Fabian Society no. 509

THE FUTURE OFSOCIALISM

Neil Kinnock

© Fabian Society 2008

Fabian Tract 509

The Future of Socialism6 Democratic socialism in Britain is built on parliamentary democracy. It isan essential implement for democratic socialism. It is our preferred anddeliberately chosen system of government. It is our basic tool for change andwe are committed to using and improving it.,

6Now, more than ever, we must present and win the moral and economicargument because the alternatives in British politics are variants ondisaster. ,

This is the text of Neil Kinnock's Fabian Society Autumn Lecture on TheFuture of Socialism delivered on 12 November 1985:

Neil Kinnock is MP for Islwyn and leader of the Labour Party. 1.1t

Front cover photo: Stefano Cagnoni (Report)

This pamphlet like all publications of the Fabian Society represents not thecollective view of the Society but only the views of the individual who preparedit. The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving the publications itissues as worthy for consideration within the labour movement.

January 1986ISBN 0 7163 0509 7ISSN 0307 7523Typeset by Character Typesetting Ltd 01-253 1766Printed by Blackrosc Press (TU) 01-251 3043Published by the Fabian Society, 11, Dartmouth Street, London SW I H 9BN

© Fabian Society 2008

The Future of SocialismFor over a century the Fabian Society hascontributed to the appraisal and analysiswhich is essential for the confidence andthe relevance of socialism in theory andpractice. Like us, the early Fabians werepart of a society which was turbulent,economically depressed, politically di-vided and confronted by great and speedychange. Yet they were neither dismayedby the scale of the problem nor unsure ofthe priorities dictated by the condition oftheir times.

That is a temper which we need now,believing as — in their own words — theydid "that socialism may be most quicklyand most surely realised by utilising thepolitical power already possessed by thepeople". But if that "political power" isolder, wider and stronger now than it was,so too is the challenge which it confronts.

Those who are aware of the depth andbreadth of poverty in our own country andthose who are conscious of the scale ofwant in the world must be shocked andsaddened by the continuing relevance ofthe opening sentence of the first FabianTract published 101 years ago:-

"We live in a competitive society withCapital in the hands of individuals.What are the results? A few are veryrich, some well-off, the Majority inPoverty and vast number in misery. Isthis a just and wise system worthy ofhumanity? Can we or can we notimprove it?"(Why Are The Many Poor? FabianTract no. 1, 1884)

There are now fewer people in our owncountry "in poverty" — certainly thepoverty of the 1880s — and we mightargue that a more appropriate question acentury later might be "Why are only thefew rich?". But Britain obviously remainsa capitalist country with a society that iscompetitive without being meritocratic. Itis a place of contests which are grossly

1

unequal from the start of life, a placewhere the combined inefficiencies andinjustices of the system still cause "moralrevolt" to be a main chord in the tone ofBritish socialism.

We still therefore ask "Is this a systemworthy of humanity?", "Can we improveit?" and as democratic socialists we have aresponsibility to answer the questionswithout defensiveness, and without eva-sion. Indeed, it is our prime responsibilityto do so and to do so quickly andconvincingly, employing at all times theadvice of Antonio Gramsci to "combinepessimism of the intellect with optimismof the will". Now, more than ever, wemust present and win the moral andeconomic argument because the alterna-tives in British politics are variants ondisaster. Our opponents know this.Democratic socialism is under attack fromthe right because it is socialism; from theultra-left because it is democratic. Thatcombined assault requires us to examineand re-examine truths which we have heldto be self-evident, to look again at thevariety and form of democratic socialismand our prescriptions for the future — notleast in order to create that strong body ofopinion which as Tawney described it"knows what it fights for, and loves what itknows".

We are making progress with thatassessment and redevelopment. Slowlybut satisfyingly there is growing realisa-tion that democratic socialism cannot beestablished on the basis of either the oldsocial democracy or on the "new" ultra-leftism. Nor can it be constructed on anamalgam of the two, any more than a witcan be fashioned from two half-wits. Athird way is needed; separate and distinctfrom the stale vanguardism of the ultra-left and from the atavistic and timidpremise of social democracy. And thatthird way has always existed — it is thesocialism which, in Aneurin Bevan's de-

finition, "is based on the conviction thatfree people can use free institutions tosolve the social and economic problems ofthe day".

It is, of course, an audacious view. Itdispenses with the idea (fiercely clung toby sectarian socialists and by anti-socialists) that socialism requires a perpe-tual threat to private freedom. It rejectsthe defeatism of those who think thatproblems are beyond solution and whowould therefore be better called immobilethan "moderate".

If Labour is to form a govern-ment we have to relate to and drawsupport from the modern workingclasses whose upward social mobil-ity, increased expectations and ex-tended horizons are largely theresult of opportunities affordedthem by our movement in the past.

