A brilliant piece! You have managed to get into words some thoughts that have been buzzing around my head and yet failed to transmit via my finger tips to the keyboard.

There are quite a few noises in this piece that I agree with but, as the great P.J. said…

“Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It’s not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights— the “right” to education, the “right” to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery— hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

I think your solutions are great, however! I just think they are best left out of politics altogether. There needs to be a resurgence in charity and voluntarism but by its very nature, that cannot be a close ally of government (which is coercion in essence). If all the hot-air produced on both the left and right by these well-spoken, educated middle class political activists ceased and their efforts were instead directed at the real problems (lack of education and confidence amongst several sections of society), then society would be the better for it. The problem is the state is so large and controlling right now that it is more or less impossible to engage in a large-scale voluntary project without its support or at least its favour. At the very least you will struggle with funding without getting involved with government grants (and ending up spending more time trying to get the funds than actually helping people). At worst, and especially if your methods are not liked by the political establishment, you will be regulated out of existence.

So, your perscription to re-invent the left is in effect to return to a kind of 1900 liberalism?? The problem with a reliance on the charity sector is that there is no conception of enforcing social responsibility it is purely voluntary so the social obligation of the strong to protect and raise the weak and is thus made purely a matter of individual conscience which as we know is variable from person to person. You also have a problem because it is vulnerable people who often contribute themselves to charity because they realise how hard positions can be; so you leave the strong ie, the rich free to do as they please.

The state is still needed to guide these co-ops that you are planning and provide the framework and the funds that would enable them to flourish. Nick, that quote is just nonsense to be honest, to compare the empowerment of people to control their own lives with the empowerment to wage genocidal mayhem is just well not really right is it? It is like comparing a mouse to an elephant.

When the Labour party was founded it based itself on the social movements of the day. I agree that a new social democracy would foud itself on new social movements. It is also very true that organisations like Amnesty International, Oxfam, RSPB, etc. have far more active members than the Labour party currently does.

One issue mising from this analysis, though, is the role of the State and, in particular, how the State mediates conflicts within domestic society and the conflicting interests of different countries within the international economic and political order. How would that be done in a social democratic direction?

A few years ago many on the liberal-left would have said “liberal interventionism”. My guess is that now has fewer proponents, but what are the alternative starting points?

I suspect that the Conservatives are very keen on bringing charitable organisations into service provision at a local level. Now that top-down policies have failed to produce value-for-money, it is clear that the money should be spent by people who are as physically close to those they are working with as possible – family and community projects being prime examples. This is where charities could make a genuine difference.

Labour have never and will never truly believe in the concept of localism but the Conservatives have a great opportunity to really push this agenda, which by its nature will bring the charitable sector into play.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Well charities are going to be a very different animal if they are supposed to be the back up for a Wisconsin style attempt to solve the long term benefits dependency caused by Labour . You can hardly say that this single problem has been caused by consumerism though in that these are the people who consume the least.
It has actually been caused by destroying family, work and the existing structures by which self respect was attained.
The ideas you quote as you may know are the common currency of Conservative debate and it is somewhat disingenuous of you to steal the clothes and then make disparaging remarks about “dim “ conceptions about those whose coat tails you hope to grab.

So , in truth , you have caught up with us on realising that flash flood money solves nothing . Your answer, some silly fantasy about not for profit cooperatives . What is required is work and the need to get it .Nothing wrong with cooperatives but not for profit anything = no-one cares about it .

“We need to focus as much upon psychological poverty as its material equivalent.”

Well, it would certainly be cheaper! Unfortunately, the psychological problems are a consequence of economic inequality.

As for the idea that drug addiction is a result of “a deadly dull job paying £20k a year in a box built on a flood plain with a few consumer goodies and sunny holidays” – I think you must be on another planet. The only drug addicts I know have never had such a prospect. They mostly survive on £57 a week plus an allowance for dog food!

The liberal ‘left’ have bought into the right’s big lie – i.e. that the state doesn’t work – even as markets fail and the progress in social mobility that came as a consequence of the successes of the welfare state starts to unwind.

The idea that charity is the answer is a complete non-starter. The state took on an enabling role precisely because the charitable sector was proved to be completely inadequate. Moreover, the idea, for instance, that a child born with a disability should rely on charity came to be regarded as demeaning.

None of us know how life will turn out for us, which is why the pooling of risk and the promotion of equality of opportunity came to be such an important part of the New Liberals’ agenda. Clegg’s attempts to airbrush away the last century of Liberal Party history by claiming the mantle of economic liberalism is simply part of this big lie.

