Carruchan

Amongst other steps that I am taking to escape the echo chamber of my own opinions, I have recently been listening to some episodes of the CapX podcast.  I am prompted to respond to a recent edition (4Oct2019) featuring a debate at the Conservative Party Conference under the title, The Case for Conservatism.  This turned out to be something of an echo chamber in its own right, but was a provocation to me, as it offered a range of widely disseminated distortions, if not downright untruths, as regards the case for what I will call progressive politics.  To be blunt, I thought the case for conservatism was poorly made and the case for socialism misunderstood and misrepresented.  

Rory Stewart Meets Dominic Cummings

As I drafted this response, Parliament finally agreed on December 12th as the date for a general election. Although this essay was not originally conceived as a contribution to the election campaign, it now acquires that character despite not focussing on policy or the Prime Minister’s call to “Get Brexit done”. 

That estimable conservative, and now former member of the Tory Party, Rory Stewart, told a story when he featured in a recent edition of the Talking Politics podcast (30Oct2019).  He spoke of the only occasion he has met  with Dominic Cummings when, at the time of his leadership campaign, they went out for a Dim Sum in China Town, over which meal Cummings advised him that a winning formula could be boiled down to just three points: “Get Brexit done, defeat Jeremy Corbyn, and unite the country”. It was not long after this that Stewart  heard this mantra repeated back to him, first by Sajid Javid, and then by other leadership contenders, and of course, Boris Johnson.

Having failed to achieve the first of these three objectives by 31st October, as he so confidently asserted he would, Boris Johnson has regrouped and raised the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn to the top of his list of priorities.  Leaving the question of Brexit aside, his unfolding programme appears to disregard many conservative shibboleths: yet he must rely on the support of the Conservative Party to govern and it is the character of the Conservative Party, as expressed in the Capx discussion, that is the prompt for this essay, though as will become apparent, I digress throughout into a defence against the many attacks on the policies of the left that were also expressed.

Conservatism and Edmund Burke

In the CapX podcast, that great Irish conservative of the late eighteenth century, Edmund Burke, was spoken of with due reverence. Burke’s cautionary approach to constitutional change is easy to defend given what was happening in France at the time he was active.  The French Revolution was never going to appeal to those who were comfortable with the status quo, but it is fair to say that many potential beneficiaries of the Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité supposedly on offer, will have, at the very least, been disappointed by the outcome. The price paid by the aristocracy will naturally have solidified a conservative frame of mind in those of similar status elsewhere in Europe.  

The French Revolution was not socialist in character, but the CapX discussion appeared to move seamlessly to the idea that modern socialism is dangerously revolutionary, inferring a willingness to use violence and to risk all in pursuit of the socialist goal.  It is true of course that many anarchist and socialist theorists of the nineteenth century believed that violent revolution would be a necessity for the overthrow of the old order, but they were writing at a time when democracy was limited and the struggle for universal franchise was in its infancy.

In the United Kingdom throughout the nineteenth century, employment for the working classes was poorly paid,insecure, and often dangerous.  Given that the franchise for most of this period was available only to a privileged minority, it is hardly surprising that revolution seemed an attractive option to many unprepared to tolerate this injustice. 

However, with the extension of the franchise in the late nineteenth century, the Labour Party established its foothold in constitutional politics and has consistently operated within this framework of law. Of course there are some on the left who romanticise revolution and hope for something good to emerge from the overthrow of a despotic regime by a socialist inspired transformation: however, every  serious left wing politician would defend free speech, the rule of law, and above all, democracy as a fundamental expression of our common ownership of the world in which we live. Jeremy Corbyn, according to Daniel Hannan, “regretted the outcome of the cold war.”  Well I daresay he may have regretted that Glasnost and Perestroika did not win the day for Mikhail Gorbachov, but then Margaret Thatcher was something of a cheerleader in that project also, and given the current state of Russia and its malign influence on international politics, do we not all now have some regrets about the outcome of the cold war?

Competition and The Free Market

This leads me to identify a further falsehood in the CapX discussion, which assumes that socialism is ideologically opposed to working within the capitalist system, when in practice the Labour Party and other parties of the left around Europe have struck a balance between state control of key industries and infrastructure and regulation of private enterprise to protect workers and enhance pay and conditions in general.  Indeed it is not widely appreciated that Marx believed that capitalism would have to be fully mature before socialism would become possible. He makes this crystal clear in a short passage from the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy.

No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.

With this passage in mind it is clear that the Soviet and Chinese revolutions were a vain attempt to build  socialism in societies which were in fact pre-industrial.   