That democratic approach is not blithe.On the contrary, it recognises that there-examination of strategy, attitudes andstyle of socialist politics is a continualimperative. Unlike the Tories or the SDPand Liberals, we are in the business (andalways have been) or eradicating the verysocial conditions which necessitated ourexistence in the first place. We cannot,therefore, afford to be either paralysed orblase. Wc have to draw confidence fromaccomplishment without breeding com-placency.

An understanding of this obligation iscrucial to the development of Labour'sstrategic approach. The harsh electoralreality is that Labour cannot rely merelyon a combination of the dispossessed, the"traditional" and increasingly figmentaryworking class and minority groups for thewinning of power. If Labour is to form agovernment we have to relate to and drawsupport from the modern working classeswhose upward social mobility, increasedexpectations and extended horizons arelargely the result of opportunities

2

afforded them by our movement in thepast.

These are our people arid we shouldrejoice in their advance, especially sincemy generation are most definitely pro-ducts and beneficiaries of that progress.We should never assume that the relativesecurity of the so-called "new" workingclasses forbids active sympathy with theplight of the disadvantaged. Their roots,their background and their family rela-tionships militate against such selfishforgetfulness and every investigation ofopinion testifies to their beliefs in compas-sion, the values of community and a strongsense of fairness. But we must appealdirectly to them and convince them thatgreater aspirations of merit, justice andsecurity are realistic. We have to join uptheir instincts with our policies. We haveto show that the decent objectives are notonly desirable but also practical. Only aLabour Party which can illustrate therelevance of socialism to the manager aswell as the mechanic, to the technician andthe teacher, the home owner alongside thecouncil tenant, the majority as well as theminorities, can hope to convert its plansinto effect by gaining the power to nurturesuccess properly and defeat disadvantageconclusively.

This — as the majority of the labourmovement recognises — requires a shift inattitudes and presentation, not a change inprinciples. It does not need an abandon-ment or dilution of values. It demandspractical education in the truth that thegreat majority of people — whatever theiroccupation or status — who dependentirely on the sale of their labour as theironly means of enjoying a tolerably com-fortable and secure life have a directvested interest in standards of care andopportunity which can only be providedwith sufficient quantity and quality bycollective, democratically administeredservices.

The potential for making and winningthat case is great and immediate. Labour,for instance, has a claim to present itself asthe party of efficiency with far morejustification than a Tory Party committed

© Fabian Society 2008

obsessively to the Sozialmarktwirtschaftwhich is rapacious in its use of finiteresources, requires the mass unemploy-ment of labour, cannot make up its mindwhether it wants expensive money for therentier or cheap money for the producer,and squanders the oil revenue and sells offinvaluable assets of the nation to sustainthe fantasy that it is "not borrowing".

We are far more entitled to claim thestatus of protector of Britain's industrialcapacity than a government whose recordhas been one of wholesale industrialdestruction. Our concept of the welfarestate has far more to offer as the means ofreal individual emancipation by the re-moval of the inhibitions of poverty, fear,inadequate care and lack of opportunitythan has the Thatcherite fixation withliberty by purchase. And our commitmentto production for use and retention ofcapital in Britain gives us a stronger claimto the title of patriots than those whosedesire for the fast foreign buck invariablyoverrides any dedication to investment inour country's future.

Efficiency, individual liberty, wealthcreation, patriotism; such a vocabulary isthought to be unfamiliar to the labourmovement even though they are — alongwith justice, compassion and equality —the words and, more important, thepurposes and principles on which themovement was founded and from which ithas always drawn its vitality. The LabourParty must no longer allow others to usurpwhat are surely its legitimate claims andaims. Above all, it must re-assert demo-cratic socialism as an effective body ofvalues for modern needs rather than theghost from the past.

Socialist ValuesDemocratic socialism in the UK belongsto that broad coalition at the heart ofBritish politics which is committed to thesurvival and extension of an effective,humane and democratic society. Britishsocialism, however, has never adopted orpursued the rigid, codified, or disciplinedtheories characteristic of European con-

3

tinental socialism. We have had no shor-tage of theorists. But reflecting as they dothe "peculiarities of the English" as E. P.Thompson has described it (I suppose hemeant the British), they represent thevariety and diversity of thought andexperience coming from humanists andChristians, historians, philosophers,sociologists, writers, practising politi-cians, co-operators and trade unionists.

British democratic socialism is a tapes-try and the thread that runs through theweave is above all a deep concern with

We are far more entitled to claimthe status of protector of Britain'sindustrial capacity than a govern-ment whose record has been on:2 ofwholesale industrial destruction.

fellowship and fraternity; with communityand participation. The emphasis, exem-plified in the work of that democraticsocialist par excellence (as Gaitskell de-scribed him) — Tawney — is that politicaleconomy is not ultimately a question ofeconomic organisation or historical inevi-tability, but of moral choice and that allsocial institutions must be subject to a testof moral purpose.

