Social Democrats in the Wilderness

[grumbler]

I think this dichotomy may be unwarranted, for a number of reasons.

First, only because the state is the only or a main customer for some type of good or service does not need to mean there can't be a teeming competitive market for that good or service, especially when the nature of the good or service does not force a natural supplier monopoly. Prisons are an example of this. So is the military armament industry.

The US does not have "a teeming competitive market" for either prison services or military armaments.  Maybe Poland is different, but I doubt it.  My point concerned "little competition" which I think is the case in the US for prisons, fighter planes, tanks, and all sorts of things for which the government is the only buyer.

Second, when the state is purchasing or providing a service, even one that is already being provided by a private actor, it may have different goals or priorities than the private actor. Transport is actually a prime example of this (as is postal service) - the interest of the state is to provide an uninterrupted service on a most complete possible catchment area, whereas the interest of a private provider would be to focus on the most profitable areas and abandon the rest (this is why most states maintain state/community run bus service or postal service - because if it privatized everything, some remote place would not be getting any service at all).

You cannot have my point.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the sense of purpose that you had with earlier parts of this century such as building a New Jerusalem to some extent replaced that

I think a lot of trouble could be saved if those seeking to build a New Jerusalem first took a long look at the Old one.

To return to myself and the left I think the left has always had a moral purpose.  As Harold Wilson said Labour is 'nothing if not a moral crusade'.

But when given a choice, Britons rejected that vision and Labour was forced to remake itself.

The idea of a fair and more equitable society is a powerful one but the simple truth is that it is very difficult to achieve without some kind of directed reallocation of resources.   There are three ways of doing this:

1) Class warfare - convince a majority to enact coercive legislation taking resources from a minority of "haves"

2) Moral appeal - this is what you are talking about - an appeal to abstract justice in an attempt to reconcile the "haves" in surrendering resources in the name of some higher principles.  The question is can this be done - can the "New Socialist Man" be formed or does this just devolve in practice to #1 with some high-sounded rhetoric attached?

3) Appeal to reason - convice the haves that it is in there own interest to surrender some resources in the short run - because if the masses are healthier, better educated, etc. and the nation is served by superior public services and infrastructure, then all boats will be lifted -- including the value of the assets of the"haves" -- i.e. a "trickle up" theory.

To the extent the shift from Old to New Labour involves emphasizing 3 over 1 & 2, it doesn't strike me as such a bad thing.

[Oexmelin]

I don't think you can so easily separate 1, 2 and 3. Government policies, individual actions and social mores always include a mix of appeal to interests, moral imperatives and social coercion. Which is why I think our undermining of moral is undermining the whole fabric of society. That's the "abolitionist" conundrum. Was it more useful to rationally denounce slavery as unproductive, or morally bankrupt ? Historically, the rationalist argument came last, when the moral one was already in force. Likewise, was it more sound to let slavery run its course over 2-3 centuries more before it failed, or was it socially worth the risk to make a moral stand ?

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't think you can so easily separate 1, 2 and 3.

Eu contraire. 1 directly conflicts with 2 and 3.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think you can so easily separate 1, 2 and 3. Government policies, individual actions and social mores always include a mix of appeal to interests, moral imperatives and social coercion.

That is true, and both Old and New Labour have appealed to all 3.  The question is one of emphasis.

Was it more useful to rationally denounce slavery as unproductive, or morally bankrupt ? Historically, the rationalist argument came last, when the moral one was already in force. Likewise, was it more sound to let slavery run its course over 2-3 centuries more before it failed, or was it socially worth the risk to make a moral stand ? 

It is an odd way to ask the question - namely to ask which approach carries the greater utility (is "more useful").  Can a moral approach be justified over a rationalist one, on a the basis of meta-argument about utility? 

As a historical matter - the rationalist argument can be said to have preceded the moral one - slavery and its cousin serfdom largely died out in much of Europe and the northern parts of the Americas because it was no longer a useful or effective method of social organization.  Only after that trend was well established and slavery became the preserve of a few peculiar societies did the moral argument gather force.

