The problem of Bread

I have just finished reading "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin. He is an important author in the anarchist/communist reading library, and so I was interested to read what he had to say. However, this book has clarified to me one of the core problems of an anarchist/communist revolution, as he desires. At the core, it is the fundamental failure of the communist ideal, but adding in the anarchist beliefs, and so insisting on no rule, no control, simply exacerbates this problem.

The problem is that it relies on people behaving in the right way. At one point he talks about expropriation of all property, and inviting everyone to take a property that they need rather than the hovel they already have. To the question of "surely everyone will want the biggest and best property", his answer is to trust to the good will of everyone to take only something that they need.

There are a number of ways of addressing this and exploring why it is a mistaken belief - why people are clearly not fundamentally good and altruistic. He draws examples to illustrate his belief from the altruistic behaviour of people when there is a crisis or accident, and I would not wish to dismiss these cases, these situations, or to ignore the core goodness that these show. However, these are different situations - communities do often work together to help everyone in a crisis. We do care for our neighbours, because we all live in a community (however large or small). I know that in our road of 6 houses, we will look out for each other, assist if necessary, be prepared to go out of our way to be neighbourly.

However, the Christian message is very clear that we are not at a core level good. This is not a question of Original Sin, which is a doctrine I have real problems with - it is the Christian understanding that we are all "sinners", we all fail, at some level and some point, to live up to our own ideals, never mind Gods.

This means that, if it were to come to a property grab, we would not be lovely and altruistic. If it was about enabling an individual who was homeless to find a properly, we would support that. If it is about what we can get, we would tend to go for the best we can achieve. We are selfish at some level, and would want to get the best we can - maybe on the basis the someone has to, and we would use the space for something good and wholesome, maybe we would justify our greed, but we would still be greedy. That is part of the human condition.

But it is not just the Christian message that tells us this is a flawed approach. The core problem that the communist writings explores is that some people earn money form other peoples work - they are fundamentally greedy or lazy, wanting the riches but not wanting to do the work to make it happen. There is an underlying assumption to this that it is a certain class of people who are like this, wanting something for nothing, whereas the good honest workers, who are oppressed by this system, just want a decent days pay for a decent days work. This idea occurs in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists too, and other works expounding radical left-wing politics.

The truth is, as we can see quite clearly from those who have raised themselves into positions of power and wealth, that this is not just a few who are avaristic. It is all of us who, given the chance, would tend to grab more and more. And, as these writings make clear, if some people take more, this is always at the expense of others. In a global economy, we may delight at being able to get school uniforms for £5, while ignoring the fact that this almost certainly means slave labour has been used to produce them. Somewhere in the world, people suffer for our advantage.

That is why I cannot support that approach to reform - the communist/anarchist approach. That is why I temper my anarchism, and why I am a socialist, not a communist. In the end, I don't believe this approach would work, because it is failing to take a realistic attitude to human failings. It is idealistic, and assumes that everyone could be won over to the ideals, not just the results.

Change is needed. But change has to be realistic, not idealistic. That is a real problem, a real challenge to any political philosophy. Otherwise all that happens is that a different groups of selfish, power-hungry people obtain the power.

Wither socialism?

I have just finished reading a couple of the classic texts on socialism - The ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressel and The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell. What struck me about these - worrying - is how contemporary these descriptions and assessments are.

So Tressel points out that those in work are still in a state of poverty, that simply being in work does not lift them out from this state (contra what George Osborne is constantly saying).

His workers are also on zero-hours contracts - when there is work, they get paid, when there isn't, they don't. He raises the challenges that this makes to their situation, in particular, that when they are working, they are usually paying their debts from when they weren't, meaning any attempts to climb out of poverty is thwarted.

The discussion of how the management insist of skimping on work to save money (that is, to increase the profit the management are making on it) is very familiar.

The comments about how the working people would rather vote for and support the status quo, despite the fact that it oppresses them, rather than change, because they are deliberately uneducated, and the fear-mongers do their work, reflect very strongly why right-wing and fascist groups often do well (UKIP, for example).