It is that inheritance which has inspiredthe labour movement since its inception.These are the values which underlie thecreation of the National Health Service,the building of public sector housing, theinaugural acts of de-colonisation, thedevelopment of comprehensive educa-tion, the equal opportunities legislationand a host of other measures whereLabour government at national and locallevel has worked to reduce disadvantagefor the primary purpose of enhancingindividual liberty and giving people grea-ter control over their own destiny.

That is the objective past, present andfuture of democratic socialism — indi-vidual freedom. And the means whichdemocratic socialism has chosen to pro-tect that freedom are equality and demo-cracy. Just as freedom unqualified by law

leaves the weak unprotected from vio-lence, so freedom unqualified by demo-cracy and equality leaves the weak unpro-tected from power. That is why the valuesof liberty, equality and democracy areinterdependent to democratic socialism.And it is that belief in their interdepend-ence which makes the analysis, the code ofbeliefs and the criteria for success em-ployed by democratic socialism differentfrom the approach taken by other ideolo-gies which may, with sincerity, believe inliberty and equality or democracy as singlepurposes.

The liberty of individuals and ofsocieties is an absolute value to democra-tic socialists. But, too often, socialism hasbeen associated with the very opposite —parodied by its association with an uncar-ing bureaucracy. At times we seem tohave permitted a set of beliefs that beginsfrom this practical desire to foster thepolitical and economic liberty of all peopleto look like a dogma that regarded libertyas a tedious bourgeois fad.

It is hardly a new problem. In 1937George Orwell urged, with desperation inhis voice — "Justice and Liberty! ThOseare the words that have to ring like a bugleacross the world". But that "underlyingideal of socialism", he said, "had beenburied beneath layer after layer of doctri-naire priggishness, party squabbles, andhalf-baked progressivism until it is like adiamond hidden under a mountain ofdung".

FreedomAs socialists it is not, however, sufficientsimply to endorse freedom as a universalgood. Indeed it would be simplistic to doso. The pursuit of freedom can entailconflict as the freedom of many collideswith the privilege of few.

Socialist doctrine and policy need toreflect our respect for the nature of theseconflicts. In practice we need to ensure abalance which provides for the good ofsociety as a whole and also to securerecognition of the fact that the boundaryof freedom is drawn at the point where itsexercise by one individual or group begins

4

to impinge upon the freedom of anotherindividual or group. We need to convey,too, that there is no essential contradic-tion between collective provision andindividual freedom since the one rein-forces and makes possible the other. Associalists the advancement of collectivefreedoms is central precisely because itoffers the best hope of advancing indi-vidual freedom.

It is essential to reassert that primaryvalue at a time when every malaise fromcommercial failure to crime is blamedupon the mythical "degeneracy" whichallegedly resulted from thirty or so yearsof feather-bedding, family-splitting wel-fare state provision. And the deeds andwords of freedom also need energeticemphasis at a time when institutions andcustoms of autonomy and independencefrom GCHQ to the GLC and rate fixing tothe Real Lives documentary have beentorn up, or — at very least — shaken to the

As socialists the advancement ofcollective freedoms is central pre-cisely because it offers the besthope of advancing individual free-dom.

roots in the name of a form of freedomwhich promised to "roll back the state"and release the country from the "coils" ofgovernment.

The words of G. D.H. Cole ring true inour time:-

"Liberties," he said, "are largely ficti-tious until men and women have thepractical means of enjoying them; andthe most important of all these meansare, first, the possession of democraticgovernment pledged to defend themand supported by popular power, andsecondly, security, which enables aman or women to express and assertthemselves without fear of the con-sequences . . ."

That striving for personal security is theessence of democratic socialism. And to

© Fabian Society 2008

give proper strength to the cause we needto reassert the practical fact that sincemost of the people, most of the time, donot provide surpluses of income in theright amounts on the right occasions topermit themselves and their dependentssufficient supply of the personal servicesof opportunity, learning, care, securityand employment, the co-operative andcollective action of limiting liability forimmediate payment by providing collec-tive and co-operative contribution hasbeen the greatest single source of indi-vidual emancipation of our century.

Collective provision has not beenthe enemy of individual freedom, ithas been the agent of individualemancipation and for that reason itwill occupy a central position in theforging of the future of socialism.

It has not diminished vitality, it hasincreased fitness. It has not eroded talent,it has multiplied it. It has not frustratedinventiveness, it has given the inventivethe facility for development. It has notsubordinated peoples, it has stimulatedtheir self-confidence. Even though thestate has been the most dependable sourceof provision the result has not been asupine mood of dependency but an in-crease in critical faculty.

Collective provision has not been theenemy of individual freedom, it has beenthe agent of individual emancipation andfor that reason it will occupy a centralposition in the forging of the future ofsocialism.

LibertyThe New Right would have us believe thatthe role of the state is repressive; that itreduces or robs us of liberty; that it isinefficient and bureaucratic.

They are not so New — as an illustrationfrom Charles Dickens makes clear.

