I have examined liberalism in this blog, and recently I have mentioned socialism. I should mention that, while a diluted and increasingly warped form of liberalism still exists in modern life (in the West), socialism is but a forlorn looking phantom compared to its old self.
If you are reading this in the US, you may perhaps think that socialism still exists in the UK, or at least in Europe. I cannot speak for continental Europe, but here in the UK socialism is like a small church with a dwindling congregation. There may be some earnest discussion among believers during the coffee morning, but the church roof is leaking and, with the grassroots gone, there is neither the money nor the expertise to fix it.
In fact, if it wasn't for its virulent atheism, British socialism would probably look like the Church of England, also mired in unfashionability and irrelevance.
As it is, both of them can walk hand in hand into the sunset together. Considering that they both sprang from the same root, it would perhaps be a fitting end.
And as conservatism is also a tired ideology preaching in an equally empty and drafty chapel, then maybe they can make it a threesome.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
The rule of law
"The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public
opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are
carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the
country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there
will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is
sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to
protect them. The decline in the desire for individual liberty has not been so
sharp as I would have predicted six years ago, when the war was starting, but
still there has been a decline. The notion that certain opinions cannot safely
be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who
confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open
rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and
injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of
freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries
who are being prosecuted."
George Orwell, 1945, 'Freedom of the Park'.
George Orwell, 1945, 'Freedom of the Park'.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Moral Socialism
As Orwell has implied in the quote I posted before, the concept of Socialism, as a moral good, has more to do with religion than politics.
Indeed, these days politics has more to do with religion than politics. This is possibly due to the decline of Christianity in the West. People turn to something else to believe in, and believe in fervently. Hence politics becoming more fundamentalist and less debatable.
The first political Socialists were Protestant Christians in the English Civil War. The first communists were the Anabaptists in Germany in 1534.
The dream of a classless society, of an end to scarcity, of justice for all, is the same as the dream of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana. It is a profoundly human dream that has been with us since the beginning of history - we are social animals who wish to rise forever from the pain of nature's limits and social strife.
Paradoxically, within that dream of a classless society is the dream of the collective, of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the bonding with other humans that, as social creatures, we crave. Bonding requires more than friendship. It requires 'being', a sense of being in a group, like a baby in a womb.
Which brings us to Nationalism. Again, like Socialism (and all the other 'isms') it is a moral, rather than political force. It arouses the passions and inspires sacrifice and martyrdom, among other things.
Clausewitz said that war is politics in another form.
Politics is religion in another form. It all stems from the passions. Reason is used in its arguments, but it is not reason that inspires rallies and demonstrations, and it is not reason that holds a political or religious group together as a band of believers.
Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by primal urges, and that Reason was just the clothing used to cover our naked passions when out in public.
He was right.
Indeed, these days politics has more to do with religion than politics. This is possibly due to the decline of Christianity in the West. People turn to something else to believe in, and believe in fervently. Hence politics becoming more fundamentalist and less debatable.
The first political Socialists were Protestant Christians in the English Civil War. The first communists were the Anabaptists in Germany in 1534.
The dream of a classless society, of an end to scarcity, of justice for all, is the same as the dream of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana. It is a profoundly human dream that has been with us since the beginning of history - we are social animals who wish to rise forever from the pain of nature's limits and social strife.
Paradoxically, within that dream of a classless society is the dream of the collective, of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the bonding with other humans that, as social creatures, we crave. Bonding requires more than friendship. It requires 'being', a sense of being in a group, like a baby in a womb.
Which brings us to Nationalism. Again, like Socialism (and all the other 'isms') it is a moral, rather than political force. It arouses the passions and inspires sacrifice and martyrdom, among other things.
Clausewitz said that war is politics in another form.
Politics is religion in another form. It all stems from the passions. Reason is used in its arguments, but it is not reason that inspires rallies and demonstrations, and it is not reason that holds a political or religious group together as a band of believers.
Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by primal urges, and that Reason was just the clothing used to cover our naked passions when out in public.
