels were persuaded to disperse. Then, beginning a tradition that lasts until today, Westminster ignored the treaty they had agreed to as a good deal – and had Wat Tyler executed.
More recently, the term 'socialism' was used to refer to the views of early 19th-century social critics such as Robert Owen. These critics were referring to the injustices of early capitalism. They advocated reforms such as the transformation of society into small communities. New Lanark was a successful version of this movement.
But socialism is most associated with the philosophy of Karl Marx and his many followers and commentators. Marx said that philosophers have only tried to understand the world but the point is to change it. But the approach of commentators seems to be: philosophers have only tried to understand Marxism but the point is to change it! Certainly there is a huge volume of commentary on Marxism which is beyond my competence and would in any case weary readers. But here are a few comments.
Many people do not differentiate between socialism, Marxism and communism. For Marx, socialism is only a stage in history characterised, at least in part, by state ownership of capital goods and the central planning of the economy. Marxists see this stage in history as transitional between capitalism and the final stage in history, communism. In the final stage of communism, there will be no differing social classes and class disputes will therefore vanish.
Socialists argue that there are inherent flaws in capitalism such as unjust inequalities in wealth, opportunity and power. They criticise capitalist societies for their individualism and materialism, and the exploitation of working people.
One problem in providing a more detailed account of socialism is that it has two different strands, a more and a less radical. The more radical strand would insist on state ownership of the means of production and investment, and on an equal distribution of wealth to the extent that that is possible. Radical socialists would require the democratic election of the officials responsible for economic decisions, and crucially, the central planning of the whole economy. There was an attempt to enforce the radical strand of socialism during the regime of Stalin. The tyranny involved in enforcing that view coupled with its colossal failure has given socialism a bad name ever since.
Partly as a result of the Stalinist experiment, the majority of socialists have tempered their criticisms of capitalism; in particular, they have abandoned the emphasis on the central planning of the economy. In other words, more recent socialists allow that the market must replace central planning. They claim that this modified version of socialism corrects the inherent flaws of capitalism but can benefit from the productivity advantages of a free market. This less radical account of socialism is known as 'market socialism'.
Some market socialists wish to add the further feature that the workers themselves must control the industry, or at least that democratically elected workers must have a controlling place on the boards of large enterprises. This would be a form of socialism without state ownership. I am not sure that it has been tried.
There are assorted problems with any movement actually called 'socialism' in the contemporary West. The first is that the word has very bad associations with the economically disastrous and murderous regime presided over by Stalin. 'Communist!' is a well known term of abuse, exploited during the McCarthy years in the US, and 'socialist!' is not much better. During the US presidential elections, Joe Biden's opponents even called him a socialist. A second problem for socialism at the moment is that it is basically an international movement, whereas 'nationalism' is at present more the order of the day in the West.
The Labour Party has always wished to promote some socialist ideas, but it has had an uneasy relationship with socialism, being aware that too close an association with socialist ideas will frighten Middle England, and indeed Middle Scotland. This opens it to the criticism that it does not represent any definite set of values. 'What is the Labour Party for?' is a question often levelled at Labour supporters. Jeremy Corbyn was very much an example of that sort of uncertainty. He wanted to be a socialist, but knew that that would make him unelectable. So he dithered, but dithering also made him unelectable. The Labour Party is currently improving its scoring in the polls, but it might be scoring even better were it not for what someone called 'long-Corbyn'.
One problem with socialism is mirrored in one version of conservatism: namely getting hooked on a particular economic and political policy. This was seen in conservatism when it converted to an extreme form of free market economics. Wat Tyler led a Peasants' Revolt against the Poll Tax in 1381 but Thatcherite Conservatives still thought it a good idea.
In the other camp, the aim of taking every major industry into state control is simply not very workable. The Labour Party is finally beginning to understand this. Less theory and more attention to the details of what people need – such as workable ferries – is central to successful government of whatever persuasion. Indeed, Conservative governments in the UK have managed to remain in power by assimilating the more sensible of socialist ideas. This assimilation is very unfair to moderate socialists but it can result in workable policies.
In his
Essay on Man, Alexander Pope has a pertinent message for doctrinaire politicians:
For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate'er is best administered is best.
Robin Downie is Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow
