Mediaboss Marketing

I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive. These were Labour leader Keir Starmers words in May 2024 shortly after his first speech of the election campaign. Labours constitution defines it as a democratic socialist party. So, in theory, Starmer is a socialist.

But what is socialism? One concept of socialism characterises it as being about collective ownership in pursuit of the public good, over private ownership for profit.

Some see a commitment to economic equality as what distinguishes socialism from other ideologies. Others specify co-operation and community reigning over individualism as defining socialism. Or, socialism can be seen as a movement for, or of, the working class.

Whichever it is, democratic socialism is about building a society beyond capitalism.

The day after Starmer proclaimed himself a socialist, his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves was asked about his statement and responded that she was a social democrat. Social democracy is about socialism, but within capitalism rather than beyond it.

Reeves definition of social democracy in terms of equal opportunities, good public services, and secure work that pays (very much in tune with Starmers platform) does not go as far as socialism within capitalism. Others across the political spectrum could agree with the values she outlined.

Starmer was active in socialist politics in his youth. But we should decide where he stands by what he says and does now. Labours purges of socialists in the party have led some to conclude that Starmer wants rid of those who might try to hold him to socialist principles.

What do Starmers statements of values and principles tell us? In 2020 he argued for moral socialism, so an approach that is based on values as much as structures.

He highlighted injustice especially, but also inequality. Theres a left-of-centre or even socialist tone to the moral socialism he advocated then. But was he just trying to win over Corbynite members for his party leadership bid?

In a 2021 pamphlet on his philosophy as leader Starmer shifted to values of security and opportunity, which he has since continued to put centre stage. He said class holds people back, stressed community over individualism, and active government over the free market.

You dont have to be a socialist to believe in security and opportunity. However, class inequality, community, and active government have left-of-centre or socialist connotations.

But the proof of a philosophy is in the practice. Labour will set up Great British Energy, a publicly owned company to invest in renewables. Starmer says he will bring passenger train services in-house, and facilitate municipal insourcing and ownership, and more co-ops.

These are small steps to more collective ownership in the economy and public services. But social ownership could be much more widespread, especially given public support for it, including for the energy utilities, water supply and the Royal Mail.

Starmer talks about the tackling the class ceiling for working class people and about inequality, especially in policies (or intentions) on education and the new deal for working people. But the emphasis is on equal or minimum opportunities for all rather than a more economically equal society.

He will fund policies by clamping down on tax breaks for the privileged and a windfall tax on energy utilities. But significant redistributional changes to the tax structure, on income or wealth, arent proposed.

Starmer expresses sentiments of community and co-operation over individualism. But these tend to be used in relation to policies on security, devolution, localities, a more active state, or partnership with business, rather than institutions of a more specifically socialist sort.

In fact, Starmers perspective on community has metamorphosed into advocacy of a contribution society. This is used to mean varying things, such as that people and business should contribute rather than being individualistic, and that their contribution should be rewarded decently. This is about responsibility and reward as much as community in a socialist sense.

If socialism on the definitions Ive outlined isnt being proposed by Starmer, it could be that hes redefining socialism for modern Britain. If this involves new means for pursuing socialism, hes not propounding this.

If its redefining socialism as something beyond collective ownership, equality, and co-operation, thats not rethinking socialism for a new era. Its dropping what makes socialism distinctive.

If it involves a more intersectional socialism, Starmer is proposing measures on race equality and violence against women, but these match his self-description as progressive more than being socialist.

Starmer could be putting forward limited policies for the general election, only to then come out as more leftist in office. Active government could be extended to wider social ownership; opportunities for the working class expanded to a more equal structure to society, a foundation also for greater community. Starmer is not advocating such a route. But down it, he could just have a case for calling himself a socialist.

Read this article:
Is Keir Starmer a socialist? - The Conversation Indonesia

Photo: IMAGO / Frank Sorge

As you pass Schneberg on the Ring, the Gasometer towers above you. This round 78-metre-tall steel skeleton once held coal gas, and is currently being converted into an office building. The Gasometer marks the entrance to a sectioned-off neighbourhood known as the Rote Insel, or Red Island just like the Argonath, the enormous twin statues at the gates of Gondor.

This triangular part of Schneberg, marked by the S-Bahn stations Schneberg, Sdkreuz and Gleisdreieck, is called an island because it is completely cut off from the rest of the district by the train tracks enclosing it. All the way back in 1838, the Berlin-Potsdam rail line (todays S1) was built through empty fields next to what was then the village of Schneberg. In 1841, the Berlin-Anhalt line (todays S2 and S25) opened a few hundred metres to the east, creating a wedge shape. When the first part of the Ringbahn was built in 1871, the triangle was enclosed. At the time, no one but a few farmers took notice, who must have cursed when they had to cross train tracks to reach their fields.

The only way in or out involved bridges or tunnels across the tracks

As Schneberg grew explosively during the Grnderzeit era in the late 19th century from less than 5,000 people in 1871 to over 60,000 before the end of the century this cheap farmland on the wrong side of the tracks was snatched up to build cheap housing. The narrow blocks were filled with tenements, and by 1905, 30,000 people were crammed together on what became known as the Island. The only way in or out then as now involved bridges or tunnels across the tracks. To get a feeling for just how crowded it once was, today some 10,000 live in more or less the same buildings.

But why is the Island red? Thats less obvious. One theory goes back to 1878: after the 81-year-old Kaiser Wilhelm I survived an attempt on his life during an open-carriage ride along Unter den Linden, a beer distributor on Sedanstrae (todays Leberstrae) hung a red flag from his window, defying the new Anti-Socialist-Laws. This man was sent into exile, but he established the neighbourhoods reputation for redness. The Island was indeed a socialist stronghold not as red as proletarian districts like Moabit, Wedding or Neuklln, but red by the standards of otherwise bourgeois, liberal Schneberg. In 1903, some 70% of the Islands residents voted for the SPD.

But red might refer to something much more literal. At the end of the 19th century, the red-bricked barracks of General-Pape-Strae were built just across the tracks, east of the Island, where the military had enormous parade grounds. These buildings housed, among other things, the Prussian Railway Regiments who built tracks for transporting troops and weapons. Those railways proved their value in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, in World War I and in colonial expeditions in Namibia, then Deutsch Sdwest-Afrika. This was also the site of early military experiments with airships. The Railway Regiments were dissolved in 1919, but many of their buildings still stand, and have been used for a mishmash of small businesses since.

After the soldiers left, the Island was rocked by new forms of fighting. In the early 1930s, Sedanstrae was full of red flags, while just one block over, Naumannstrae was dominated by swastikas: a contrast that would soon make the neighbourhood red in another way entirely.

On September 6, 1929, up to 100 uniformed Nazis burst into a bar on Sedanstrae, demolishing the furniture and injuring numerous customers. This was no isolated incident; Nazis often violently attacked Communists as part of a strategy of tension, creating tumult on the streets and then telling the ruling class that theyd help them quell the violence. Local bartender Emil Potratzs Kneipe was the main Communist hangout on the Island. After the riot, a dozen or so Nazis were arrested, some with illegal firearms, but not one was convicted. Weimar Germanys justice system was blind in its right eye, so workers felt compelled to make their own justice. In the 10 days after the attack, 14 Nazis were injured on the Red Island.

The Nazis needed extreme measures to pacify the Red Island

The NSDAP could never establish much of a stronghold on the Island; the train tracks made it into something of a fortress. Even after the Nazis had seized power in 1933, a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Nazi paramilitary force, was shot and killed on Torgauer Strae, right past a bridge to enter the neighbourhood. For a dozen years, the red Sedanstrae was officially named after that Nazi, before it was renamed Leberstrae.

The most famous daughter of the Red Island, honoured by two different historical plaques, is Marlene Dietrich, who was born in the building that is todays Leberstrae 65 and later left Nazi Germany, becoming a US citizen in 1939 and renouncing her German citizenship. Asked whether she would return to her Heimat after 1945, the actress famously answered, Germany? Never again!