The welfare state has been enormously successful in improving the lives of the low paid. The NHS has been the most efficient provider of healthcare in the western world (on just 5-7% of GDP up to 2001). Indeed, it is the introduction of ‘market mechanisms’ (tendering out of cleaning services, PFI, and the fracturing of provision through constant regorganisation) that has seen inefficiencies increase – though it still has a way to go to catch the US, which spends 16% of GDP on healthcare and still leaves around 60m un- or under-insured, while spending 30% of its budget on advertsising, billing and administration).

State education transfromed the prospects of working class children through the 50s/60s & 70s -as evidenced in the huge improvements in social mobility over this period.

The complete reversal of this trend has been a consequence of the move away from social democracy – and a recognition of the enabling role of the state – towards neoliberalism – i.e. a denial of the role of the state. The Liberal Democrats craven surrender to this philosopy has to be one of the more ill-judged moves in its history.

Appeals to a return to the malign era of the Charity Organisation Society reveal not new thinking, but the complete defeat of New Liberalism in the face of the neoliberal propoganda onslaught. The right have never won the argument, they just happen to control the purveyors of the dominant ideology.

Perhaps a bit more detail on the role of co-operatives in providing healthcare would be instructive. Ultimately, providing healthcare is expensive and requires that dreaded ‘R’ word – redistribution – any charity-based, localised community system is not going to be up to the task and invites the suspicion that its supporters are more interested in reducing their tax bill than providing an equitable service.

“The idea that charity is the answer is a complete non-starter. The state took on an enabling role precisely because the charitable sector was proved to be completely inadequate. Moreover, the idea, for instance, that a child born with a disability should rely on charity came to be regarded as demeaning.”

But Chuck, some state services are now so poor at delivery that charity is the ONLY option for some people. I am thinking, particularly of education in this respect. Education was becoming universal before the state got involved. Who knows how good it would be now had it just been left alone but there are a number of academics that believe it would have been much better had it been: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/

As always, Mike, this is an intelligent piece — but I am surprised that you are so much at a loss as to what the cause of our malaise is. For a Green, it is obvious: society is mainlining on materialism, and it is a prescription for making misery. We are less happy than we were two generations ago, ‘even though’ we are now far better at trashing the ecosystem (i.e. producing more “goods” that no-one needs).
The solution is not more liberalism; the solution is to go Green (Party).

Remember Wedgwood Teapot and the Meriden Motorcycle project? That was a Co-operative, and it didn’t work. Today we are very short of structures and organisations in the public sector that work properly. And the risk with charities is that we cannot be sure that they too will have structures and organisations that work properly. The fear of all that is what has created managerialism by people who don’t know how to build organisations – you don’t succeed just with NuLab spin.

The left needs a new direction? Social Democracy needs to reinvent itself? Does it?

Maybe the left needs to have a good long think about whether or not the whole concept of collectivism is actually worth bothering with at all.

You say you want to find new solutions, but you start on the premise that you need to figure out a way to get to the underlying cause of why people take drugs in the first place and figure out a way to ‘fix’ them. I presume this is just an example issue, but it’s a good one.

The problem then is figuring out, now that you’ve made it your personal responsibility, how you can force everyone else to help out as well, because you can’t fix it on your own. You need everyone’s help.

So how you can make a problem you took on yourself everyone’s problem? Can’t rely on charity, that’s voluntary. You don’t want to use the machinery of state because the whole fascist compulsion element.. hmm it’s a conundrum all right.

Much though it pains me…I am going to have to take issue with you Charlotte. Of course it is worth bothering with; one wonders if we had all been such amazing individuals why it took co-operation and collective action to actually raise ourselves above primates…there is something nascent and human about the concepts and they certainly exist at the core of progressive politics and it is rightful they should….

Please dont tell me you are saying it would be a good thing if there was no such thing as society….

Of course not. Society exists and human beings, generally speaking, are good people that do not enjoy seeing other people suffer and will try to help each other.

And yes, it’s possible to organise to try to tackle suffering but there’s a price to be paid, and that price is more than just a financial one. You’re forcing people to do something they do not want to do. This is really dodgy ground to be on. The more you want people to do, the more force is required. The less they want to do it, the more force required.

