Issue 178 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published September 1994 Copyright © Socialist Review
TALK |
BACK |
A regular column
|
contributed by our readers |
There is a great vogue at the moment in the Labour Party for something called 'ethical socialism', or Blair's answer to Karl Marx. This consists essentially of one idea: be nice to people.
Being 'nice to people' involves a warm fellowship between the master and his menial, a businesslike devotion to competitiveness and strict avoidance of dirty words like 'tax'.
The problem is that while it shelters behind 'be nice to people' Labour genuinely wants to do things.
John Prescott genuinely wants to see full employment; Beckett and Blair really do want to cut crime and improve education. Yet Labour has lost the capacity to ameliorate the ills of society because it has lost the argument on social property. Instead of fighting for something recognisably socialist, the Labour Party has lurched right with the government.
Acceptance of the Conservative paradigm means that Labour will be unable to deal with pressing problems even when it does come to power. Take unemployment, an integral component of modern capitalism. The role of unemployment in driving down conditions and forcing up profits is well understood on the left. Added to this, however, is the fact that joblessness is created by the private exploitation of technology. This means that overall job levels stagnate even as productivity rises. While Labour's leaders know the money markets will not allow them to pursue Keynesian style reflation, their alternative 'supply side' support for private technology will merely lead to further rationalisation and a highly educated dole queue. In fact as production is made ever more efficient through mechanisation and computerisation, the rate of skilled job creation must fall per unit of economic growth.
If 'Be Nice to People' isn't going to work then it is the responsibility of socialists to present a scheme that will. Such a scheme must be based on the concept of social property. Much of what I have to say is not original, and will appear to some to be hopelessly utopian. My conviction is that it is perfectly feasible, and is imprisoned only by the paralysing ideology of the free market. Socialists should argue forcefully in favour of the vast improvements made possible by technological innovation. However, it should be maintained that change can only be handled humanely within a system of social ownership, a system entailing the equal distribution of the fruits of technological advance.
Social ownership need not be exercised solely through the medium of the state: units of production could be held in common at the most efficient level of management. So all citizens of communities, regions, states and international federations could participate in a graduated economic democracy.
In an egalitarian society unemployment could be solved by a redefinition of work. Work could come to be valued as any activity which improves the quality of social life. Men and women would be free to develop their natural creative impulses: indeed they would have a duty to work to the best of their ability. Incentives springing from greed and the fear of shortage would be replaced by a dedication to the collective good; competition would be superseded by cooperation, and sustainable development ensured by flexible planning.
Such a society would by no means be perfect, but it offers a glimpse of what we could be fighting for--something slightly better than 'be nice to people'.
Joseph Bord
There has been much talk in the music press and elsewhere over the past couple of years about the 'return of politics to the musical stage'--an alleged revival of rebellion in popular and rock music. The music press point to artists such as Rage Against The Machine, Credit To The Nation and others.
While the bands and songwriters around at the moment who are overtly political and anti-fascist must be welcomed and praised, this point of view appears to me to have a couple of things wrong with it.
First of all, it appears to proclaim that politics in popular music is something new and unprecedented. Any musical history would tell a different story.
Many accept there is a long tradition of rebellion in music, but declare (particularly music journalists) that the new batch of rock rebels are somehow much more sophisticated, skilled and less 'sloganeering' or 'dogmatic' than their forerunners in the 1980s. One music journalist pointed to the Redskins' lyric, 'The boss don't like the Union, 'cos the Union makes the worker strong', as weak and sloganeering--as if this is any less valid than 'Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me'.
The point must also be made that it is in some ways easier to be a political band nowadays, especially when two years ago everyone was agreeing with Arthur Scargill. In 1984 and 1985, when the miners were pilloried, it was much harder for lefty bands. This was displayed in the attitude of the music press towards artists like the Redskins, Billy Bragg or the Style Council. The music press briefly flirted with all these three examples, but when the chips were down they ditched them and criticised them for the very radicalism/preachiness which nowadays (in many cases) is seen to be a virtue.
One more point. The political songs of Credit To The Nation/Chumbawamba must be praised--but it is a pity that they often appear to spend more time criticising fellow workers in the music industry (ie other bands) than they do the political figures which deserve it. This is not to ignore that there is much wrong within the music industry which needs to be attacked--exploitation, manipulation, pretentiousness, propagation of reactionary ideas--but there is a difference between taking the piss out of super-groups and record company bosses and taking the piss out of working musicians such as the Rebel MC or East 17 (even if these have faults/views worth criticising) for earning a working wage. One revealing question as to the political commitment of artists is, 'How involved do they try to become in their union?' however difficult that can be.
In 1984 Chumbawamba threw red paint over the recently reformed Clash. A more class conscious activity was to be seen in the people who threw paint over Michael Heseltine.
Paul Jenkins
If you have an article you would tike to contribute to TalkBack write to Socialist Review, FD Box 82, London E3 3LH, it should be no more than 800 words and if possible typed and double spaced