Has the UK ever seen a government committed to socialist ideals?
Taidgh Pledger This seems a very demanding title to consider, as not only has the United Kingdom undergone over 150 years of modern government, but the idea of socialist ideals itself can be very controversial. Therefore I shall start by trying to form a definitive guide as to what we mean exactly by the concept of ‘socialist ideals’. The first thing that must be said is that what we are looking at here may not necessarily be socialism, which is normally most recognisable by its ends of equality of wealth, and the control of the proletariat, but instead the means by which socialism can be achieved. Most obviously there must be some critique of capitalism, as socialism was seen by Marx as an alternative economic system. However the most crucial criterion by which we should judge governments is their attempts to initiate public ownership of industry and property, I believe this because this theme seems to be central to four of the ten generally applicable measures of Marx’1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes… 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels…7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;’( Marx, 1848,p.19) and Marx himself claimed that ‘nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange’( Crosland, 1956, p.74) was what socialism should be defined as. Whilst socialism comes in many different forms with many different authors, I think that this definition, coming from its most prominent and famous spokesperson is very apt for the situation. This definition also shortens my next task of choosing potentially suitable governments, as it is only the Labour party that has both held government on its own and had a commitment to public ownership (or at least they did have until 1995).Thus although the ‘New Liberalism’ government between 1906- 1914 deserves an honourable mention for establishing the first form of a welfare state in the country it is not suitable in this context. I am also disregarding the brief periods the party held office under Ramsay Macdonald in 1924 and 1929-31, as not only were these periods simply too short to make a real impact. Therefore I am left with three governments to assess in more detail; firstly the first majority Labour government under Clement-Attlee from 1945-51, the Labour governments of 1974- 79 with particular focus on the new programme of 1973 and finally New Labour of 1997-2010 in order to discover whether the UK has now officially accepted capitalism. The Attlee government of 1945 was the first time the Labour party had an opportunity to put in motion the socialist principles that they had preached since their inception, changing attitudes towards state planning during the war allowed them to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946 with little visible opposition, and this was followed by the coal industry a year later and the railways in 1948. However their job soon became more difficult and Crosland describes ‘later proposals (e.g. for nationalizing steel and chemicals) of course aroused more opposition.’(Crosland, 1956, p.304) Plus there were actually some successful public campaigns against the nationalization of some major companies, such as in the case of Tate and Lyle. However this does not make the government any less socialist , it merely shows a change in public opinion. From what we can see here this government was completely committed to the nationalization of the means of production, they were just forced to make the process more gradual due to the democratic system they were operating in. Plus they still continued developing state planning, even in industries they had not yet nationalized, ‘planning can be made effective even in the private sector.’(Crosland, 1956, p.359). Furthermore the government pressed ahead with their social reformation programme, forming the most comprehensive welfare state the UK had ever seen, including the revolutionary National Health Service. So surely there is no argument here, this is clearly a government committed to socialist principles, only prevented from implementing them by the public? I beg to differ.
Although the early work of the government is undoubtedly evidence of socialism, with attempts made
78
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker