Since the outbreak of euphoria which surrounded the collapse of `actually
existing socialism' in eastern Europe, critical scrutiny of the fundamental
faults which characterise our own system in the west has become increasingly
rare. This book is an attempt to contribute to the broad debate which
must ensue if we are to change that sorry situation and rebuild a socialist
movement capable of being effective in the changed circumstances of a
new century.
Whereas neoliberals expect nothing but good to come from the market,
socialists remain committed to a society based on a perception of humanity
not as the narrow homo economicus of classical economic theory, but rather
as homo universalis. Where liberals believe that individualism will lead
us to `the empire of liberty', socialists counter this with an understanding
of the social nature of human beings and of the fact that any practical
politics must take this into account.
The one-dimensional character of neoliberalism leads it to ignore the
fact that as well as purely economic interests (for which read `the interests
of the economically and financially powerful'), there exist numerous
other criteria upon which policy can be criticised and assessed. Standards,
values, the idea of a social conscience, these may recently have returned
as legitimate subjects of political debate, but for a long time they
seemed to have disappeared from the stage. In the no-nonsense approach
of the '80s and '90s, any talk of such things has been regarded as suspect.
For most of those who subscribe to the doctrines of neoliberalism this
remains the case. Every man for himself, sauve qui peut, is the cornerstone
of a philosophy which is shortsighted and narrowminded. And it is this
shortsightedness which seems more than anything to underscore the current
prevailing political and economic ideology, the long-term consequences
of governmental or commercial actions being rarely weighed in the balance.
The removal of ideology from the sphere of politics has certainly contributed
to this overvaluing of the short-term. Political parties are less and
less frequently a form of expression for people gathered together to
promote their ideas of how to improve the social good. A consensus dominates,
silencing debate. Politics is becoming a wallflower, and through this
process democracy itself is endangered. People are increasingly led to
feel that what they think or believe or for whom or what they vote are
no longer of any importance. As a result, a growing number of men and
women who until recently placed their hopes in the political process
no longer bother to vote. The legitimacy of government is called into
question.
The collapse of Comecon, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, has relieved
capitalism's critics of the deadweight of an unwanted identification
with the eastern European system. There is now more space for us to make,
on the basis of a concrete analysis of a concrete situation, a critical
review of the status quo, as well as to look towards possible alternatives.
Missed chances, however, continue to pile up. Despite continual economic
growth, social conflicts are sharpening as a range of problems intensify
and more and more people are condemned to live lives of poverty, solitude
and hopelessness. The world as `global village' should be bringing different
peoples closer together to the mutual benefit of all; paradoxically,
of course, it has done more to divide than to unite us.
"The head cannot teach what the heart doesn't feel." Effective political
engagement begins with observation, scepticism and analysis, but this must always
proceed from a certain ethical framework. Only in this way can we begin to approach
society's ills in a rational manner. Is my anger or indignation justified? Is
there an alternative? Does the pursuit of this alternative justify the effort
and resources involved?
The gap between "what is" and "what ought to be" has
grown too wide. For anyone for whom what may be practical in the parliamentary
arena does not provide the be-all and end-all of politics, the challenge
is now to think of ways in which we might create a society which does
justice to the dignity of every individual, a society which is willing
and able to base itself upon the principles of equality and solidarity
amongst all of its members
“Enough” Contents: