A missing element: "Never them and us... only us."

Two things were missing from my post on what a left alternative might look like. The first was including environmental goals. I am not sure if such an hypothetical government would have done more on environmental issues. There is an element of the left which regards environmental concerns as treehugging nonsense, what one might describe as the "smokestack socialist" tendancy. They are probably not a significant group but they might have had some impact. The current government still has work to do on turning its environmental ambitions into tangible policy, but one can expect that progress is being made on it.

The second absence was a focus on policy as opposed to values. For me there are two nice quotes that sum up, in a way, what it means to be on the left:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.  It believes that  by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us  a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."  --  British Labour Party Constitution, Clause IV.

"A society must, in order to live and survive, be characterised by an all-embracing solidarity, a capacity of empathy with other people's conditions, a sense of co-responsibility and participation.  Otherwise, it will sooner or later break up in pieces of egoism.  Therefore it can never be them and us, there is only us.  Solidarity is and has to be indivisible."  -- Olof Palme, former Swedish Prime Minister.

These two quotes for me carry a nice summary of what being left wing is all about.

The values of the left start from a fundamental and profound acceptance of each of us being equal moral beings, endowed by luck and nature with different capabilities and ideas of the 'good life' for ourselves and our families.

Our ideology at heart says that because people are morally equal, and because the distribution of talents and capacities is largely a matter of luck (and therefore morally arbitrary), the community as a whole has a responsibility to embrace a political and economic system that reflects this.

That is, public policy uses a range of tools - sometimes markets, sometimes community provision, sometimes state provision - to ensure that each person has a roughly comparable standard of living, quite independent of their luck in drive, intelligence, physical aptitude etc.

By following such an approach, the freedom of individuals to pursue their vision of a good life is maximised, in the context of all having a reasonable chance at life and a reasonable standard of living based on recognition of their humanity.

It is this approach to politics that drives my analysis of what a government able to live by these values - as opposed to the narrow mean values of individualised freedom and market fetishisation - would be willing and able to do. And it is these values which get me out of bed on the campaign trail come election time, and doing the work I do for the Labour movement almost every day.

Comments

[tim barclay]

So what is the role of the Government in all this. The right says a Government should be in the background and allow the collective weight of individuals do the job whereas you believe people should be collectivised into Unions and Government action with a handful of people directing things at the top. Yesterday on a Sunday a self employed contractor came to my house and fitted an extra phone jack. Do you think I would have got that service from an employee in some company. NO way. I believe the small businessman self employed are far more productive than the wage earner, I beieve the private sector is more motivated and productive than Government employees. The Government should just PISS OFF except for the basic legal framework.

[innocentIII]

“…..and because the distribution of talents and capacities is largely a matter of luck (and therefore morally arbitrary)…”

“to ensure that each person has a roughly comparable standard of living, quite independent of their luck in drive, intelligence, physical aptitude etc”

When is “drive” a matter of luck? When did the word “luck” enter into the public policy lexicon – very odd for a self professed socialist.

You cannot concede that success might be the product of hard work and not “luck” in one’s attributes. Of course your assertion is nonsense – wealth isn’t randomly distributed like the ability to run fast. There is a discernable pattern to wealth distribution. Your proposition is in essence that the poor and disadvantaged are just “unlucky” – their situation is not “their fault”.

This is the fundamental problem with your “old left” analysis and why as a policy mix it fails over time.

Even using your terms, the problem is that the redistributive policies you support favour not only the “unlucky” those that are “deserving”, but also the idle and indolent - those that have all the attributes of the “lucky” but deliberately make poor life decisions. However you are prepared to wear this cost as collateral damage – the cost of helping the truly needy.

Isn’t there something slightly morally suspect about forcibly removing wealth from those who may be no more talented and probably less talented than the genius dropout? Isn’t it odd to punish those who make mistakes and learn not to repeat the pattern and instead reward those who whose life is a repeated pattern of poor life choices where the financial consequences of those choices are born by others. If I am “lucky” but idle shouldn’t I feel the consequences of my choices?

[anon]

innocentIII says: "You cannot concede that success might be the product of hard work and not “luck” in one’s attributes. Of course your assertion is nonsense – wealth isn’t randomly distributed like the ability to run fast. There is a discernable pattern to wealth distribution. Your proposition is in essence that the poor and disadvantaged are just “unlucky” – their situation is not “their fault”."

You could go further. Is Jordan saying that someone who can run fast (or kick and run with a ball) should not benefit financially from that ability? Is the fact that a degree of luck may be involved reason for someone not to be able to benefit from that ability?

The fact that is some people are genetically predisposed to be good at maths, running, PacMan, music etc ... and even probably to have a work ethic. Some are brought up in ways that allow them to use these talents more than others, which is also a matter of luck, while others have it difficult. Jordan wants to adjust society to even out this luck, which taken seriously - and it always difficult to take seriously Jordan's pronouncements - would mean preventing people from using their talent in maths in case they earned more as an accountant than someone without that talent.

