Looking at Equality
In World War Two we saw Britain adopt an extensively planned economy and society. The State took control of many aspects of life. No-one of any intelligence thought that it would be possible to fight a total war on any other basis. It was a success, indeed there is evidence that Britain did much better in organising the state control of resources than Germany, with its supposed social regimentation. So Britain survived. Nutrition for all improved and full employment - even if attended by considerable risk of injury or death - contributed to greater social harmony. Many thought this was clear proof that the planned, socialist society would be an improvement on the unplanned chaos of Capitalism. But, of course, the War had presented one quantifiable and clearly overriding goal: Victory. All other ends were subordinate to this end and no private interests could be allowed to get in the way of the state-controlled collective social effort required to win the war.
The supposed point of free market Capitalism is that eveyone has different goals and that, in theory, the unplanned free-for-all allows people to choose their own priorities. Whether they can realize them of course is another matter. And here a well-known fable of Capitalism comes into popular culture: the fairy tale of visionary entrepeneurship: that anyone can achieve their goals through hard work and self sacrifice and failure to do so is a mark of moral failure.
Instead of military victory, Socialism had equality as its goal. It looked at the evils of Capitalism and thought that the way to remedy them involved ensuring all people were made equal. It mistook equality before the law to mean equality of outcome. Such a goal is not only impossible to achieve, it is not widely considered to be desirable, even by those it is supposed to help. Inequality is not a cause, it is a symptom. Inequality does not cause the gap between bourgeoise and proletariat, it is the result.
So it is inevitable that any attempt to achieve equality of result will require repression - the equivalent of martial law in wartime. Does this mean we abandon Socialism?
While there is good evidence that people (rich and poor) living in more unequal societies are less happy than those living in a more equal one, we need to redefine the goal of Socialism as the opportunity for happiness (yes, I know Bertrand Russell argued against ths, I am sure he was wrong). The difference is that Socialism requires that this is for all, not just the wealthy, the well-parented, the sharp witted and the lucky.
The supposed point of free market Capitalism is that eveyone has different goals and that, in theory, the unplanned free-for-all allows people to choose their own priorities. Whether they can realize them of course is another matter. And here a well-known fable of Capitalism comes into popular culture: the fairy tale of visionary entrepeneurship: that anyone can achieve their goals through hard work and self sacrifice and failure to do so is a mark of moral failure.
Instead of military victory, Socialism had equality as its goal. It looked at the evils of Capitalism and thought that the way to remedy them involved ensuring all people were made equal. It mistook equality before the law to mean equality of outcome. Such a goal is not only impossible to achieve, it is not widely considered to be desirable, even by those it is supposed to help. Inequality is not a cause, it is a symptom. Inequality does not cause the gap between bourgeoise and proletariat, it is the result.
So it is inevitable that any attempt to achieve equality of result will require repression - the equivalent of martial law in wartime. Does this mean we abandon Socialism?
While there is good evidence that people (rich and poor) living in more unequal societies are less happy than those living in a more equal one, we need to redefine the goal of Socialism as the opportunity for happiness (yes, I know Bertrand Russell argued against ths, I am sure he was wrong). The difference is that Socialism requires that this is for all, not just the wealthy, the well-parented, the sharp witted and the lucky.