Where Marx undoubtedly got things wrong was in his estimation of the “room” in capitalism for the further development of “productive forces”. He did not foresee the series of technological revolutions which the protean forces of capitalism have, with such devastating effect, been able to unleash: however, as Paul Mason argues in his book Post Capitalism: A Guide to the Future there is strong evidence that with the ongoing  development of robot technology, we have moved into the last hurrah of capitalism, which is showing a decreasing ability to provide well paid and secure employment and is therefore unable to spread prosperity,  to all parts of society, despite its unparalleled productive potential.  

Listening to a more recent edition of the CapX Podcast, The Future of Capitalism (25Jan2019)  a discussion which also took place at this years Conservative Party conference,   it is clear that there are concerns at the lack of dynamism in the current incarnation of capitalism, and a readiness to look at the system in a fresh way,  and to listen to a range of not necessarily conservative commentators:  however,  I didn’t hear in this discussion  an analysis or a vision that matches that in Paul Mason’s book. 

Returning to the discussion featured in The Case for Conservatism, I should like to pick up a number of other misconceptions that were clearly assumed to be a reasonable description of left wing or socialist thinking.  Let’s start with free markets. It is clear that socialists see a need for regulation of markets, but that is not the same as an outright rejection. Even in a post-capitalist society, one can see that there may be a place for free markets to manage production and distribution of goods and services in some cases.  On the left, however, there is no ideological commitment to markets and, by contrast, an openness to the possibility that other methods of production and distribution may emerge under a socialist dispensation. 

Freedom and Equality

A second misconception, often repeated by conservatives, concerns the idea of equality.  It was suggested unquestioningly by the CapX panel that the effect or perhaps even the  objective of socialism was to make everyone equal in the sense that everyone would be the same — a vision perhaps best exemplified by those huge rallies held in a previous incarnation of the Chinese revolution, where thousands of people dressed identically in Mao suits would dutifully turn out to laud the Chairman’s latest oration. 

No democratic socialist wishes for a society of clones.  Equality of opportunity such that each person can achieve their individual destiny is, however, an idea of great importance.       What is envisioned in a socialist world is opportunity for all citizens to progress beyond the frantic pursuit of the necessities of life and to engage socially and culturally, each according to their character and disposition.  This implies the development of much greater individuality, consistent with a freedom from the demands of mere survival:  engagement with the natural world, community activism and volunteering, enquiry and the acquisition of knowledge, the cultivation of mindfulness and better health, participation in sports and in the arts in all their forms.  Oddly enough, I believe many of the great conservatives would have understood this: Churchill after all, painted, built walls, appreciated fine champagne and, needless to say, had a love of language. The conservative vision, however, sees these higher pursuits as being largely for an elite, whereas the socialist vision is founded on a belief in the untapped potential in all of us.  

Free market capitalism by contrast, to a large extent, fetishizes trivial choices, and drives the  world towards a cultural homogeneity — I note that Daniel Hannan in his spirited defence of the UK Union was pleased to observe that, across the Kingdom: “we dress similarly, we shop at the same chains.”   Hmm … I rest my case.  

Inheritance Tax

A further central value in conservatism is, according to the discussion, the importance of being able to pass something on to your children, this being a justification for the reduction, or even elimination, of inheritance tax, clearly much hated by the wealthy.  

Socialists too, hope to leave something for their children, but seek to achieve this by creating a society which can deliver for everyone the essentials of good quality housing, education, health care, social infrastructure and the rest …  Needless to say, inherited wealth is the enemy of this objective and particularly so in the question of equal opportunity. Naturally there should be some level of protection for aspects of property which have sentimental or historical importance to an individual or a family, but wealth passed untaxed down the generations is a recipe for an unequal society. 

Indeed, the conservative vision with regard to social mobility  is a limited one: to raise up a few from the working classes by means of scholarships and grammar schools.  The socialist vision is that the lives of the working class are universally enriched both culturally and materially.   

I would add a further point to my critique of inherited wealth;  though it did not particularly feature in the CapX discussion, conservatism in general advocates that hard work should be rewarded: yet, where there is inherited wealth, some are rewarded regardless of effort, and others without the good fortune of an inheritance, struggle.  I admire, as much as anyone else, those who, against the odds, do achieve great things; this does not, however, blind me to the reality of many unable to progress in the face of the obstacles which confront them.  

The Nation State

A number of participants stressed the importance of the nation state to conservatives.  Stephen Parkinson for example: “We believe in the nation state” which  “gives us a sense of identity and pride.”    In his aforementioned defence of the union,  Neil Hannan gave classic expression to this idea that we derive pride form nationhood, as he reminded us that we “invented virtually everything worth inventing from parliamentary democracy to golf, from the boy scouts to chocolate bars — we are an extraordinary people stronger together”.  This kind of rhetoric probably plays well with many, but for me it rather misses the point of what is good about being a UK citizen.  I am certainly not a fan of those citizenship tests widely advocated by conservatives for new migrants. Just let them get on with it, I say, and by the time the second generation has matured they will be as distinctively British in their own way as  Grayson Perry or Punk Rock: this plurality of culture is for me what makes this a great nation … sorry, sorry, I am in danger of disappearing down the same rhetorical rabbit hole as Daniel Hannan.  