The fact is that someone with ability in maths is more likely to get a career in finance than someone without that ability, and it is idle to try to change that. The more important thing is to have an environment where people can thrive in whatever they are good at or interested in - or not thrive if that they don't want to.

That argues for a social welfare system of a sort, but one which accepts the existance of luck and does not try to deny it.

I wish I had been good at golf and become a Michael Campbell but, you know, I just didn't make it. Should Michael not be able to be Michael as a result? Should he have to pay me more of his earnings to even out this "luck"? Or is it enough that we all as a community celebrate his success (and also very nice that he puts something back into the actual community that raised him, through private-sector golf scholarships.

These are not easy questions to answer except for people on the extremes, but moaning about luck is idle nonsense. It exists. Get over it. You could have been in New York at breakfast at Windows on the World on 9/1//01.

Also, Jordan's quotation from the British Labour Party "It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone" is something the most ruthless corporate CEO would agree with. Who argues with it? What point is being made? Sounds like Bliarite nonsense.

[Matt Pilott]

Tim,

You make very little sense. Firstly, you seem to be a fan of Adam Smith, the invisible hand and all that. It is generally accepted that the 'free market' is not free and that intervention is called for, hence the government's involvement in economics. Free markets have been shown time and time again to fail to provide for people, how obvious is this?

You've missed the point, that while the private sector may be more efficient in some circumstances, it is only available to those who can pay. You ask, rhetorically I assume, what the government's role is. It's blatantly obvious - to ensure distribution of goods and services to all, not just the rich.

Finally, you say that someone self-employed did a job for you that an employee of a company would not have done. Last I heard, the right was well up in favour of large corporations - do you propose to break down big corpororations into your idealistic self-employed businesses? Wouldn't you need Govermnment regulation to do that, Tim? Without strong government, large corporations would be free to destroy small businesses, so your angle's pretty screwed up.

The private sector in NZ is full of 'wage earners' Tim - what planet are you from?

[Matt Pilott]

Anon,

What you postulate is all fine, except that "luck" does not only refer to one's innate abilities (i.e. whether you can sing, play golf or perform quadratics with your mind). There are many societal pressures and factors that contibute to someone's situation in life. Let's be honest - someone with a good family and expensive schooling is far more likely to excell that someone from a poor background who never formed a habit of attending school.

What the left seeks to do is redress this. The 'get over it' attitude doesn't help anyone. Why 'get over it' (as is the attitude of the right - generally more wealthy people, the 'lucky' ones, telling the poor to 'get over it') when you can do something about it?

[Billy]

"A society must, in order to live and survive, be characterised by an all-embracing solidarity"

and if you won't voluntarily agree to be part of that solidarity, we will force you.

[Matt Pilott]

Billy:

A) Study "free rider problem", it's an economic term, and then get back to us with a solution.

B) Study "electoral processes in New Zealand", hopefully I won't have to tell you where to find out that kind of info, and then get back to us with what is wrong with your statement.

Cheers

[Billy]

Matt,

Step back and take a deep breath. Your post oozes that smug self-importance that those on the left and Nazis always exhibit when explaining why they know best about everything in general and, in particular, controlling other people's lives. Which is what makes you all so very unattractive as human beings. And why the general public usually cite arrogance as the number one reason they are turning off this government.

And the self important Swede needs to direct some of that money he extorts for solidarity on teaching people about split infinitives.

[Matt Pilott]

Billy,

Take it as you will (speaking of deep breathing and all), but my points are valid.

A: How would you, say, set up an "opt-in" welfare programme that works?

B: Given that NZ is a parliamentary democracy, how do does a government "force" anything? You know, elections and all?

If I was taken with gross generalisations, I'd be inclined to criticise your post as oozing that agressiveness and offensiveness as typical of right-wingers, but fortunately I have taken a deep breath, and have realised that there are many around who can reason far better than you without resorting to juvenile tactics such as comparing what you don't like with the Nazi party. Bravo.

[Billy]

Matt,

Stop setting me little quizzes. It makes you sound like a prat.

XXX

[Matt Pilott]

It also makes it look like you've said something thatyou overheard, and you can't understand it, but thought you'd post it to sound intelligent.

But nice, err, comeback. I might post that myself one day when I want to sound onto it, like you have :-)

[Billy]

Matt,

Please, anytime you are being baited by a self-important know-it-all with a fondness for asking questions he hopes makes him sound like a deep thinker instead of the friendless Lord of the Rings geek he undoubtedly is, use it.

The point I was making is that "all-embracing solidarity" can only work when it is mutual. Invoke Godwin's Law if you must, but when you compel others to be part of your idea of solidarity, you are being a facsist. How is this Swede's idea of solidarity any different to, say, Fox News'insistence that any criticism of the Iraq war is unamerican? It's not. It's just saying that everyone has to agree with me.

And Matt, I don't want to agree with you. You don't sound like much fun.

[phillipjohn]

Billy:

We're all constrained by social mores that people have to adhere to - they're just different in each country. In the Scandinavian countries rich people are forced to pay high taxes to ensure a healthy community, whereas in the US everyone has to pay taxes in order to pay for illegal wars and provide corporate welfare for weapons manufacturers.

