Monday, August 29, 2005 AD
Is there a meaning in this text?
The Guardian's political sketchwriter, Simon Hoggart, has made the very useful point on occasion that one way to tell whether a politician is saying anything meaningful is to ask yourself whether anyone could seriously advocate the opposite of what they're saying.
You know the sort of thing: "We remain committed to ensuring that all our children receive a decent education and are able to fulfil their potential!" Hmm, yes, sounds good, but could anyone seriously advocate the opposite? "We pledge that when we are in power, more and more children will have their life-chances blighted by poor education!"
Which brings me to a book I picked up over the weekend: Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, by Michael Newman, just published by OUP.
The main reason for mentioning this book is not so much its political content, so much as the fact that it suggested to me a couple of interesting parallels between socialism and Christianity that I hope to explore in a couple of further posts. But in the meantime, I wanted to canvass opinion on whether Newman's definition of "socialism" has any meaningful content to it.
Very briefly, Newman's thesis in this book is that socialism is a diverse phenomenon, and that while the two dominant expressions of socialism to date - Marxism and social democracy - may appear to have run out of steam, that doesn't mean that "socialism" as a political perspective is finished. He summarises the "socialist" perspective as being based on three main principles: equality, cooperation and solidarity.
This contrasts with political viewpoints that see inequality as desirable (or at least a necessary consequence of desirable policies), and that emphasise individual ambition and fulfilment above social solidarity, and competition over cooperation.
My question is this: does "equality, cooperation and social solidarity" sound like a meaningful definition, or is this really a set of principles that very many people could sign up without being in any real sense "socialists"? Anyone care to step up to the plate and defend inequality, individualism and dog-eat-dog competition?
You know the sort of thing: "We remain committed to ensuring that all our children receive a decent education and are able to fulfil their potential!" Hmm, yes, sounds good, but could anyone seriously advocate the opposite? "We pledge that when we are in power, more and more children will have their life-chances blighted by poor education!"
Which brings me to a book I picked up over the weekend: Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, by Michael Newman, just published by OUP.
The main reason for mentioning this book is not so much its political content, so much as the fact that it suggested to me a couple of interesting parallels between socialism and Christianity that I hope to explore in a couple of further posts. But in the meantime, I wanted to canvass opinion on whether Newman's definition of "socialism" has any meaningful content to it.
Very briefly, Newman's thesis in this book is that socialism is a diverse phenomenon, and that while the two dominant expressions of socialism to date - Marxism and social democracy - may appear to have run out of steam, that doesn't mean that "socialism" as a political perspective is finished. He summarises the "socialist" perspective as being based on three main principles: equality, cooperation and solidarity.
This contrasts with political viewpoints that see inequality as desirable (or at least a necessary consequence of desirable policies), and that emphasise individual ambition and fulfilment above social solidarity, and competition over cooperation.
My question is this: does "equality, cooperation and social solidarity" sound like a meaningful definition, or is this really a set of principles that very many people could sign up without being in any real sense "socialists"? Anyone care to step up to the plate and defend inequality, individualism and dog-eat-dog competition?
