Interesting comments to my earlier post, ‘How can we be racist? We’re Labour’. I thought that what Tom Paine had to say about the ideology of the Left deserved a wider audience. Here are snippets:
A person’s politics reflect how he thinks the world works - or should work. Whether a person is good or bad depends not on what he says or thinks, but on how he treats other people in practice.
Those on the Left see things differently. They see their political views as moral in themselves. A Leftist has fulfilled all his moral duties to others merely by adopting a “caring” political stance. He no longer has to do anything. He can just call for “the State” or “Society” to do it.
Leftists also see themselves as being in some sort of “communion” with each other, which they call “solidarity.” Whereas a Tory or Liberal does not have to like or even approve of every other Tory or Liberal, Leftists are supposed to stick together against “the enemy”, “the other”, “the heretic”, “the bourgeoisie”, “the Bosses’ Class” or whatever. …
This has dangerous consequences. If you see your politics as a moral stance, you are more likely to hate, less likely to be open minded, more prone to orthodoxy, more inclined to see contrary views as “thought crime” etc. Hence “climate change denial”, “hate speech” and political correctness. …
And he is right. See here for the full write-up.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Hmmm, I’m not so sure that you can conflate politics and moral attitudes quite so easily.
For example, I’m on the left politically speaking, but I still strongly disagree with a large number of “Lefties”, and have no trouble making common cause with those on the right when I’m in agreement with them. For me, someone’s attitude towards those they disagree with is the most important thing about them in many respects, if they don’t respect other people’s opinions, then I see little point engaging with them. Dogmatism should be fought against, wherever you encounter it.
There is a very ugly strain of authoritarianism among a lot of the left at the moment, in fact there’s always been so. A lot of us though, who recognise that democracy means dealing with difference, are completely opposed to it, and don’t see it as representative of left-wing thought as a whole.
Putting politics aside for the moment: Nice blog. I found you through the defending the blog site.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Hi Matt M, thank you for stopping by. It’s not often I get anyone from the Left here. Can’t think why
I agree with what you say about resisting dogmatism. I am finding that this is becoming more of an issue. To my mind, political positions are becoming even more entrenched. Take the recent furore about Bob Piper and Unity’s spoof picture. The initial resistance by Piper was because the people who complained were Tories, and therefore not worthy of being listened to.
Thank you for the compliment re the blog. I think blogpower is a splendid idea. I expect it will help us all.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Tom Paine is always right on the money, Bel. I concur with his profiling of the left.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Matt M’s comment does him credit and I entirely agree with his views on dogmatism. A person’s attitude to those who disagree with him on important matters is a vital test of civilisation.
Left wingers out of power can, of course, be as sweetly reasonable as the next man. They can even speak kindly of “civil liberties” and perhaps even mean it.
But whenever in power, the Left expands the boundaries of the State. It’s inevitable. If you have a problem with the the outcomes produced by billions of market interactions between your fellow men, you must find other means to promote your desired behaviours. If you desire a planned economy, you can’t tolerate people ignoring the plan. Denied the use of the carrot, you must reach for the stick.
Almost a century of human history was devoted to experimenting with the implementation of Socialist ideology and the result was everywhere the same. No idea has ever been so thoroughly and so disastrously tested. Just ask the people of the post-communist countries where I have lived for the past 15 years.
There really is no excuse for an intelligent person to believe in Socialism for one second more. Come to the light, Matt M!
December 12th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Tom,
Thanks, but I think I’ll stick where I am for the moment.
Personally, I disagree with a lot of “Statist” policies and I’m in favour of a mixed economy. Mine is the democratic socialism of Orwell and Bertrand Russell. I don’t think that health or education benefit from being treated as commodities (my choices would be far more limited under a privatised system - as I don’t have the money to travel across the country for a decent hospital or school) and so favour some kind of state-maintained system. However, I think that it can be run far, far, far better than it is at the moment and I’m not adverse to the private sector playing some role under government supervision. (I also think that maintaining a private sector alongside the public is essential). When it comes to the public sector, the government’s focus should be on efficiency - getting the most bang for your buck, as it were. *Both* Labour and the Conservatives seem far more concerned about the amount spent, not how effectively it’s spent.
I also believe that solidarity is an important aspect of politics, but in a more inclusive sense than you seem to see it. I believe that all human beings, regardless of race, creed, gender, sexuality, or politics deserve a basic standard of living (at the very least freedom from oppression) and I’ll work with anyone who agrees with me on important issues - no matter where on the planet, or political spectrum they come from.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Matt M, I agree with your views on the provision of health and education services. I agree that some kind of state-maintained health service is necessary. Where I suspect I might disagree with you is the scope of the state-maintained service. I am one of those who accept that the NHS cannot do everything. I would like to see debate on how much we should reasonably expect from the NHS, and how this interacts with private provision.
On the wider point of ideology, I am in favour of ascertaining the goals at the outset, and then putting in place the best and most effective means of achieving them. In doing so, ideology per se should not play a big role, however the most effective solution is almost always that which involves giving more power to the individual rather than the State.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Bel,
We seem to be roughly on the same page.
I’m in favour of a fairly decentralised health and education system, with the role of the state largely being to ensure that standards don’t fall below a certain point. Completely equality is logistically impossible in my opinion, and there will always be variation. Given how important these areas are to society I agree that we need to focus on what works, leaving ideological considerations to one side most of the time. Aside from those at the extremes, I think we can all agree that the state should promote the best life possible for its citizens, and that means expanding our choices and freedom as much as possible.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
‘… and that means expanding our choices and freedom as much as possible.’
Well said. Are you sure you won’t reconsider Tom’s invitation to come on over to the right?
December 13th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
No thanks, quite happy where I am.
Besides, I’m sure that at some point my opinions of issues like welfare would annoy more right-leaning individuals in the end.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I think you’d be surprised, Matt. We are quite caring and compassionate, you know.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Hmmm - so you don’t want to burn the poor in some Wickerman type construction then?
You learn something new every day.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
No, we don’t do that anymore. I think EU regulations now forbid it, or something.