I do think that slavery is more obviously a moral wrong than mere economic inequality in the abstract.  And it is also true that rationalist approach quickly reaches its limits in addressing slavery - slaveowners will not be convinced that it is in their interest to surrender slavery without vast compensation, and abolitionists have a hard time convincing non-slaveowners to front the cash to pay such compensation.  That leaves moral suasion and coercion, with the latter typically playing a leading role.

I don't have a huge problem with using coercion to stamp out slavery; but I would have serious concerns about using similar methods to improve the national Gini coefficient.

[Oexmelin]

As a historical matter - the rationalist argument can be said to have preceded the moral one - slavery and its cousin serfdom largely died out in much of Europe and the northern parts of the Americas because it was no longer a useful or effective method of social organization.  Only after that trend was well established and slavery became the preserve of a few peculiar societies did the moral argument gather force.

This is hugely contentious - I was at a conference last week again rehashing the debate without coming to any conclusion... Historians are at pains at trying to find the "ineffectiveness" of slavery in the decades preceeding the abolition movement (more slaves entered Saint-Domingue in the last 20 years of the colony than during the century before), and, of course, ineffectiveness compared to what? To the mechanized fields of cane of Australia in the 20th c. or to salaried manpower of the mid 19th c. ? For slaveholders of the 18th c., there was nothing else that was remotely available for his production. Then, there is the issue of consciousness of it. Were the esoteric calculations of cliometricians available to the slave-holders and abolitionists ?

The "gathering force" argument doesn't hold to the scrutiny of the begining years of the abolitionist movement, except if you take such a large time scale as to make it irrelevant and then, again, if you *do* take the larger time-scale (say, the era of christianity), you are left with utility calculations that are unavailable to historical actors, who simply do not reason in such terms. Unless, again, you hold to universal economic laws that hold true regardless of any time period (and then we are left with irreducible disagreement and faced, again, with a hugely contentious issue).

In any case, the point was simply to address the limits of the rationalist argument in trying to present itself as a amoral, yet total way of building the foundation of society. It would not be necessary to underline the point if the utilitarian argument was not used with such a pretetion by its more vocal adherents - and I do think the "amoralist" crowd are participating in a weak form of it, even if they are unaware.

[Sheilbh]

What was the moral failing?

An orgy of desire fulfilled - as I say I've always blamed 'Main Street' for the Wall Street disaster.  They were a Frankenstein's monster not something entirely divorced from the rest of us.

Incidentally I also think the response has been unpleasant.  I'm very uncomfortable with what's said about bankers now and I think the focus on bonuses, for example, comes from a too easy desire to transform a complex issue that we know happened in 'the banks' into something we can humanise and personalise.  The problem stops being systemic and to do with complex financial systems and becomes the fault of greedy, overpaid, reckless bankers with their enormous bonuses.  It's easier to be angry when you've got a human face that you can use as a target.

Besides, I reject the notion that our modern society is immoral or that it does not attempt to enforce morality or social cohesion.

Political correctness. Social welfare. Universal healthcare. Hate speech and hate crime laws. Affirmative action. Consumer and employee protection laws. Minimum wage. Anti-Holocaust-denier laws. These are all tools of the "new morality" enforced by law, in the interest of a greater social cohesion.

Morality isn't enforced by governments.  We're talking politics but both Judt and I are describing the moral purpose of the left and the worry that society lacks a common purpose or a content.

Governments use policy to change society.  In this country Labour established the NHS because they wanted to change society.  Similarly Thatcher's policies of privatisation had a moral element - especially, off the top of my head, BT, British Gas and the council houses.  Hers was to spread ownership from a theoretical people to actual people.  That people who owned shares and property would have those Victorian values she admired (and she wasn't being sexually censorious, from what I can gather she personally viewed gays and promiscuity with utter incomprehension rather than repulsion).  She wanted encourage thrift and a sense of ownership.  In the same way as the left has for many years emphasised the idea of self-improvement, so the right wanted the responsibility of ownership.