"Surely there never was such a fragilechina-ware as that of which the millers

5

of Coketown were made. Handle themever so lightly, and they fell to pieceswith such ease that you might suspectthem of having been flawed before.They were ruined, when they wererequired to send labouring children toschool; they were ruined, when inspec-tors were appointed to look into works;they were ruined when such inspectorsconsidered it doubtful whether theywere quite justified in chopping peopleup with their machinery; they wereutterly undone, when it was hinted thatperhaps they need not always make somuch smoke . . . Whenever a Coke-towner felt he was ill-used — that is tosay, whenever he was not left entirelyalone . . . he was sure to come out withthe awful menace that he would "soon-er pitch his property into the Atlantic".This has terrified the Home Secretarywithin an inch of his life on severaloccasions."Victorian values with a vengeance. And

set against them is the reality of progressaway from the tyranny of the powerfulindividual backed by a state which thepowerful owned. Progress towards a situa-tion in which the state itself is a positiveagency working on behalf of the indi-viduals who make up the state.

Collective provision for individual pur-poses relies for its principles and itspractical administration on politicaldemocracy and for that among otherreasons the commitment to democracy asa means and an end is an absolute value indemocratic socialism. Evan Durbin, writ-ing in 1941, said that "to betray democra-cy was to betray socialism". In the LabourParty our commitment to representativeand elected parliamentary democracy isexplicit in Clause IV of the Constitution.Indeed, in the New Social Order, pub-lished in 1918, it was made clear that thiswould be built (in terms of national andinternational policy, in industry as well asgovernment) on "that equal freedom, thatgeneral consciousness of comment andthat widest possible participation in powerwhich is characteristic of true democra-cy".

Power and participation — watchwords ofsocialism — are expressed in the rightsand responsibities of freedom and demo-cracy combined. But democratic socialismstands for far more than a defenceofdemocracy. It must enhance it whereverpossible. We do not believe in the centra-lisation of power in the hands of un-accountable bureaucracies.

When we read the work of earlysocialist writers such as Robert Owen orWilliam Morris, we will search in vain foran autocratic or state dominated vision ofsocialism; more recently, sociologists suchas Titmuss and Townsend have pointed tothe failure of our bureaucracies and to theneed for more vigilance and greaterhumanity in both management and opera-tion.

We do believe that wherever possibledecisions must be taken on a corporateand collective basis; that everyone at thelevel of the community and the workplaceis endowed with responsibilities andshould consequently exercise rights. Thatis, of course, not easy to achieve. It can fallvictim to inertia, indifference and incom-petence and it can then degenerate intothe pastime of small, energetic groupswho use democracy as a tactic for man-ouevre rather than a principle for applica-tion. In its full expression as people jointogether in the community to form self-help groups, tenants associations or hous-ing co-operatives, it demands energy,confidence and commitment. Not easyqualities — but democracy depends onthem. It depends too upon the willingnessof volunteers to accept office and to takeon legal obligations as local councillors.That is less easy than it has ever been.

Over the past six years local democracyhas been squeezed through the impositionof restictive legislation, financial penal-ties, and ultimately by the abolition ofwhole authorities. Still it cannot be soeasily dismissed or dismantled; the soulgoes marching on. We know that there aremany decisions which are more approp-riately and efficiently taken at a locallevel. We believe that central and localgovernment work better when they work

6

in partnership and we are committed tothe restoration of the proper balance ofdecision making on the return of the nextLabour Government. Meanwhile we haveseen models developed — even in adversi-ty — in the revival of municipal efforts atsocialism, in the Enterprise Boards, in thetransport undertakings and — perhapsmost interesting — in the efforts tointroduce true decentralisation of admi-nistration.

The next Labour Government must usethese experiences as rehearsals for greaterdevelopment of local initiatives, promp-ted by local need and sustained by localdemocracy. In this — as in many otherparticulars — we stand apart from Tory-ism, ancient and modern.

Democratic socialism in Britain is builton parliamentary democracy. It is an

We do believe that whereverpossible decisions must be taken ona corporate and collective basis;that everyone at the level of thecommunity and the workplace isendowed with responsibilities andshould consequently exerciserights.

essential implement for democratic social-ism. It is our preferred and deliberatelychosen system of government. It is ourbasic tool for change and we are commit-ted to using and improving it. We requireParliament — not just the institution butthe whole system of government by deli-beration — as a platform for our views, achampion for those we seek to help, themost dependable means for securing andsustaining progress. That means thatextra-parliamentary efforts related to thesame objectives complement Parliamen-tary methods. The two go together.

We can agree, again, with Tawney, whobelieved so passionately in the parliamen-tary arena as an opportunity for attack anda means of defence and advised that:-

"Given the existence of political demo-

© Fabian Society 2008

cracy . . . the only possible course forsocialists is to take the rough with thesmooth, throw on their opponents theodium of tampering with it, and exploitto the utmost the possibilities which itoffers. Secure in the knowledge thatthey always have one Chamber tothemselves the privileged classes havehitherto acquiesced in so much demo-cracy as that absurdity permits. Buttheir enthusiasm for it remains this sideof idolatry. For socialists to give theimpression that they, too, have re-servations would be to give the ene-mies of socialism a present of whatshould be one of socialism's chiefassets."