He was right.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Socialism
"Some apologists try to excuse Marxism by saying that it has "never had a
chance". This is far from the truth. Marxism and the Marxist parties have had
dozens of chances. In Russia, a Marxist party took power. Within a short time
it abandoned Socialism; if not in words, at any rate in the effect of its
actions. In most European nations there were during the last months of the
first world war and the years immediately thereafter, social crises which left
a wide-open door for the Marxist parties: without exception they proved unable
to take and hold power. In a large number of countries–Germany, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, Austria, England, Australia, New Zealand, Spain,
France–the reformist Marxist parties have administered the governments,
and have uniformly failed to introduce Socialism or make any genuine step
towards Socialism.... These parties have, in practice, at every historical
test–and there have been many–either failed Socialism or abandoned
it. This is the fact which neither the bitterest foe nor the most ardent friend
of Socialism can erase. This fact does not, as some think, prove anything about
the moral quality of the Socialist ideal. But it does constitute unblinkable
evidence that, whatever its moral quality, Socialism is not going to come."
George Orwell, 'James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution'.
George Orwell, 'James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution'.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
How equal? How radical?
It shouldn't surprise me, but it does. This excerpt from the Education Secretary Michael Gove's speech to Brighton College does make me wonder what has happened to the working classes, who flooded into public life after WW2. They've even been kicked out of their own institutions by the upper middle classes, who then claim to speak on their behalf.
It's not just the Socialist Worker's Party that's a sham then.
Excerpt:
"It is remarkable how many of the positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated.
Around the Cabinet table – a majority – including myself – were privately educated.
Around the Shadow Cabinet table the Deputy Leader, the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Business Secretary, the Shadow Olympics Secretary, the Shadow Welsh Secretary and the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development were all educated at independent schools.
On the bench of our supreme court, in the precincts of the bar, in our medical schools and university science faculties, at the helm of FTSE 100 companies
and in the boardrooms of our banks, independent schools are – how can I best put this – handsomely represented.
You might hear some argue that these peaks have been scaled by older alumni of our great independent schools – and things have changed for younger generations.
But I fear that is not so.
Take sport – where by definition the biggest names are in their teens, twenties and thirties.
As Ed Smith, the Tonbridge-educated former England player, and current Times journalist, points out in his wonderful new book “Luck”:
Twenty-five years ago, of the 13 players who represented England on a tour of Pakistan, only one had been to a private school. In contrast, over two thirds of the current team are privately educated. You’re 20 times more likely to go on and play for England if you go to private school rather than state school.
The composition of the England rugby union team and the British Olympic team reveal the same trend.
Of those members of England’s first 15 born in England, more than half were privately educated.
And again, half the UK’s gold medallists at the last Olympics were privately educated, compared with seven per cent of the population.
It’s not just in sport that the new young stars all have old school ties.
It’s in Hollywood, Broadway and on our TV screens.
Hugh Laurie, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Redmayne – all old Etonians.
One almost feels sorry for Benedict Cumberbatch – a lowly Harrovian – and Dan Stevens – heir to Downton Abbey and old boy of Tonbridge – is practically a street urchin in comparison.
If acting is increasingly a stage for public school talent one might have thought that at least comedy or music would be an alternative platform for outsiders.
But then –
Armando Iannucci, David Baddiel, Michael McIntyre, Jack Whitehall, Miles Jupp, Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller and Mitchell from Mitchell and Webb were all privately educated.
2010’s Mercury Music Prize was a battle between privately educated Laura Marling and privately-educated Marcus Mumford.
And from Chris Martin of Coldplay to Tom Chaplin of Keane – popular music is populated by public school boys.
Indeed when Keane were playing last Sunday on the Andrew Marr show everyone in that studio – the band, the presenter and the other guests – Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, Radio 3 Presenter Clemency Burton-Hill and Sarah Sands, editor of the London Evening Standard - were all privately educated.
Indeed it’s in the media that the public school stranglehold is strongest.
The Chairman of the BBC and its Director-General are public school boys.
And it’s not just the Evening Standard which has a privately-educated editor.
My old paper The Times is edited by an old boy of St Pauls and its sister paper the Sunday Times by an old Bedfordian.
The new editor of the Mail on Sunday is an old Etonian, the editor of the Financial Times is an old Alleynian and the editor of the Guardian is an Old Cranleighan.
