Values-based ideology: Socialism

In 1945 the population of Britain suprised the whole world by deposing Winston Churchill and implanting Clement Atlee and his Labour administation into power. Someone might very reasonably ask how this could have happened. Hadn't Churchill, after all, been the nation's saviour?

What actually happened in 1945 wasn't a rejection of Winston Churchill. It was, however, confirmation that a new scale of values was much more universally approved of than at any previous time.

People were, quite understandably, exausted. Britain had spent the previous six years fighting the Nazis, and the people inevitably bore the consequences of this intense conflict. What they ushered in, on the conclusion of the war, was not merely a radically-reformist socialist government but a new wave of values; universalism, brotherly love and solidarity and a rejection, at least for the time being, of rugged individualism and laissez-faire economics.

The theme of this 'pamplet' is that every age has a need, and particular values to meet those needs. I submit that the socialist construction of Britain in the mid to late 1940s was a reflection of people's desire for a new identity and a new stability, and that there was much to admire in that project. We retain, after all, many of the foundations that were laid in 1945; the NHS and our comprehensive system of welfare and social security are the two major ones.

Admittedly, in this author's opinion, the march of socialism went too far in its aspirations and attempted too much to be realistic or practical. It was for Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives to restore the balance, in the 1980s, but this is not to do away with the progressive features of the revolution of the 1940s.

Preface to 'A values-based look at political ideology'

Abstract

In the realm of political thought, the ideological ‘big three’, conservatism, liberalism and socialism, all contain value systems that are rooted in Biblical ideas.

These value systems cannot be reduced to a single doctrine or creed, but pertain to the consciousness and feelings of the individual.

These value systems, rather than being contradictory, are complementary, and their difference mainly lies in emphasis. These ‘value systems’, which they will be referred to, as opposed to the more conventional ‘ideology’, attract varying degrees of importance depending on the needs of the age.

Background

My fascination with ideas began when I was introduced to Karl Marx as a school student. On learning about the bearded German and his radical solutions for healing our world, I obtained a copy of The Communist Manifesto, which was no doubt partly responsible for my later desire to study Politics at university.

On entering higher education, I considered myself a conservative, grateful to Margaret Thatcher for restoring the United Kingdom to economic individualism, and hostile to socialists who I considered at the time incessant moaners. Needless to say, this state of things did not remain, and I became more open to the influence of socialist thought and its potential merits. I was not only to go through a whole series of political sympathies, but I eventually returned, much to the dismay of former political allies, to the roots of conservative thought.

My overarching feeling, however, was not that Tories were right and socialists were wrong, nor that there is any real merit in such classifications as ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’ or ‘socialist’, but that what was important was the idealism and sincerity with which ones political faith was practised. If that sounds vague and unclear, I hope that my meaning will be elaborated in the chapters that follow.

Motives misunderstood

I felt that that the people I knew of different political beliefs misunderstood one another. A few examples will illustrate my point. The way socialism is often talked about, for instance.

You would sometimes think that the primary objective of the socialist movement was the creation of a faceless, tax-guzzling state machine, inexorably devouring more and more individual liberty and personal expression. It does not take a socialist to understand that this has never been the objective of anyone, except perhaps a dictator or an eccentric who happens to believe that more government buildings and regulations make for a pleasant state of affairs.

Liberals have also been unjustly defamed. The way some conservatives speak of a coherent ‘PC movement’ or a liberal bias in the media fails to appreciate the basic motivations of self-proclaimed ‘liberals’. In respect of political correctness, there are valid criticisms to be made of certain linguistic dogmas. But there is a fundamental failure to recognise that what drives the so-called ‘PC Lefty’ is not pedantry or cold intellectualism, but universalism and tolerance, the highest of liberal motives, and a disgust for the outmoded racial and gender slurs of the past.

My final example is of the disservice done to the ‘forces of conservatism’, as the Right Honourable Tony Blair put it. Conservatism might well be the most heavily criticised of the ‘big three’. A common view of Conservatism, particularly of its ‘Thatcherite’ manifestation, is that Conservatism, or Thatcherism, is nothing more than an ideological veil for selfishness, acquisitiveness, and callousness in respect of the vulnerable. If that was seriously the case, then it would not bode well that this particularly nasty variant won three or four, depending on your point of view, election victories.

What is to be done?

This pamphlet calls for a dialogue between the forces of the ‘Left’ and ‘Right’; for an end to political and intellectual sectarianism, and for a renewed debate over issues of substance. When we draw back from the intensity and bitterness of human rivalry, we have human beings with ideals – ideals, in my opinion, which all hold validity. Put simply, this pamphlet will try to emphasis the need for us to appreciate one another more.

Traditional values?

We here much of so-called 'traditional values'. What does that much-used phrase denote exactly? Is it of any use, or should we consign it to the 'ash-heap of history'? Is it of any relevance today, in a modern age, or is it only something connected to the 'golden age' phenomenon?

I have thought about this problem and suggest a possible conclusion. But firstly, it is important to explain what I understand 'tradition' to mean.

I understand traditional values to mean respect, but not deference. Respect for oneself and respect for others. Respect for human institutions that have stood the test of time and provide for a solid social foundation. God. The individual. The human family, both the nuclear and mankind generally.

And where did I get this answer from? In truth, I have just written my understanding of the meaning of traditional values. I have used no external sources.

But why are they important?

They are important because they provide the basis on which society is governed and give people a compass in an age of rapid technological change. But they don't in themselves provide this basis. They provide the basis on the grounds that they are rooted, in my understanding, on Christian logic, which of course all links up to God, the source of all comfort and home.

Having spent three years at a university relatively well known for its radical politics, I have encountered many people who have a passionate desire to heal the world. The motivation was pure and the heart unspotted from the world, but when based on the structural, rather than the individual and personal, the desire to implement change cannot ultimately yield fruit. But it is possibly a plug for seeing the good that is already in the world.

I feel that incorporating 'traditional values', as I understand them, is really a way of incorporating spiritual values. Advocating traditional values is never about harbouring a desire to return to a mythical golden age - I simply cannot answer the question of whether life and society were any more decent in the past nor would it be appropriate for me to do so - and that that argument essentially doesn't matter.

If the values are worthwhile and are commonly agreed upon as a progressive force, then are they not a model to follow, regardless of historical reality?