This is the dilemma the Left has. It cannot be overcome. To be fully on the left you have to simply not care who gets hurt in the pursuit of your Greater Good (hence the need for demonisation of the ‘losers’ in any Greater Good), and if that’s you, then you need to be stopped. That’s the way it is

You know Charlotte some people actually want to help other people; some people care that much about the other people and the enviroment around them enough to enter politics and fight for that…and yes they have to fight against people who dont agree with their ideas…this isnt an abstract philosophical debate where we can all agree to disagree…this is real life where ideas have to be fought out and descisions have to be made….and those wont please everybody all of the time so maybe people will get hurt…thats life im afraid…its more than politics its life…its the way things are….

Social Democracy needs to be re-invented

Again?

Does Social Democracy need to be re-invented?

Well, liberalism by definition constantly re-invents itself within its historical tradition. New circumstances, changed paradigms and proliferating emphases hasn’t held it back, or diminished it’s popular appeal – in fact by doing so it reestablishes any lost relevance.

OK Charlotte, what is your solution then?

I read your latest blog post, it sounded like a piece written by someone enamoured of a new discovery. Do you have any practical approach or are you going to spend the rest of your life living in an uncompromising, idealist bubble?

Your blind rejection of any collectivist solution is as bad as those who blindly reject individualism.

I think each issue needs to be taken on a case by case basis really. I don’t have any policies to offer you, I’m not a wonk.

Charlotte @ 11 – Maybe the left needs to have a good long think about whether or not the whole concept of collectivism is actually worth bothering with at all.

Charlotte @ 18 – I think each issue needs to be taken on a case by case basis really.

That’s pretty good progress in 12 hours!

Put it this way: The practicalities of rolling back institutional dependencies is horrifically difficult and painful (as Thatcher discovered and for which we, to this day, we still condemn her for), which is where the case by case thing comes in.

As for new responsibilities for tax payers… I say no. No more. Prioritise, prioritise and prioritise. If the ‘left’ really wants to reinvent itself it needs to go back to basics and work out what level of social support the people actually want, and go with that, even if the answer is ‘less’.

Try doing this by consensus and persuasion rather than using the machinery of the state to say, ‘tough’. Make it democratic. Devolve it to local areas, so that individual areas can make decisions themselves, democratically.

HOw about that?

@Dreamingspire: The Meriden Motorcycle co-operative was doomed because it was a failing company, producing a product that few people wished to buy; co-operative ownership was unable to rescue that bankrupt company because the new owners (the workers) couldn’t change the organisation. It does not necessarily follow that co-operatives can never rescue a failed company, but it will always be challenging if “owners” need to become “ex-employees” in a reorganisation.

The Baxi Partnership provides a model for those who believe that co-operatives can work. BPL work with companies that are successful and which desire to change their ownership model, creating co-ops that can thrive. No doubt others will suggest co-operative mechanisms that work in other circumstances.

My problem with MK’s argument is that too many people assume that collective action means state action. The Victorians were incredibly confident and trusted that others would contribute to mutually beneficial organisations: which is how building societies, school boards, cottage hospitals, co-operative stores, meals on wheels etc were established without state assistance (apart, perhaps, from enabling laws). Somewhere, and I don’t think that is right to blame this entirely on the Thatcher governments, confidence and trust has vanished. If there is a problem, the government will sort it out, and when they cock it up, we’ll just have a moan.

We cannot and should not turn back the clock, abolishing the NHS and state education. But we need to shred centralist management structures and genuinely devolve power, as a first step. It is irrational to ask people to act collectively by free will if central government is going to define what they are allowed to do. The first thing that the left needs to do is to stand back and allow communities to run existing services. Even if it means that Tories run Surrey. Another requirement is that local government finance is reorganised; authorities that receive 70% of their income from central government are not accountable to their electorate, because income and council choices are not transparent.

From a lefty liberal perspective, breaking down management systems of services is essential if consumers are to take control. Service deliverers should be identifiable and accountable; this is an unpleasant requirement if you are the deliverer of a failed service, but think about the good side. Consumers who have had good service know who to thank, and incompetent colleagues will get a kick up the backside.

Targets? What targets given that every region or town is different? If I run a hospital in South Yorkshire, I’ll have experts in pneumocomiosis on hand and they’ll be busy; if my next job is in Devon, I won’t have those particular experts (so poorly farm workers may have to travel), but I’ll have somebody who knows how to treat people who have been in sea water for a long period. It’s about different priorities for different places, and it is time that politicians from all parties shut their faces about “post code lotteries”.