It was good advice in times even moretrying than ours and it is needed andfollowed by all who know that a future forsocialism must be constructed by themethods and through the means affordedby parliamentary democracy at local andnational level. There is no superior, moresatisfactory or more sure course.

EqualityEquality stands alongside freedom anddemocracy in the vocabulary and values ofsocialism. Yet it is not of the same order.Equality is possibly the most problematicof all values insofar as it is not an absoluteobjective, but, rather, an implication anda means towards achieving freedom anddemocracy. Equality is not built or se-cured, as some would believe, on envy. Itis, indeed, the very opposite. It is implicitin fellowship and provides the basis forcommunity. Yet it, too, has been distortedand associated with a tolerance — indeeda pursuit — of mediocrity and uniformity.

How absurd that it should be. Socialismcelebratesdiversity. It believes in theflowering of all talents, the elevation of allindividuals. This does not mean a roman-tic belief that everyone can be madeequal.It does not mean .uniformity of humanbeings or anything so socially repulsive; itdoes not mean accepting that all humanbeings are equal in ability or anything so

7

biologically preposterous; and it does notmean believing that there can be mathe-matical parity of incomes or anything soeconomically impractical. But it doesmean that those institutions and influ-ences which protect, reward and perpetu-ate those inequalities which are not natu-ral and not earned must be removed. Andit does mean that as a conscious purpose ofpolicy every means should be exploited toestablish an equal right for individuals torealise and fulfil their capabilities, regard-less of background, sex or race. But —despite the welfare state — the key pillarsof social and economic inequality remainintact. While the very rich have lost someof their riches to the less rich, over time,the poor have hardly profited prop-ortionately. That has been true throughthe history of the welfare state.

In the past six years, however, thedispossessing of the dispossessed has beenintensified. In that time there has been amassive redistribution from poor to rich

Socialism celebrates diversity. Itbelieves in the flowering of alltalents, the elevation of all indi-viduals.

through the tax system while the poorhave been made poorer as the benefitfloor has been dug away from under theirfeet. At the same time, occupationalbenefits, tax subsidies and privatisationcreate high walls between classes whichreduce community of interest and com-mitment to the welfare state. The sourcesand the exercise of economic power mayhave become more obscure but they areno less powerful. Occupational and socialclass divisions may seem blurred, butinequalities persist and they derive fromincome, occupation, status and region.And within these groups there are, asAlex Nove has described it, "differentkinds of lifetimes".

Inequalities of income are reflected ininequalities of power and status. We haveat the moment a society which wilfully

wastes its material and human resources;where "equality" is derided and yet wherechildren in different regions, differenttowns, different families, differentschools, stand different chances of health,education, employment and even life anddeath. To those who sneer at equality as auseful or relevant objective, I have to say"Look around you!!". Look at the millionyoung people under 25 on the dole; at theevidence of increased mortality and mor-bidity rates for those at the bottom end ofthe social scale; at the difficulties faced bywomen and people from ethnic minoritygroups in finding and keeping well-paidjobs. I would also say to those whocomplacently see equality as somethingautomatically consequent upon our in-stitutions — our schools or the healthservice — listen to the evidence thatdisproves the idea that left to themselveswithout the stimulus of constant policiesof equality our present institutions andpast policies can serve the interests of allthe people more effectively. I would alsosay — look at the vulnerability of childrenborn in our inner cities, to families on thedole, in ill-health, in multiple disadvan-tage, and listen to those who know tell usthat these disadvantages are transferredacross generations. And then ask thequestion — have we achieved equality?Should we abandon it —or apologise for itas an objective? Should we succumb to theargument that the constructive efforts forequality are "social engineering" when weknow that deprivation, poverty, the ignor-ing of talent, the failure to treat diseaseare themselves the very worst forms ofsocial engineering that have constructed asociety which is undereducated, depress-ed and divided?

The problem is not with our objectives,but with the institutions and patterns ofprovision, produced by past policies.Policies for positive discrimination ineducation, policies designed to achieveequal access, have been insufficient, in-consistent and uncoordinated. The prob-lems of our inner cities grow worsebecause our strategies have been incom-plete, ill-thought out, and — usually —

8

externally imposed by people who will nothave to live with the consequences. Equal-ly seriously, we have failed to tackle theroots of real inequality — the bastions ofprivilege built into our social and econo-mic institutions and perpetuated in oureducation system. Unless we tackle theseproblems at source we will continue toaccept a system based on fundamentalinequality, hoping that the occasionalescape will prove that the system is notwithout some virtue.