What we now have, however, is a politics (and I'd argue a society) denuded of that content, that moral sense of purpose.  The Tories 'broken society' stuff is a hint at it but it's so bloody woolly that working it out's like hugging mist.  On almost every issue - as that quiz suggests - we have these pseudo-technocratic shuffling of ideas going on but there's no over-arching belief that seems to motivate any of them.  I think that helps create a disconnect between society and politics which is especially damaging as, as I've argued, our society is drifting apart into like-minded, self-segregated communities who look out the window and see a different street.

I don't think very many politicians in this country want to change society, I think they want to govern for some reason and to manage.  What's worse I think we've lost faith in our ability to change our society.  I've been reading a lot of Larkin lately and I think he's perfect for this sense especially in 'High Windows' 'I know this is paradise ... everyone young going down the long slide/ To happiness, endlessly.'  I'm in that young group, but I do find this social dissolution and individualism (largely expressed through Visa) a bit unpleasant.

That poem incidentally is superb - I can't recommend it enough.  It starts with him noticing a couple of kids and guessing 'he's fucking her' and she's on the pill (being Larkin I imagine he's also imagining spanking her), but the end shifts it to an image of high windows and 'sun-comprehending glass': 'and beyond it, the deep blue air, that shows/ Nothing, and is nowhere, and is endless.' 

A liberal state could reflect:
+ the result of the input of individuals whose own values revolve affirmatively around principles of collective non-intervention
+ individuals with widely dispersed values where no one tendency is strong enough to impose itself on others without provoking an effective political response
+ radical skepticism which prevents individuals from commiting to any particular moral framework
+ attitude of philosophical modesty where individuals do hold moral positions but while not radical skeptical are also less than 100% certain about their validity.  Thus, "liberal" political institutions are preferred to allow for flexibility, challenge and the potential for revision or evolution.

I agree.  I'd note that all of this, of course, requires a 'liberal man' as much as any other state.  It's like Gladstone's self-improving print worker.  It's difficult to adhere to any of these values without coming from a rather well-educated and (I'd imagine) affluent society that has instilled and seeped in those values.  Liberal humanism's like the ideological devil, it's managed to convince us it's not really an ideology at all: it's just rational common sense. 

It's like libertarians not worrying about social collapse from their ideology based on the fact that it's rational.  It certainly is, if everyone's a libertarian (white, middle-class, probably a bit geeky, possibly gay and almost certainly posting on Languish).

3) Appeal to reason - convice the haves that it is in there own interest to surrender some resources in the short run - because if the masses are healthier, better educated, etc. and the nation is served by superior public services and infrastructure, then all boats will be lifted -- including the value of the assets of the"haves" -- i.e. a "trickle up" theory.

Well I mean this is me speaking more as someone who supports the left and so wants them to win: what's the last election you can think of won by reason.  I've always argued that politics needs a sense of story about it.  This is the argument I've made about unionism.  The standard rational, economic arguments for keeping the union are, in my opinion, wholly unsatisfactory.  They don't touch the heart, they make Scots feel like poor cousins and cause the English to feel resentment.  The great appeal and strength of the SNP isn't a rational argument, it's romantic nationalism.

I'd also argue that Europe's great failing in the UK is to develop a story that explains its purpose to the British (post-war healing, 'never again' and so on have less resonance here).  Similarly I think on immigration we've got too much wonkishness from everyone but the extreme right.  We need less reason - though it should always be there - and a more emotional explanation of our position and our society. 

I think reason has very definite limits in politics and provides the sort-of how to, while generally speaking it's an irrational and emotional response that provides the impulse to act.

[MadImmortalMan]

Morality isn't enforced by governments.  We're talking politics but both Judt and I are describing the moral purpose of the left and the worry that society lacks a common purpose or a content.