Indeed the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last 60 years…
But then many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated.
George Monbiot of the Guardian was at Stowe, Seumas Milne of the Guardian was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all --Laurie Penny of the Independent – was educated here at Brighton College."
It's not just the Socialist Worker's Party that's a sham then.
Excerpt:
"It is remarkable how many of the positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated.
Around the Cabinet table – a majority – including myself – were privately educated.
Around the Shadow Cabinet table the Deputy Leader, the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Business Secretary, the Shadow Olympics Secretary, the Shadow Welsh Secretary and the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development were all educated at independent schools.
On the bench of our supreme court, in the precincts of the bar, in our medical schools and university science faculties, at the helm of FTSE 100 companies
and in the boardrooms of our banks, independent schools are – how can I best put this – handsomely represented.
You might hear some argue that these peaks have been scaled by older alumni of our great independent schools – and things have changed for younger generations.
But I fear that is not so.
Take sport – where by definition the biggest names are in their teens, twenties and thirties.
As Ed Smith, the Tonbridge-educated former England player, and current Times journalist, points out in his wonderful new book “Luck”:
Twenty-five years ago, of the 13 players who represented England on a tour of Pakistan, only one had been to a private school. In contrast, over two thirds of the current team are privately educated. You’re 20 times more likely to go on and play for England if you go to private school rather than state school.
The composition of the England rugby union team and the British Olympic team reveal the same trend.
Of those members of England’s first 15 born in England, more than half were privately educated.
And again, half the UK’s gold medallists at the last Olympics were privately educated, compared with seven per cent of the population.
It’s not just in sport that the new young stars all have old school ties.
It’s in Hollywood, Broadway and on our TV screens.
Hugh Laurie, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Redmayne – all old Etonians.
One almost feels sorry for Benedict Cumberbatch – a lowly Harrovian – and Dan Stevens – heir to Downton Abbey and old boy of Tonbridge – is practically a street urchin in comparison.
If acting is increasingly a stage for public school talent one might have thought that at least comedy or music would be an alternative platform for outsiders.
But then –
Armando Iannucci, David Baddiel, Michael McIntyre, Jack Whitehall, Miles Jupp, Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller and Mitchell from Mitchell and Webb were all privately educated.
2010’s Mercury Music Prize was a battle between privately educated Laura Marling and privately-educated Marcus Mumford.
And from Chris Martin of Coldplay to Tom Chaplin of Keane – popular music is populated by public school boys.
Indeed when Keane were playing last Sunday on the Andrew Marr show everyone in that studio – the band, the presenter and the other guests – Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, Radio 3 Presenter Clemency Burton-Hill and Sarah Sands, editor of the London Evening Standard - were all privately educated.
Indeed it’s in the media that the public school stranglehold is strongest.
The Chairman of the BBC and its Director-General are public school boys.
And it’s not just the Evening Standard which has a privately-educated editor.
My old paper The Times is edited by an old boy of St Pauls and its sister paper the Sunday Times by an old Bedfordian.
The new editor of the Mail on Sunday is an old Etonian, the editor of the Financial Times is an old Alleynian and the editor of the Guardian is an Old Cranleighan.
Indeed the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last 60 years…
But then many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated.
George Monbiot of the Guardian was at Stowe, Seumas Milne of the Guardian was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all --Laurie Penny of the Independent – was educated here at Brighton College."
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
This State is mine
"Everyone, atheists, Christian conservatives, feminists, Islamists, even,
yes, many gays and lesbians, seems to want to remake society in their
own image, without regard for anyone elses thoughts or beliefs. We think
only of ourselves and our own little groups. A little consideration
for the other people we share this country with would go a long way."
Comment on American Conservative by Geoff Guth.
Comment on American Conservative by Geoff Guth.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Moral Relativism
I confess that I had some trouble understanding this concept at first. It's not a term used often in UK political debates, though it crops up frequently in US debates in the 'culture wars', usually as an attack on the left, from the right wing of politics, and especially the 'religious right'.
As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.
This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.
In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.
The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.
Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.
They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.
The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.
As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.
This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.
In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.
The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.
Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.
They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.
The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)