The Nazis needed extreme measures to pacify the Red Island. The SA set up a concentration camp in one of the red-brick buildings of the Papestrae barracks, just across the tracks. Hundreds of people were imprisoned and tortured there in early 1933. After the war, many people claimed they had no idea about the Nazis crimes, but the prison was and is surrounded by apartments. Since 2011, the basement has been a public memorial, the SA-Gefngnis Papestrae.

Just across the tracks, at Naumannstrae 78, the expressionist poet Paul Zech was trying to write down what he was experiencing in the first months of the Nazi dictatorship. Zech wrote what he called a factual novel, looking at how different social layers on the Red Island adapted to fascism, or tried to resist. He wrote the first part of his novel at home but soon fled to Argentina, where he finished his tome, for which he never found a publisher. Rediscovered in an archive, Zechs Deutschland, dein Tnzer ist der Tod (Germany, your dancer is death) was finally published in 1981 in East Germany.

After many of the old Communists had been imprisoned or killed, a new resident of the Island took up the antifascist struggle. Julius Leber, once a Social Democratic leader in Lbeck, had spent several years in prison. After he was released in 1937, he took over a coal depot on Torgauer Strae, next to the train tracks. While delivering coal all over Berlin, Leber also held secret meetings with leaders of different resistance groups. His shack was a real conspirators den, in the words of Theodor Heuss, later the Federal President.

Leber, now the namesake of one of the bridges leading out of the Red Island, coordinated with both Communists and the aristocratic officers who tried to assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. A Nazi judge denounced him as the Lenin of the German workers movement, and Leber was executed in early 1945. Lebers wife, Annelore, kept the coal business running after the war while publishing books about the resistance. A version of the shack is still standing and is supposed to become a memorial soon.

The Red Island was almost destroyed twice. The first attempt was made by architect Albert Speer, Hitlers general building inspector tasked with creating the World Capital Germania. Speer envisioned a massive road, the so-called North-South Axis, for military parades, lined with monumental government buildings. The southern end would be marked by the worlds largest triumphal arch.

To test if it was possible to build such a colossus on Berlins sandy ground, the Nazis put up a concrete cylinder: the Schwerbelastungskrper, or Heavy Load-Bearing Body. Speers engineers began the work of demolishing the neighbourhood, starting by moving graves at the Old St. Matthew Cemetery at the north end of the Red Island. Fortunately, they didnt get very far. Today, the cemetery is the resting place of the Brothers Grimm, the punk rocker Rio Reiser and the Afro-German poet May Ayim.

The Red Island was almost destroyed twice

After the war, post-fascist city planners continued with some of Speers ideas, hoping to build a six-lane highway from Schneberg to Moabit. The Sdtangente (Southern Tangential Road) would have cut right through the Island. But in 1974, young socialists started organising to save the Cheruskerpark, and after several decades, the plans for an inner-city Autobahn were abandoned. A freeway crossing to nowhere, the Autobahnkreuz Schneberg, is all that remains.

The most famous monument to the Red Island today is actually outside the neighbourhood. Go through the tunnel at S-Bahnhof Yorckstrae to Mansteinstrae, and youll see a graffiti-coloured apartment building also known as Rote Insel. This was occupied in early 1981 the first squat in Schneberg and has been used by leftists ever since. Standing next to fancy new apartment buildings, its a reminder that the Red Island, Berlins only fortified Kiez, has always been very different from its surroundings.

See the original post:
Assassinations, socialism and conspirators dens: Inside Berlins Rote Insel - The Berliner

Socialist Equality Party general election candidate Tom Scripps spoke at a hustings on Monday evening in Londons Holborn and St Pancras constituency. Scripps is challenging Labour leader and warmonger Sir Keir Starmer in the seat.

The hustings was organised by the Camden Abu Dis Friendship Association (CADFA) at the Caf Palestina. CADFAs mission is to promote awareness about the human rights situation inPalestine. It was established after 2003 when a group in Camden made links with people in Abu Dis, a town in the Jerusalem suburb.

All 12 candidates were invited to the hustings. The genocide defender Starmer predictably chose not to attend. But in an affront to the basic democratic right to allow the electorate to hear different political views, none of the candidates of the other main parliamentary parties, or several standing as Independents, participated.