We do understand now that we must actacross a broad front. Better schools alonecannot spring children out of poverty;better housing will not solve all socialproblems; a free health service does notguarantee an equal chance that all chil-dren will thrive; more police will noteradicate crime or hy themselves reducethe insecurity which pervades whole dis-tricts. Indeed, we understand better thanever the inadequacies of our institutions.Equality of opportunity must inform allpolicies, and must he asserted, not simplythrough statutes and limited financialgestures, but directed through a range ofpolicies which all have the explicit aim ofhelping people to lift themselves out ofpoverty of resources and poverty ofaspirations whether they endure multipledisadvantage in our most deprived com-munities or carry an extra burden ofdisadvantage because they are black orare among those — the majority — whobecause they are women and girls are stillnot afforded access or encouragement onthe same basis as boys and men.

Freedom, democracy and equality arevalues which, separately, can belong toother philosophies and applied for otherends. What cannot be borrowed, howev-er, is that economic and social analysiswhich democratic socialism brings to thestructural economic and social problemsof capitalism, and the commitment toradical but realistic methods and objec-tives which are not only part of ourhistorical tradition and our philosophicalapparatus, but which inform our view ofwhat democratic society is, and could be.

@ Fabian Society 2008

Social DemocracySocial democracy knows nothing of this. Itbrings neither serious analysis nor pre-scription in policy. And at the same time,the means and ends of democratic social-ism are very different from the superficial-ly radical, but ultimately destructive andreactionary tactics and strategy of the

The essence of social democracyis that it is not concerned with thestructure of property ownership,or the transfer of economic power;rather, it is defined in terms not ofsocial change, but social relief; notof eradicating inequality, but re-lieving its most gross manifesta-tions.

ultra-left. In the present, as in the past,democratic socialists will fight on bothfronts.

The essence of social democracy is thatit is not concerned with the structure ofproperty ownership, or the transfer ofeconomic power; that it is defined interms not of social change, but socialrelief; not of eradicating inequality, butrelieving its most gross manifestations.Always charity, never parity. In short,that is sufficient "to erode by inches theconditions which produce avoidable suf-fering" without confronting the systemwhich creates distress in the first place.During the 1950s that complacencyseemed to some to be credible. That shortand misused period of boom, of near-fullemployment, increases in production andconsumer spending, and a hi-partisansupport for the central decencies of thewelfare state engendered the view thatwith a little modification here and therethe economy would continue to grow, andall choices would be almost painless,matters of degree rather than substantialprinciple. Growth itself, it was assumed,would eradicate economic and socialinequality and the market would actually

9

promote welfare as it profited from thestability sustained by advancing affluence.When that climate changed and the poli-tical consensus appeared to move to theright, so too did the social democrats.They gave up on equality which they hadpreviously espoused as the main creden-tial of their "radicalism" and because theycontent themselves with describing endswithout committing means they gave upon liberty too, except as a desirable anddecorative alternative to totalitarianism.

For some it was a sad descent to lowercommon denominators with conservat-ism. For others it was merely the publicexpression of their private contempt for ademocratic socialist movement which hadgiven them everything they possessed.Some thought it was a lunge in thedirection of modern times. Others knewthat it was a step backwards into theshadow of Mrs Thatcher — and they tookthe step gladly.

Now they have a mathematical andtherefore a political significance in thedivision of the anti-Conservative vote.They have a certain appeal, too. It isamong the people who believe that theproblems of our society and our economyare so monstrous that there is no answer inpolicies and that the search must be for anadministration of vaguely defined good-will that will be as benign as circumstancesallow. Such attitudes are understandablebut profoundly wrong since as the recordshows the benign would quickly be asmalevolent as necessary for the sake ofsecuring political opportunity. The abs-ence of policy is therefore not evidence ofresponsiveness or realism. It is a politicalpig in a poke. And as in all previous casesany peacetime government formed by"the best men of all parties" would, inAneurin Bevan's felicitous phrase, "endup in the Tory knackery".

Democratic CentralismSuch a fate does not await the ultra-left —although by their antics and with theexaggerated reports of their influence

they can, of course, be of assistance to theConservative Party.

The recently exposed frolics of theWorkers Revolutionary Party generatesome amusement, but the publicity re-minds us that their form of organisation isexactly similar to all the other ultra groups— including those which have battened onthe Labour Party in the past and thosewhich continue to do so. In a previousincarnation the WRP was — as theSocialist Labour League — an entryistorganisation. Common to such groupingsand their system of organisation -- theso-called "democratic centralism" whichemploys the most undemocratic methodsto stifle dissent in their organisations — isthe secretive network by which theycontrol their own membership when it isoperating within another party.

All these "democratic centralist"groups follow a theory of "vanguardism".They are the self-appointed elite who posethemselves to spring into the leadership ofthe working class movement at the verymoment of the downfall of capitalism,which all foretell with the same frequencyand accuracy as the exotic religious sectswhich forecast the end of the world.Ninety years ago they were advised byFrederick Engels that "the time of politic-al surprises, of the revolutions of smallconscious minorities at the head of uncon-scious masses" was "at an end" and thetask was "to work for an uninterruptedincrease in votes" and "carry on a slowpropaganda of Parliamentary activity".Still they persist. Some exist as separatejargon-swapping cliques at the margins ofpolitics. Others, in the knowledge thatthey could never gain political currency orpopularity, opt for a parasitical life insidethe mass labour movement.