The question or challenge is, against this background, how can political groups that genuinely represent socialist attitudes can get some traction?

One route is the way the Labour party has taken, which is to abandon most socialist principles in order to keep votes and obtain power. That is not a route that I consider reasonable or viable, because it dilutes the core principles.

It does seem that, as with the Philanthropists, the workers - however you want to define them - are aspirational, and so will support the conservative political groups, because they hope to improve their lot, become more affluent, and they don't want to damage the class that they aspire to be in.

The problem is that socialism has a bad rep. At the more radical end, the groups who are communist in essence have a real issue, because the essence of a communist approach (according to The Communist Manifesto) is the nationalisation of property. For people in the UK, where property owning is a very important part of our culture, this is not something that we will accept readily. This is not a political objection, a problem with this approach from idealism, it is a cultural issue.

In the UK, we have a distinct cultural approach to life. We are passionate about our island nation, and maintaining the distinction we have - sometimes amounting to racism, but often simply national pride. We also have a tradition of "a mans house is his castle" - the idea, very deeply rooted in our psyche, that there is some piece of land that is for us and our family. However we claim the place, this is important, which can be shown from the tendency for people to make their properties different, distinct, personal.

But a cultural rejection of communism does not mean that socialism cannot win ground. It does mean that it is far harder. However, we are, I believe, also a generous, caring and supportative people. If you move into any rural community, you will find a natural distrust of strangers. However, for those who have been for a time, these communities will help, support and care for their own. In essence, this is the core of socialism.

So I want to leave with a question - how can socialism be re-inspired, re-enabled in the UK? Maybe the answer is a more localised form of socialism - it is also a cultural facet that we don't trust other people to look after us, especially if they are all the way down in London. Maybe the answer is education?

The worry is that, if we don't restore a socialist political force in the country, we will end up in the same situation shown in Philanthropists and Wigan Pier, where the choices are between two conservative parties, there is no voice for change. Because change is something we need, in a country that is suffering and struggling.

Stop using "socialist" and "left wing" as an insult

Maybe it is just me, but it seems that some people like to use these terms as insults. Actually, they do something worse than this - they use these terms to correctly associate the political perspective that raises certain ideas, but do this in a sneering way, as if being a socialist was something you would only admit to under duress.

I had written the idea for this before Tony Benn died, but he was someone who epitomised what actually being a thinking, committed socialist was about. It is not something to be ashamed of, but a political position that has at least as much credibility as any other. You may not have agreed with Tony, but nobody would say he was anything other than a very committed left-wing thinker. He expounded his views with politeness and consideration.

But I have heard too many people who use these terms to represent weakness, soppy libertarianism, pandering to the weak and the lazy, a push over for a sob story. Of course this is not who we want to be, we want to be on the side of the strong, the powerful, the influential, the important.

Like Jesus?

The thing is, it is far too easy to argue that Jesus conformed to your particular political position. In truth, he was not a socialist, because the term had not been invented then. But he did care for the underprivileged, the poor, the weak, those who society - often religious society - had abandoned. He was all for the downtrodden, the oppressed, those who society wanted nothing to do with. He did also associate with those who were rich and wealthy, but he would also challenge and confront them. He associated with the downtrodden, but also confronted and challenged them.

Now there are some people on the left wing of politics who are weak, pathetic push overs for sob stories. There are also those on the right wing of politics who are weak, pathetic push overs for money and influence. That does not make either of them right or wrong.

The think is, using these terms in a derogatory way demeans you. I would identify as a socialist, but that is not all about me, and I would not necessarily consider myself a good socialist. I am sure that others would also consider me a bad socialist.

Is it time for a wage spread law?

I would like to propose something that seems perfectly reasonable, but will be resisted by the "captains of industry" as much as the idea that people should not have to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week was 150 years ago.

The idea is that, in any company, the maximum wage paid to anyone should be no more than 50 times the minimum wage paid to anyone. Of course, this is not my original idea, but I want to explore it a little more - it was prompted by an article I saw proposing a "maximum wage" akin to the minimum wage. I am not convinced that approach is one that would work ( although I might be wrong, and it is an alternative route to go down).