Scripps therefore debated Andrew Feinstein, a former African National Congress MP and campaigner against corruption and the arms trade. Feinstein is standing as an Independent but is a supporter of the Collective group formed last month by supporters of former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, which bases itself on the five demands of Corbyns Peace and Justice Project: a pay rise for all, green new deal with public ownership, housing for all, tax the rich to save the NHS and welcome refugees in a world free from war.

Describing the bloodbath of the Palestinians, Scripps explained, This is a genocide; it is a second Nakba.

The fascist Israeli governments intention is to turn Gaza into a military-run wastelandand they are using massacres, extrajudicial murder, torture, forced removals, starvation. Netanyahu and the IDF also seek the dispossession and removal of as many Palestinians in the West Bank as possible, under conditions of a permanent and barbaric occupationin alliance with far-right settlers.

Scripps warned of a regional war, with plans for a major assault on Lebanon and also against Iraq and Syriaultimately targeting Iran

All of this is backed to the hilt by the imperialist powers, with the UK government in the front rank, who are ruling against the will of their populations who they are slandering as antisemites and threatening with arrest and imprisonment for using their democratic rights to oppose war crimes.

Scripps explained the connection between the war of extermination in Gaza and NATOs war against Russia, stating that the involvement of the imperialist powers is closely bound up with the spiral towards a world conflict between the imperialist camp led by the US and its chief rivals, Russia and China, to which Iran is a stepping stone.

He said of the mass opposition to war which had erupted in response to the genocide in Gaza that what was a required was a reckoning with the leadership of the protests, who are leading them into a dead end of moral appeals to the government and the Labour Party. This avoids the necessary total break with Labour, including the so-called left flank of the Labour Party, which is out now campaigning for a Starmer victory.

These forces seek to create either a protest vote, as a pressure tool, or at best a sort of lobby group in parliament which will act as Labours conscience.

Much of this is summed up in the figure of Jeremy Corbyn, whose retreats before the antisemitism slanders of his supporters and before the Blairite warmongers paved the way for the Zionist slander campaign now being mounted against millions of protesters

Were standing to fight for a different, socialist strategyone that is based on mobilising the international working class in a struggle against war and the imperialist powers.

Whereas Scripps identified himself with the SEP and a revolutionary socialist programme, Feinstein put himself forward always as an individual crusader for social justice, against racism, and in defence of the Palestinians. He stressed his opposition to apartheid in South Africa but did not identify with his groups call for a new Corbynite party. His was a commitment to the people of Camden and an opposition to parties telling said people what to do.

Scripps insisted that Trotskys theory of Permanent Revolution was the essential theoretical and programmatic basis for ending the oppression of the Palestinians, as part of the struggle for world socialism and the overthrow of capitalism.

He warned that NATO is speaking repeatedly about its readiness to use nuclear weapons. Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, just gave an interview today to the Telegraph talking about how more missiles were being brought out of storage and being prepared for use.

There are fundamental interests at stake for these powers in the conflict with Russia, which they encouraged, which they provoked, which they want. Because they want to use it as a way of grinding down the Putin governmentwhich we oppose entirely from a socialist standpointas a way of collapsing the Russian Federation and ensuring a very lucrative process of regime change. Thats essential for what they see as the fundamental conflict of this eraand they use these termswhich is the conflict between US imperialism and China.

The SEP was standing against Starmer to use this as a platform to raise the alarm, to raise these questions among politically concerned individuals like yourselves and say, youve got to start taking your stand on these major questions and world issues.

Feinsteins response to Scripps exposition of the crisis of the capitalist system as the source of war, and Trotskyism as the only perspective offering the working class a viable revolutionary perspective, was to descend into sophistry:

Tom and I, while we probably have certain theoretical and analytical differences, certain slightly different opinions about certain individuals, the role of the trade unions and their functioning over the recent times, where I think were probably very close to each other is that we see the root of all of these problems is the transnational system. Of late neo-liberal capitalism and the imperialism that is the inevitable accompaniment of that.