The strategy of entering or using themass Party without publicly proclaimingideological methods and motives requiresa particular kind of dishonesty. It involvessystematically abusing the open and toler-ant character of the Labour Party andhaving contempt for the purposes and thepeople of the mass party. But since — intheir view — the ends are held to justify

10

the means, a neat and nasty tactic called"revolutionary truth" provides a licenceto lie about their organisation, theirfunding and their aims. That is essential tothem for they could hardly acknowledgethat they have a "programme, principlesand policy" that is not only distinctive andseparate from that of the Labour Party butdirectly hostile to the Party's democraticsocialist objects as defined in Clause IV ofthe Constitution. Yes, Clause IV which

The strategy of entering or usingthe mass Party without publiclyproclaiming ideological methodsand motives requires a particularkind of dishonesty.

makes clear the Party's commitment toParliament, to co-operation with the tradeunions allied with but independent of theParty, to common ownership subject to"popular" and not Party control, and to"emancipation" and not the dictatorshipof the proletariat.

In these and other respects the objectsof the Party are directly opposed to thosewho take their politics from Lenin andTrotsky, had they but the integrity toopenly admit it. Still, there is formallynothing in that Party constitution or in theconventions of the Party which actuallydenies membership to people simply be-cause they hold particular opinions. Theprohibition relates to organisations whichhave a programme, principles and policy.And what makes the "democratic central-ists- different in nature from others whomay hold distinctive ideologies in theLabour Party is the fact that for themideology is inseparable from organisation.Leninists and Trotskyists consider that the"vanguard" is essential to the form ofpolitical change which they want to bringabout. Such groups cannot follow theirideology without having a secretive, disci-plined organisation and an organisation ofthat form is incompatible with mem-bership of the Labour Party.

© Fabian Society 2008

It is for that reason that the MilitantTendency has no place in the LabourParty. It is too dishonest to acknowledgethat it has membership, too cowardly toorganise and operate as a separate Party,too contemptuous of the people that itcalls "comrades" to tell them the truth. Itabuses the trust and exploits the liberta-rian instincts of the Labour Party. Itmakes a deliberate practice of campaign-ing for unattainable objectives and cyni-cally encourages expectations — especial-ly among the young — of "guarantees" ofwork and income. It employs "impossibil-ism" as a calculated means of settingunachievable demands in order to chargeParty lay officials, local councillors, tradesunionists and anyone else who takesresponsible office in the movement withtimidity or "betrayal" when those de-mands are not realised.

The Labour Party, because of its worth-while traditions of breadth and opennessand tolerance, is not readily equipped todeal with such political perversity. TheParty was not anxious to expend time andenergy on overwhelming the "democraticcentralists" even when it has good cause to

It is for that reason that theMilitant Tendency has no place inthe Labour Party. It is too dishon-est to acknowledge, that it hasmembership, too cowardly to orga-nise and operate as a separateParty, too contemptuous of thepeople that it calls "comrades" totell them the truth.

be deeply antagonistic towards them. Butbecause in organisation and purpose, incaucusing and conniving, the MilitantTendency eventually exhausted even theextensive patience of the Labour Party,action Was needed and action was taken.Firstly, when there is clear proof thatsomeone is formally and personally com-mitted to the Tendency organisation theycan be and are put out of the LabourParty. Secondly —and in many ways more

11

importantly — when the Party becomesacquainted with the methods, motives,ideological position and organisationalunscrupulousness of Militant, theTendency is engaged and defeated byargument and by numbers.

Democratic centralists . . . arethe self-appointed elite who posethemselves to spring into the lead-ership of the working class move-ment at the very moment of thedownfall of capitalism . . .

By this combination of means thosewho try to undermine our democraticsocialist methods and beliefs will beovercome and in the process we shall winover those who are superficially attractedby the simplistic slogans and strategies ofthe sect, just as we have won over many inthe past. To some in the Labour Party theaction required to defeat Militant appearsto be a distasteful over-reaction to a groupwhich is, after all, small in number and hasno influence whatsoever on the decisionsand direction of the Party. To them I saythat democracy must always defend itselfand that democratic socialists cannotpermit their Party to be defaced by asecretive group whose whole purpose is tocontradict the values, feed off the vitalityof and disgrace the reputation of theLabour Party.

ConclusionTawney described socialism as:-

"A community of responsible men andwomen, working without fear in com-radeship for common ends, all ofwhom can grow to their full stature,develop to their upmost limits theranging capacity with which nature hasendowed them."

