Anthony Painter

The Sky News Labour leadership debate has provoked broader discussion about ‘socialism.’ It was taken up by Newsnight last night with Tony Benn and the New Statesman’s Mehdi Hasan. Tony Benn wanted to define socialism as ‘democracy’ but let’s put that to one side as it clearly can’t be defined in that way. The outcomes of democracy are not determined; they are open. Mehdi Hasan’s contention was that none of the leadership candidates were really socialists. He was right. They are not but Ed Miliband has come closest to meaningful definition of socialism in this leadership contest. In a recent New Statesman interview he said:

“I’m happy to be defined as a socialist. My socialism is about being willing to critique the injustices of capitalism.”

He said a similar thing in the Sky News Debate and there is definitely a hint on a meaningful socialism in that answer. But then he goes on to say:

“We’re not about to replace it, but there are different forms of capitalism we can have . . . My socialism is not about a blueprint for the perfect society, but it is about saying we can have a more equal, just and fair society.”

For me, this means that he is not a socialist and nor are any of the candidates for the Labour leadership.

Now I could spend my time mining lots of socialist texts and come up with all sort of definitions but I have other things to do today. So let me say what I believe to be the essential elements.

Firstly, socialism *is* a means. It is not simply an end. So those in the manner of Crosland through a sleight of hand define it as a set of values or principles then say any means can used to get there as long as you get there are tricking you. Means and ends are tied and socialism is the only means to a just end in the eyes of a socialist. Which leads us on to capitalism…

Secondly, socialism is against capitalism. It is an alternative economic and social system. It is a replacement. Early social democrats (who were socialists) saw a reformist route to this alternative. Marxists just want to get the job done and done properly. And there are lots of other variants. Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive (definitional note: markets and capitalism are not inter-changeable concepts though markets are intrinsic to capitalism!) Crosland realised this and tried to get around it by arguing that real capitalism no longer existed in any meaningful sense. Modern Labour candidates generally try to pretend this conflict doesn’t exist- if it doesn’t then socialism is meaningless.

And finally, socialists believe in some substantive version of equality (and by extension, the elimination of class and status distinctions) as a route to freedom. This is not legal equality or equality of opportunity or less inequality. It is equality pure and simple- material, social, political. For the socialist equality and liberty are pretty much the same thing.

If you do not believe that socialism is the only means to a just world, that it is an alternative to capitalism, and that there is only freedom with actual equality then you are not a socialist.

Where I did agree with Tony Benn was with his contention that the Labour party was never a socialist party. It was a social democratic party with a state socialist clause (IV.4) in its constitution until 1994 (“to secure for the worker…) The new clause IV (1) claims that Labour is a democratic socialist party. It’s not. It’s a social democratic party:

“It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect”

That does not fulfil any of the three criteria I set out above. I’m not even sure that it’s really social democracy other than in sentiment and tone- there are not many people across the political spectrum who would disagree with the (very long) sentence. In fact, what in it would Margaret Thatcher have disagreed with? She fell short most definitely (!) but there’s not one element of that Clause IV (1) with which she would disagree other than expression and tone. So democratic socialism it ain’t.

So why this silly game that any candidate that stands for a Labour election has to go through the rite of passage of defining themselves as a Socialist only to define it in a way that proves they are not? It is an attempt to save the word while removing from it any meaning (as the new Clause IV(1) shows.)

Ed Miliband is alone in understanding that socialism is an alternative to capitalism. But like the other candidates- and the Labour party itself- he’s no socialist. Remember, even Tony Blair was a social-ist.