So Im not going to go into that sort of theoretical and analytical base. Simply to say that I do feel the only way that were going to reform our politics is by fundamental structural change to the nature and functioning of our society and our politics.

What this translates to is that Feinstein supports Corbyns bankrupt programme of minimal reforms, defends the trade union bureaucracy, and is opposed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and division of the world into rival nation states, which twice plunged the world into a catastrophe in the 20th centuryand threatens to do so again.

This was confirmed in the opposed responses of Scripps and Feinstein to a member of the audience who asked for a practical strategy and ways forward given the situation were likely to be in in three weeks time of a Starmer-led Labour government.

Feinstein kept his reply largely to the confines of Camden and said that if elected he would be accountable to the local electorate.

Scripps urged the building of a revolutionary party. He explained that Corbyns refusal to fight the Blairites played out in how the antisemitism campaign witch-hunt was allowed to run right through the Labour Party, played out in retreats made by Corbyn and the leadership over the Trident weapon system, membership of NATO, and by the order to Labour councils to impose austerity measures The antisemitism witch-hunt is an example of what happens when you do not stand on principles and wage a political fight against your opponents.

The issue facing millions was not a lack of determination to fight but that workers dont have their own socialist party. He noted of the strike wave that erupted in Britain in 2022-23, That shows there is a sentiment for a fight in the British working class, but these strikes were betrayed by the trade union bureaucracya downpayment on the part of the trade union leaderships for the partnership they would like to run with a Starmer Labour government.

There have to be rank-and-file organisations formed in neighbourhoods to oppose austerity measures and the cutting of services, in workplaces to organise strike activity, not just nationally, but internationally, because we confront transnational organisations, to prevent this continuous erosion of living standards. A working class movement had to be built to oppose genocide in Gaza and the danger of regional wars and a world at war

What is the thread that ties all of that together? It is a revolutionary party. A genuinely socialist party.

You have to have educated and engaged workers and young people. In every sphere of life, you can wage a fight for a clear and common world programme that is resolutely anti-imperialist, so that the working class can take on and overthrow these absolute criminals.

You can follow and support the Socialist Equality Partys campaign at socialism2024.org.uk

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Here is the original post:
Socialist Equality Party candidate Tom Scripps speaks at London hustings - WSWS

LABOUR's plot for a 20-year rule must be stopped or Britain risks a generation of socialism, the Tories have warned.

Cabinet Minister Mark Harper this morning insisted Labour wants to manipulate the electoral system in their favour.

2

2

He urged voters not to "get it wrong" in this election.

It is the latest of a series of warnings over the prospect of Sir Keir Starmer enjoying "unchecked" power if the polls prove to be right on July 4.

The Tories argue Labour could stay in power for two decades if the party sweeps to a "supermajority" fuelled by Tory voters turning to Nigel Farage's Reform Party.

On the same day Reform launched its manifesto, a Tory spokesman said: Labour are already planning to lower the voting age to 16, and we can expect votes for migrants, EU citizens and prisoners to follow.

So a vote for Reform wont mean five years of Labour, it would mean a generation. If youre thinking about voting for Reform, and a generation under Labour scares you, theres only one way to prevent it - vote Conservative.

Reiterating the comments today, Mr Harper told Times Radio: There are people out there who have serious concerns about what a Labour government will do, about how they will tax working people up and down the country and, of course, how if we get a Labour government they could be there for a very long time.

Watch The Sun's DAILY Never Mind the Ballots Election Countdown show on our YouTube channelhere.

Every weekday Sun Political EditorHarry Colebrings you the latest news and analysis from the election campaign trail.

Because of course they will change the voting system, they will make sure that they give votes to 16-year-olds, they have talked about giving votes to foreign nationals, to EU nationals We could end up with a Labour government for 20 years if we get this wrong at this general election.

That is why we are out there fighting for every single vote right up to polling day.

Sir Keir has pledged to give voting rights to 16-year-olds but has ruled out extending the franchise to EU nationals and foreign nationals.

The Tories also claimed Labour would scrap inheritance tax exemptions for farmers who wanted to pass their land onto their children, warning that this could put Britains food security in danger.