The state as community — the state as anenabling power — the idea of collectiveand purposive action this is not some-

thing that either Marxists or monetaristscan comprehend. But it can work. Free-dom, justice and equality are meaninglessas abstractions. As I have suggested, theyencompass contradictions and complex-ity. They can only be translated into livingreality through the interaction of men,women and children in the everyday worldwhich for most of us means the neighbour-hood. region or country in which we live.Diagnosis and prescription is only astarting point. The ircxt two years willprove, as the Webbs might have saidthemselves, that "there is no substitute forhard work-. We must revive our faith and

12

energy in that public process of educationwhich worked in 1945, building on theexperience, and on the altruism andcommonsense of the people of this coun-try.

We must tap this imagination and thosecivic virtues which are in effect, socialismin action — mutual care and mutual aid. Itis not sufficient to offer programmes andplans; we must offer vision as well astheory; and as Tawney said in 1945 "putthe nation on its mettle". I have no doubtthe country is willing and ready to re-spond.

Recent Fabian PamphletsTracts491 David Blunkett, Geoff Green

492 Keith Ewing

493 G. Bernard Shaw

494 Raymond Plant495 Bernard Crick496 Anthony Wright, John Stewart,

Nicholas Deakin497 Carl James

498 eds. Brian Abel-SmithPeter Townsend

499 Hugh O'Shaughnessy

500501502

Peter TownsendDenis HealeyMichael Mann

503 Martin Linton504 John Lloyd505 David Griffiths & Chris Holmes506 Caroline St. John-Brooks

507 ed. Lisanne Radice508 William McCarthy

© Fabian Society 2008

Special Centenary Publication100 Years of Fabian Socialism

Books available from the Fabian Societyed. Richard Silburn

Patricia Pugh

ed. Ben Pimlott

ed. Howard Glennerster

eds. M. Cannell & N. Citrine

J.P.M. Millar

Building from the bottom: theSheffield experience

The Conservatives, trade unionsand political funding

The Fabian Society: its early history(reprinted with a preface byMelvyn Bragg)

Equality, markets and the StateSocialist values and timeSocialism and decentralisation

Occupational pensions: the failureof private welfare

Social security: the real agenda

£1.50

£1.50

£1.50

£1.50£1.50£1.50

£1.50

£1.50

Towards a democratic Central £1.50America

Why are the many poor? £1.50Labour and a world society £1.50Socialism can survive: social £1.50

change and the Labour PartyThe Swedish road to socialism £1.50Understanding the miners' strike £2.00A new housing policy for Labour £1.50Who controls training?: the rise of £1.50

the Manpower Services CommissionWinning women's votes £1.50Freedom at work: towards the reform £2.00

of Tory employment laws

The Future of Social Security(Fabian Society, 1985)

Educate, Agitate, Organize —1C0 years of Fabian Socialism(Methuen, 1984)

Fabian Essays in SocialistThought(Gower, 1984)

The Future of the Welfare State(Heinemann, 1983)

Citrine's ABC of Chairmanship(NCLC, 1982)

The Labour College Movement

£2.50

£2.95

£19.50

cased£19.50paper£8.50

paper£5.95paper£3.50cased£5.50

Postage:books 50p per title (ABC of Chairmanship 30p), The Future of Social Security andpamphlets post-free.

The Future of Socialism

Neil Kinnock argues that the aim of democratic socialism is individual freedomprotected by equality and democracy. The state has an essential role to play inunderpinning freedom and equality through collective provision for individualpurposes. And parliamentary democracy is the essential implement fordemocratic socialism offering the most dependable means for securing andsustaining progress.

However, if Labour is to form a government, it must relate to the modernworking classes whose support it needs. These people owe upward socialmobility, increased expectations and extended horizons largely to theopportunities afforded to them by the labour movement. And, Neil Kinnockbelieves, they can be convinced of the desirability and practicality ofdemocratic socialism provided that Labour adjusts its attitudes and presenta-tion to the new circumstances.

Democratic socialism is under attack from the right and the left. On theright, social democracy is unconcerned with eradicating inequality and onlyrelieves its grosser manifestations. On the left, democratic centralists appointthemselves leaders of the masses and use the most dishonest methods toachieve their ends through the Labour Party. Socialism can only be built, heconcludes if the Labour Party builds on the experience, the altruism and thecommonsense of the people of this country whilst tapping the virtues which arein effect socialism in action, mutual care and mutual aid.

This pamphlet is the text of Neil Kinnock's Fabian Autumn Lecture on TheFuture of Socialism delivered on 12 November 1985.

Fabian Society

The Fabian Society exists to further socialist education and research. Since1884 it has enrolled thoughtful socialists who wish to discuss the essentialquestions of democratic socialism and relate them to practical plans forbuilding socialism in a changing world. Beyond this the Society has nocollective policy. It is affiliated to the Labour Party. Anyone who is notineligible for membership of the Labour Party is eligible for full membership;others may become associate members. For membership and publicationsdetails, write to: John Willman, General Secretary, Fabian Society, 11Dartmouth Street, London SW I H 9BN.

© Fabian Society 2008