[libertyscott]

On observation, in neither of those quotes is it essential that you use state force to achieve your goals, why force people to co-operate?

Philipjohn people are forced to pay taxes because governments have the power to force them. It doesn't make it right.

Elections don't take away the element of force. If 10 people vote to take half of the property of 9 others, it doesn't make it right. Let's face it, much of what the left appeals to in democracy is the idea that the majority can force a minority to do what it wants. It is remarkable how difficult it is for most people to accept the cold honest truth that it is all about violence.

[Matt Pilott]

I still qustion how it can work any other way - taxation can't exactly be voluntary. If a government wants to provide social services, it needs the money to do so. Without using 'force' in the sense of regualtion, and legislation, there would be no government. Are you arguing here, libertyscott and billy, that all government is inherently wrong? There is no was an entire country will ever agree to any law - I can't think of a single example - so this lack of solidarity will render any government illegitimate unless you consider that acting against the wishes of some is acceptable.

[phillipjohn]

Liberty Scott's ideal society seems to be one in which people are taught that maximising your narrowly defined material self-interest is the only path to self-fulfilment. I sometimes wish that all the libertarians would fly off to some Island so we could watch their experimental society decay into a kind of corporate/feudal system. The centralisation of money and power resulting from the "hands off" economy would quickly result in a political takeover by the ruling class - then the sons and daughters of these neo-liberal experimentalists would be the one's working the crappy jobs, with no minimum wage. The resulting social disharmony would cause a kind of late 19th century labour movement all over again. And 50 years after the beginning of the experiment you would have a pragmatic, middle of the road government ...

[PaulL]

Why is wealth the only thing we choose to redistribute? (Actually, we choose to redistribute income, which is sort of correlated with wealth, but not as well as we might hope).

Why don't we redistribute free time? I have income, but very little free time (since I work to get that income). Should those who are unemployed, to whom we choose to redistribute my income, have to redistribute their time to me? Maybe come and mow my lawn or some such?

What about sports talent? I have little of that, but it seems to confer happiness, so maybe some of that should be redistributed to me? I'm not sure how that would work - perhaps we could go out to play tennis and people could take turns letting me win? It seems so unfair that I am not good at tennis.

And then there is culture. My paintings are pretty crap, but people probably should have to buy them, and also say that they like them. And don't get me started on girlfriends, I hear that the average man has 20 or so sexual partners, I don't think I am getting my fair share, being monogamous and all. Is sex something the government should redistribute?

[unaha-closp]

Strange that the left is defined by two quotes that directly contradict multi-culturalism.

[libertyscott]

"Liberty Scott's ideal society seems to be one in which people are taught that maximising your narrowly defined material self-interest is the only path to self-fulfilment"

Bullshit, it is the left that is obsessed with materialism, obsessed with wealth, how much people own and earn. You've evaded the point about force, which I think does NOT make for an ideal society. I think the ideal is when all adults interact on a voluntary basis.

"I sometimes wish that all the libertarians would fly off to some Island so we could watch their experimental society decay into a kind of corporate/feudal system."

Oh you can't get on with others without nanny state ordering people about and telling you what to do? I actually want the state to just stand back and protect people from each other, not themselves.

The difference between me and you philipjohn is that I am willing to donate my money and time to help others directly and indirectly, I don't need the state to do it. I am an optimist about people, I think most people most of the time are considerate and helpful to others. Because the state forces people to pay for it, the level of accountability for poor performance is shocking, and the big state you talk about risks interfering in people's lives to such an extent that they abandon thinking for themselves, making choices or caring about their neighbours (after all why help your unemployed neighbour when you're already forced to pay welfare for him and everyone else).

It is a straw man put up by the left that those on the liberal/libertarian right only care about people making money and want to atomise everyone. Quite the contrary, having a society when adults voluntarily interact and hte state only steps in when someone initiates force is quite the contrary. Yes taxation will be needed to fund that function for a very long time, but because it is force needed to fund it, it should be at the lowest level necessary to do so. Yes it is utopian, no it wont happen tomorrow, but I much prefer moving towards a society of free people who dont use force, than one where the state (a minority of people barely accountable to every one) makes decisions on health, education, the economy and the like, forcing people to pay for its mistakes.

It comes down to a fundamental belief as to whether the state is a necessary evil (libertarian view) or a force for good (leftwing/collectivist view). Most of the atrocities of the world can be laid at states being seen as forces for good (the public good has been the justification for most infringements on freedom), or at least failing miserably at their function as being a necessary evil (protecting people from each other).

[Erda Rae]

"If there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree."

- Karl Popper

[phillipjohn]

The problem Scott is that you're a naive idealist - the market mechanism of wealth centralisation means that power becomes centralised - oligopolies and monopolies are formed. This is the means by which capitalist states are formed. For god’s sake read your history boy! The best we can do is to attenuate the selfish desires of centralised capital with democracy, through the parliamentary process and unionism. Leave it to the market and you just get the same old cycle of exploitation and civil unrest, with a democratic backlash.