They also attacked Labours position on council tax after two Shadow Cabinet Ministers contradicted themselves on it.

Jonathan Ashworth told Sky News that were not doing council tax re-banding" but later Darren Jones, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said the party had no plan to change council tax rates.

Labour slammed the Tory claims as a hysterical, desperate attempt from a Conservative campaign in chaos to distract from holes in their tax cut plans.

By Ryan Sabey, Deputy Political Editor

Labour winning a 'super majority' at the election is giving the Tory party nightmares.

Sir Keir Starmer could be heading back to the Commons with a majority of 416 seats if a one-weekend poll is to be believed.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps says he fears there could be a real lack of accountability from other parties if they are destroyed.

The Tories have described this as a "blank cheque" approach which would allow Labour to pass whatever legislation they want.

Polling has shown the Tories could win less than 100 seats and this could mean they won't be an effective opposition.

There could not be enough people to fill all the shadow positions for the next Tory leader.

Miriam Cates says Labour may even create "constitutional vandalism" by being given such a majority.

She fears a new Labour government would take even more power out of the hands of Westminster and give it to technocrats and the civil service if given the chance.

The talk of a super majority also speaks to another predicament the Tories find themselves in.

Concern is growing within Tory circles that they will receive an almighty hiding from the electorate on July 4.

Look at how the language has changed in recent weeks.

Rishi Sunak told The Sun at the start of the campaign that he was eyeing up an election win and England would win the Euros.

That now seems like a pipedream.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has been touring the TV and radio stations this morning telling voters not to hand Sir Keir Starmer a "blank cheque".

He told the public that Labour shouldn't be given "unchecked" power especially when their plans are vague.

He put on a brave face telling Times Radio saying there was still "everything to fight for".

The seats both parties have been visiting tell their own story.

On Monday, I visited Horsham in West Sussex, which has a 21,000 Tory majority.

Sir Keir Starmer has visited Monmouthshire which features way down the list of Labour target seats.

For Labour are on the attack and for the Tories, it appears to be a damage limitation exercise.

Read the original:
UK risks generation of socialism if you vote Reform, Tories say as they warn Labour will change rules to... - The US Sun

As I write, Labour seems set for electoral victory and yet its professed policies and publicity are so anodyne as to have us wondering whether its next government will be socialist or embrace social democracy. Possibly Starmer and Reeves are unsure practical governance being dependent on the size of its majority. They have been wise enough not to reveal much of their political souls and their core instincts, if they have any. So, it may be revealing to review what their Spads will have been reading recently.

The grumpy grandpa of American politics wrote a book last year which proved to be a bestseller and still features prominently on display in the remaining bookshops we have left. No doubt Bernie Sanders will be happy that the free market has yielded him voluminous sales, albeit aided by the odd Guardian interview. Its title, Its OK to be Angry about Capitalism:, tells you all you need to know that wealth is stacked disproportionately in the coffers of the few, that the alleviation of undefined poverty requires redistribution of wealth, that common assets such as water and land justify common ownership, for equity, and that all this presents problems that are historically compounding and urgent. It presents a world of unfair and pre-revolutionary economics, and is essentially a simplistic summary of Thomas Pikettys dense, turgid, intellectual nonsense, concluding theoretically without evidence that the world will create more wealth if it curbs free market capitalism.

He wants increased taxes on companies that use automation and robotics to cut costs and employment. That would only displace innovation and manufacturing elsewhere, compounding the problem it attempts to delay. Worries about technology are understandable but economic history has repeatedly taught us that when industries decline and/or evolve in the face of technological advance, employment opportunities also evolve. The wonderful efficiency of the free market means that it sorts this change out quicker and less painfully than could any government.

There is an issue on which I find myself agreeing with Uncle Bernie that lack of local news can cause people to overuse social media and lead them to fake news and conspiracy theories. His prescription is, of course, grants for local media. Notwithstanding that tax breaks are usually more benign than tax handouts, lowering inefficient distortions in economic behaviour and reducing fraud, I am not sure that this would work anyway. Obtaining news from social media is not going to be prevented. Better to regulate its publication than subsidise its failing participants.

