Socialism: Wilde and Free
Socialism is often unfairly caricatured as bureaucratic and authoritarian. Yet, as Oscar Wilde argued, socialism is at heart about giving people the freedom to fulfil their potential.
UK Politics
James Whittaker ___________________________________________________________________
The rise of Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Pablo Iglesias has put unapologetic socialism back on the table in the West. It’s therefore germane to discuss what socialist politics aims to do. Cynical and polemical caricatures of socialism often reduce it to idealistic moralism, sclerotic state bureaucracy, — or worse — Stalinist authoritarianism. Yet Oscar Wilde once argued that socialism remains the only path for the individual to be liberated from capitalism’s ills. Historically, in the beating heart of the socialist tradition, there has always been a deep yearning for freedom. That is, freedom for people to govern themselves in the political arena, freedom in the workplace and freedom in the home. More generally, socialism is about people fighting for individual and collective freedom from the constraints of an economic system which pursues profit at the expense of deeper human needs.
In the UK, working-class people were at the forefront of movements towards political equality and voting rights. Socialist and feminist Labour MP, Laura Pidcock, explained in her maiden speech recently that: Westminster “reeks of the Establishment… it was built at a time when my class and my sex were denied a place within it because we were deemed unworthy”. Equal voting rights were only achieved in 1928, when the labour movement had become a competitive electoral force. Chartists and the Suffragettes were part and parcel of the embryonic socialist movements. Furthermore, iconic socialists, such as Marx and Engels, were very supportive of such movements which fought for universal suffrage. They believed that freedom could, at least to some extent, come from the ballot box. Most conservatives and liberals, on the other hand, worried that allowing working class people and women the vote would initiate a “tyranny of the majority” i.e. a political rebalance that might threaten their wealth and power.
Furthermore, socialists such as James Connolly, a key figure in the Irish Easter Uprising in 1916, have also stood at the forefront of national movements against empire. On “the National Question”, Lenin insisted that the self-determination of nations within the Russian empire was “absolutely essential”. This socialist impulse is also replicated in its solidarity with those who find themselves on the sharp-edges of ethno-nationalistic forms of state power. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, among others, have a strong record in support of the rights of Irish Catholics, Kurds and Palestinians.
Most socialists though are sceptical of the nation-state, seeing it as a vehicle of oppression that arises to mediate and quell the antagonisms of capitalist society. Reigning in the state’s militaristic and authoritarian excesses has therefore been a feature of the Labour Party’s left in the UK. Tony Benn criticised the shameful record of the British security services during the miner’s strike and the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Diane Abbott’s profound speech against Blair’s bill on the 42-day detention of terrorist suspects without charge is also worth remembering. Abbott recognised that such law would be an affront to the freedoms of Muslims and ethnic minorities who would undoubtedly be disproportionately targeted. Reminding the House of Commons that we should be “willing to stand up for the civil liberties of the marginalised, the suspect and the unpopular”, the speech was widely lauded.
While there is a certain, undeniable strain of the left which succumbed to authoritarianism, there has always also been a socialist resistance to it. A recent visit to the Museum of Communism in Prague illuminated how the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia, and the Warsaw Pact more generally, felt far more threatened by socialist critics than liberal or conservative opposition. Similarly, Polish revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg famously scolded Lenin, explaining: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently”. Hence, there has always been a strong left tradition of demanding political and national rights and opposing the state’s authoritarian excesses.
Nonetheless, socialists know civil liberties and political rights only go so far. Freedom from exploitation in the marketplace and patriarchal oppression in the home are also crucial. Unlike classical liberals, socialists recognise that freedom in enterprise and property accumulation means little to those who have nothing to sell but their labour. Can we seriously consider nurses who go to foodbanks free? Social rights, i.e. the right to a job that pays the living wage, education, housing, healthcare etc. must be the cornerstone of any society that wants to take the issue of human freedom seriously.
Likewise, a good socialist politics puts freedom in the home on the same pedestal. In this sense, it intersects with the aims of feminism. Engels and Marx, in diagnosing capitalism’s ills, saw exploitation and oppression not only in the workplace but also in the home. They analysed the sexual division of labour between the male-dominated public sphere (the workplace) and the private sphere (the home). Of course, women’s domestic labour — cooking, cleaning, caring for children — went unpaid and they could not own property until the late 19th century. Sylvia Pankhurst did not only fight for political equality but she also fought for freedom in the workplace and freedom from the patriachal home. Pankhurst in fact became sceptical of parliament’s ability to liberate the home and the workplace. So much so that she was even denounced by Lenin for her radicalism and lectured on benefits of parliamentarianism. Socialists then expand the definition of freedom beyond parliament and into the workplace and the home.
Together, these freedoms contribute towards a deeper and more general freedom: The freedom to fulfil individual and collective potential. Capitalism allows this freedom only insofar as it leads to profit. During the general election campaign, Jeremy Corbyn explained:
“… so many of us are scaling back our hopes and dreams… It’s the reason why this country is unable to unleash its potential. Because as families, communities — entire regions — we are all being held back.”
Astronomical tuition fees and household debts, a never-ending housing crisis and a chronic lack of investment in poor, deindustrialized communities surely do hold people back. Whereas, well-paid, meaningful work and investment in public services liberates people from poverty and other social ills. Add to this investment in arts, culture, sport and alternative models of ownership — such as worker’s cooperatives — and perhaps you can begin to talk about human emancipation. As Oscar Wilde put it:
“There is only one class in the community that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the poor. The poor can think of nothing else.”
The pressures and stresses of the economic system under which we live are constricting: they limit our dreams, ambitions and aspirations. Our goals become adjusted, scaled back or dispensed with on the basis of their economic utility. Socialism then is about freeing people’s minds, both on a collective and individual level. When minds are free they can do amazing things. If socialism is to win, its advocates must constantly remind their electorates of their potential. They must offer people nothing less than the chance to pursue their dreams.