Fifty times - lets be clear what this means: by the end of the first week of the year, the highest paid person will have earned the lowest paid persons entire annual income. Actually, I would rather the multiplier was closer to twenty times, but we can start on fifty. For some that is radical enough.

Of course, this is not just "salary" earnings. The top level should be "all income from the company", including bonuses, share options, and even expenses. The earners in the company should include outsourced staff - cleaners, maintenence staff, everyone who is regularly involved in the running of the company.

I would concede that some people may be on part-time rates, and so they can be pro-rata calculated, but anyone on a zero hours contract, with no guaranteed hours is considered to be earning nothing. I would give some leeway for apprenticeship schemes, where the low income is countered by training and a qualification, as long as that could be financially quantified.

So this would not put a cap on salaries or bonuses. If the bankers want to get their million pound bonuses, on top of their million pound salaries, that is not a problem, as long as the absolute minimum paid to anyone in the bank is £40K. If you want your chief executive to be paid £10M, fine - just ensure that your cleaners, security staff and receptionists are paid £200K. Which is only fair, because they too have contributed to the success of the company that justifies the CEO salary.

I should point out that this was originally thought through before Bob Crow died this week, but I am posting this with a nod to him, as it seems to reflect some of his beliefs.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The title is a simple expression of Marxist ideology - not all of it by a very long way. It is also a concept challenged in Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged", which I have just finished reading, and which provides some interesting challenges. It is worth a read, if you are interested, but at 1200 pages long, this blog post may be all you need.

Rands approach is "objectivism", which, in the terms of economics, is "from each as he will give, to each as he earns" - that if you invent stuff, or create stuff, you deserve to make lots of money from it. She is also very opposed to regulation and restriction of practice, on the grounds that a free and fair competition gives the best opportunity for creative and imaginative minds to make a difference, and make something of themselves.

Before you think that these are trivial pieces of economic theory, the Marxist approach has been tried and failed in communist states - most especially China. And Rands approach is an important underpinning of Western capitalism, especially American. And that is in the process of failing as well.

The problem, I think, is that both of these approaches are flawed. I would like to explore why.

"From each according to his ability" - actually, properly understood, this is a very good principle. Each person should be enabled to perform to his - or her - ability. But this does not mean, as Rand suggests, that the most able just have to work harder. It does mean that those with greater ability should work in more challenging environments, because they will flourish there. It is about fitting people into the right places.

Rand is correct that, if you just make more able people work harder, then you are punishing ability. That is not what this should mean. Ability should not be punished, but rewarded. That is the key. And - to an extent - that reward needs to be financial.

"To each according to their need" - this is also a good principle, sort of. I would alter this, that to each is partly according to what they give, to their ability, to what they are able to achieve. This means that people should receive according to what they contribute, as a starting point, meaning that nurses and teachers would be paid reasonably, but people who simply juggle money would be paid less. And I would probably be paid less than I am, which is life.

But additionally, people should be able to have their basic needs met, which is what this is really about. It is not, as Rand suggested, about providing for peoples wants, or for what they can argue that they "need". It is about providing some basic needs - somewhere to live, something to eat and drink. We would probably include health care too. The important thing is that this is NEEDS, not WANTS. So much of our system is about providing something more than basic needs, which is not a bad thing in itself, but that is something over and above basic requirements.

This basic should be somewhere to live, not necessarily in the places they want or as large as they may desire, enough food for their family to live on properly, and a little spare money. And, of course, it must be worth while to get a job, and work needs to be taken into account. We far too often confuse needs and wants - it is not unreasonable to provide for peoples wants too, but we shouldn't confuse needs and wants.

The principle "from each ... to each ..." is actually not a bad one, as long as it is properly understood. The danger of Rands approach is that it fails to do what it claims, because people are not altruistic by their nature, and it depends on them being so. If they are not, but are greedy, then it will fail. As we are seeing.

If you don't believe that it fails, then watch the Leverson enquiry. That should convince you if nothing else does.