Socialism, like its ugly big sister Communism, is a failed ideology

Senator Sanders, like our own Magic Grandpa, Jeremy Corbyn, is an old fashioned socialist. Just as when ones undergraduate offspring surprise you with some newly learnt certainties about politics and culture, you listen and wonder whether they have actually thought it through. Socialism, like its ugly big sister Communism, is a failed ideology. There have been something like 80 socialist governments in democracies since the 1920s and every one has left power with weaker economies than before. For me, that is failure. To a socialist that may be the wrong criteria, of course. Success may be measured by the distribution, by progress to the mirage of equality as an endpoint, (or equity like economic justice, something which sounds benign but is in practice brutal). Thing is, such principles transposed into policies rarely deliver the services that a nation and its communities need and often weaken them completely. The nearest thing we have ever had to pure socialism in Britain is the NHS, a federal bureaucratic behemoth that consistently delivers mediocre healthcare outcomes.

Less cuddly in terms of popularity, but just as old and opinionated is the economist Joseph Stiglitz. His latest is The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society (very witty, as opposed to Friedmans Road to Serfdom), and seeks to reclaim the concept of freedom for liberals and progressives, claiming it is more complex and nuanced than how most of the Right understand it. We follow the arguments of a cleverer mind here, but I doubt whether, if liberals start to use freedom, we would actually be allowed some.

Stiglitz rails against American gun ownership, which is fine. The US is a very strange country in that regard, with widespread freedom of gun ownership leading to restrictions in daily life for everyone else. Conversely, I suppose it is like our fox hunting prohibitions. I have no wish to hunt but dont see why there should be a law preventing people doing so but that is me thinking about freedom in the old way. Stiglitz argues that the state should define what is good for us in terms of freedom by cost benefit analysis, whereby restrictions on individual behaviour are weighed against the greater freedom of overall societal benefit, such as better healthcare outcomes or an increasing GDP. He is no socialist as an economist he understands that it does not work but he is a thinker who has moved to the Left over time and this may prove to be more influential than if he was spouting the usual tax-the-rich and curb-the-corporations argument. He wants to redirect freedom from being an individual right to one that can be weaponized by government to justify its interventions.

If you must read economics from a left-wing perspective, the only truly great thinker was the late David Graeber Keynes was a centrist and he was an anthropologist best on history, not analysis. His Debt: The First 5,000 Years is amazingly insightful. (Debt is money. Money is debt. Metal is money and might be debt. Debts are units of trust and, therefore, so is money).

I can think of only two successful peacetime governments, Attlees and Thatchers

There are less damaging alternatives to socialism for those who are centre left: Social or Christian Democracy, the Third Way of Blair and Clinton. Liberalism has been the most successful because it is the most adaptable and permeable. Freedom used to be a concept beloved by Liberals in the C19th and Stiglitz is likely to find eager ears amongst them to reclaim the word. Electorally the Liberal Partys performance since the rise of Labour has been lamentable, but ambitious liberals became Tory Wets or formed Labours right and have effectively ruled the country continually since the Suez Crisis, Thatcher apart. When party activists complain that their senior MPs are not properly Conservative or socialist, they are largely right. With a First Past the Post electoral system that encourages two large parties it is inevitable that they are both umbrella coalitions and so liberals rise to the foreground and govern us. This does not guarantee effective government, of course. For that, a government needs to define its aims and timescales in a handful of points and be unswerving in delivering them. The constant buffeting of national affairs and media pressure, as well as the enthusiasm or not of the civil service, means it is easy to be distracted.

I can think of only two successful peacetime governments, Attlees and Thatchers. They imposed their personalities and policies upon the machinery of administration and were ideologically inspired. The rest was well meaning muddle, often damaging and partly corrected later. Our likely fate in the next Parliament is more muddle, with demands for more tax from those who cant contemplate cutting state spending and most of everyone else trying to deceive you as to what freedom means.

More:
Its OK to be angry about socialism | Johnny Leavesley - The Critic