But let me say something further about Daniel Hannan’s defence of the union speech.  It was truly a grade A school debating society performance but as a defence of the union it was self-congratulatory complacency.  He says for example: “Although England and Scotland have separate and complimentary histories they are nonetheless intermarried and intermingled and alike.”  I prefer, as my previous comments may hint, to value the ways in which we are not alike.  Clearly those who speak received English as their first language may move about the Kingdom armed with their UK Esperanto and probably manage to communicate effortlessly with others of similar social class who may indeed be found in all corners of these islands.  I am reminded, however, of the group of Aberdeen FC supporters, who on one occasion, followed their team to a European game in Brussels. Finding themselves on the second day with little money and in need of sustenance, they determined to cook up a pot of soup at their campsite and made their way to a greengrocers.  One of the more cosmopolitan of their number summoned up enough schoolboy French to enquire: “Parlez vous anglais?”  On receiving a positive reply, he beamed, before stunning the shopkeeper with the phrase. “Braw! See us twa o yir neeps.”    

But Daniel Hannan was unstoppable:  he quoted, with admirable fluency, the philosopher Michael Oakshot: “To be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the super-abundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”  Apart from preference for the “near to the distant”  I can’t help wondering how this fits with Daniel Hannan’s  belief that we must at all costs exit the European Union. 

The answer, of course, is the primacy which, as a conservative, he gives to the nation state.  Association with the European Union is a sullying of the historic sovereignty of the United Kingdom.  My difficulty with this is that in the modern world it ignores the problem of the supra-national world order, an arena in which there is no democracy, where small and poor nations struggle and large nations have been inclined to throw their weight around; then there is the fact that the international domain is a place where business can operate without constraints or regulation. I accept the European Union as a flawed entity;  it is however an important example of how states may pool some of their sovereignty to assist not only with trading relations, but also to address some of the larger problems which face us in this modern world. 

Freedom and the State

Alongside the importance of the  nation state as a source of “identity and pride” the participants in the discussion were consistent in their suspicion of any  state apparatus beyond the bare essentials required for governance and security.  This, of course, is classic conservatism, with the state regarded as an unwelcome intruder placing unwarranted restrictions on the freedom of the individual.  This somewhat paranoid view of the state is clearly a legacy of the Soviet Union and other undemocratic models of communism. Democratic socialists, however, would argue that the state has the potential to create  the space in which our freedoms may be expressed. Of course, I am as irritated as anyone when I hear, for example, that the Health and Safety Executive has banned school children from playing conkers in the playground for fear that they might injure themselves. As it turns out this story, widely reported in the early 2000s, was a myth but even, had it been true, I place my trust in democracy and free speech to shake out this kind of nonsense from the system and to arrive at sensible compromises which protect children, employees and the general public in appropriate ways.  

The Thatcher Legacy and its Impact on our Discourse

Following statements from the main participants in the Capx discussion,  there were questions from the floor and concerns  expressed in relation to “Nastiness based around defining who you don’t like.”  Daniel Hannan amplified this point with reference to those on the left of politics who had thought it acceptable to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher.  These comments reveal a naivety or a selective remembering of the Thatcher legacy.   

Whilst there are clearly many who revere Margaret Thatcher, there are also those  who have experienced her legacy as divisive and destructive. Her public tone rang with patronising insincerity.   A particularly sanctimonious example was her quotation of St Francis of Assisi “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony”. Humbug! Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive UK political leader of any party. 

Margaret Thatcher, as we know, took on the mining industry, which she correctly perceived as a bastion of Labour support. Coal miners were often situated in small communities which typically were tightly knit and proud of their history of struggle for better pay and conditions.  Their work, by any estimation, was difficult and dangerous but had over many years provided a vital energy source for the industry of our country. These mining villages exemplified many of the qualities that Burke prized when he spoke of the “little platoons”  of family and community.  They kept their gardens tidy, formed brass bands, (in Scotland, pipe bands) and educational societies and took care of one another when life was hard. 

Whilst I know that deep-mined coal could not be sustained indefinitely by the UK  tax payer, it is not hard to understand why these communities fought for their survival — a year-long strike is no small undertaking.  Margaret Thatcher is not remembered with affection in such communities and her legacy is a source of anger to many people living in parts of the country which have never really recovered from the damage wrought by her policies. 

We should, of course, admire those who shape their anger into something constructive and should strive for civility in our  public discourse, yet I think there is a place for anger; Jesus Christ did not politely ask the money lenders to exit the temple, he overthrew their tables and drove them out. 

Still, I prefer to think of Hamish Henderson in his First Elegy for the Dead in Cyrenaica,  when he  refers to the words of “Great Glencoe’s  son, that we should not disfigure ourselves with villainy of hatred.”  That I think sets a standard to which we may  aspire; yet when people first start to recognise injustice, and to articulate it, their words are unlikely to ring with generosity towards those they perceive as being responsible. 

The Little Platoons

The importance of family and community were a consistent thread through the  CapX discussion, with  a strong suggestion that socialism is intent on destroying the  “little platoons” that Burke considered fundamental to our society.  Burke’s use of the phrase, “little platoons”  expresses a paternalistic and patronising tone, which I dislike, but the substance of Burke’s ideas on the importance of association at the community level are uncontroversial.  The left has been quicker to acknowledge and accept the fairly organic changes that are occurring within our society, with one parent and diverse family structures widespread and gay relationships given equal status.  Ironically, in their daily lives, Labour MPs give the impression of being a fairly socially conservative bunch and it is our current Prime Minister, who, above all other politicians, most conspicuously disrespects the traditional conventions of family life.  I imagine that both Neil O’Brien and Daniel Hannan are his enthusiastic supporters. 

Fiscal Conservatism

Throughout the CapX discussion there was a lazy  assumption that only the Conservative Party can be trusted with the economy.  It is with tedious regularity that Conservative politicians refer to “the mess that Labour left us” as if the financial crisis had not been international in character, and the Conservative Party had not been complicit with Labour in the failure to regulate banking.  A further, oft repeated charge, is that the Labour Party is now in the hands of “that Marxist” Jeremy Corbyn, as if no further explanation of his unsuitability for government were necessary. 

Marx did indeed shine a light on the economic injustices of capitalism but  he had little to say about the way in which socialists should run an economy.  Maynard Keynes, by contrast, offered an economic theory and policies which enabled Roosevelt to steer the United States economy out of depression by means of his “New Deal”.  Keynes was also influential in financing the British war economy and the very radical programme of the post-war Labour Government, which gave us the NHS and brought key industries into the ownership of the state.    

Keynesian theory  was internationally influential in the post-war period, despite the rejection  of his plan for a global bank at Bretton Woods in 1944, 

The administration of Richard Nixon (1971-73) finally put paid to the regulatory framework of Bretton Woods and released the developed economies onto the stormy seas of neo-liberalism and currency speculation.    As it happens, a huge economic surge was just beginning to gain traction during this period, with the roll-out of new information and computing technologies. As Marriana Mazzucato points out in her book, The Entrepreneurial State  much of this phenomenal new energy and innovation was  built on a foundation of state sponsored research and development.  Even the economic stewardship of a Mr Bean could have ridden out this particular phase of the economic cycle — with the probable outcome that we would now all be economic Beanians, despite the clear legacy of division and inequality that the unfortunate downside of this  barely controlled revolution has spawned in our midst. Conservatives, both in the UK and the USA, have suddenly woken up to “the left behind”  as an electorally potent force but Donald Trump’s presidency does not inspire confidence that there are conservative policies to match conservative promises.

As  previously pointed out in the section on competition and the free market, there is increasing reason to suppose that the neo-liberal economic model can no longer conceal its limitations and so progressive politics are once again looking to Keynes for inspiration, as may be seen, for example in the writing of economist Ann Pettifor and her recent book The Case for the Green New Deal.  This advocacy of Keynsian ideas may be uncomfortable for some on the left of politics, for Keynes was a critic of Marx, moved in the elite cultural circle of the Bloomsbury group and had some decidedly unaccceptable views on race.  It is increasingly clear nevertheless that it is a Keynsian economic model to which the Labour Party is committing itself. It is fair to say that Keynsian theory is a harder sell than the neo-liberal (or Beanian) account which relies on simple homilies and  the appealing notion that national economies are really just a scaled up version of the household budget. More humbug!

Get Brexit Sorted

When I filter out much of the  nonsense in the CapX discussion, I am able to find more common ground than the foregoing arguments might suggest.  The realities of what our different parties actually believe are to some extent obscured by the oppositional nature of our discourse and the tendency to dig in to policy positions which actually represent a resort of temporary convenience, adopted for the purpose of bringing down the enemy. I warmed to the member of the audience who pleaded that we must “try different things, to find what works”: but with the forthcoming election in  mind, I feel it necessary to sound a more combative note, and for this purpose will rework the mantra of that master of the campaign haiku, Dominic Cummings:

Defeat Boris Johnson

Get Brexit sorted

Unite the country.