Governments use policy to change society.  In this country Labour established the NHS because they wanted to change society.  Similarly Thatcher's policies of privatisation had a moral element - especially, off the top of my head, BT, British Gas and the council houses.  Hers was to spread ownership from a theoretical people to actual people.  That people who owned shares and property would have those Victorian values she admired (and she wasn't being sexually censorious, from what I can gather she personally viewed gays and promiscuity with utter incomprehension rather than repulsion).  She wanted encourage thrift and a sense of ownership.  In the same way as the left has for many years emphasised the idea of self-improvement, so the right wanted the responsibility of ownership.

Hmm. I think I understand your position much better now. Makes sense. I would ask this: What happens when the morality or goal that the government or society or whoever is striving toward is not one of which you approve? Or, say, of which a very large minority of the population disapproves? If the ruling polity is focused on the goal of curing homosexuality and purging it from the society, or purging poverty via exceptionally confiscatory and oppressive means or striving to save the souls of each and every citizen according to whatever the prevailing faith happens to be through whatever means necessary---for example. All of those things have been feasible as goals for society to strive for in the not too distant past or in certain places today. Would such societies be better off with no moral goals at all? There will always be a minority who disagrees with or is hurt by the morality I think, yes?

[Martinus]

What we now have, however, is a politics (and I'd argue a society) denuded of that content, that moral sense of purpose.  The Tories 'broken society' stuff is a hint at it but it's so bloody woolly that working it out's like hugging mist.  On almost every issue - as that quiz suggests - we have these pseudo-technocratic shuffling of ideas going on but there's no over-arching belief that seems to motivate any of them.  I think that helps create a disconnect between society and politics which is especially damaging as, as I've argued, our society is drifting apart into like-minded, self-segregated communities who look out the window and see a different street.

Maybe I am missing something about your argument, Sheilbh, but I think it is contradictory. You complain that a "society" based on common moral goals is collapsing/disintegrating, but at the same time you complain that it is replaced by "like-minded, self-segregated communities" - aren't the latter exactly the type of "societies" that you would like to return? The only difference is that your disappearing "society" would be a like-minded self-segregated community based on some arbitrary element such as nationality, ethnicity or simple geographical proximity.

Perhaps what we are simply witnessing is not a collapse of the society (your "like-minded, self-segregated communities" are a far cry from the social atomization that those who bemoan the society's collapse are pointing at), but redefinition of the society from communities based on arbitrary quirks of birth into communities based on common values - think of Nial Stephenson's "Diamond Age" - which becomes more and more possible as communication and travel makes us more into a global village.

The only difference is that such societies now get to compete via a democratic process, rather than via wars, as in the days of yore.

Nb, I think your "society-wide morality" of the past is largely a myth - mostly, it was just the morality of the dominant ethno-social class that simply had a monopoly on power.

[Martinus]

And for the record, if you want to reverse the process, the answer is simple: shut off the internets.

It's largely thanks to the internet, for example, that I often feel more strongly about being a part of various communities with people I never met face to face (this board not excluded) than being a part of the same community as some fundie catholic family that could be living next door.

Shut off long distance communication, restrict long distance travel, and you could restore a perfect society or community that would be suffocating in its own filth of common morality.

[citizen k]

And for the record, if you want to reverse the process, the answer is simple: shut off the internets.

It's largely thanks to the internet, for example, that I often feel more strongly about being a part of various communities with people I never met face to face (this board not excluded) than being a part of the same community as some fundie catholic family that could be living next door.

[Agelastus]

And for the record, if you want to reverse the process, the answer is simple: shut off the internets.

It's largely thanks to the internet, for example, that I often feel more strongly about being a part of various communities with people I never met face to face (this board not excluded) than being a part of the same community as some fundie catholic family that could be living next door.

I have to agree as well. I have more meaningful communication with people on this board than I do with my neighbours.

[The Brain]

I don't answer the door.

[grumbler]

I don't answer the door.

If you think your door is asking questions, seek help.

But, while awaiting help, not answering is a good policy.

[Ed Anger]

I favor knocking all non-americans off the internets.