Common Ownership and Social Justice is a fine article written back in 1995 by blogger Methodist Preacher.
We cannot trust capitalism to deliver social justice. Our experience of the eighties in Britain has shown just how oppressive and irresponsible unrestrained capital can be.
At the very least capital needs to be aware that there always remains a political alternative to their ownership of resources.
Without a firm commitment to common ownership and therefore seeing ourselves as “stewards” rather than potential “owners” of the world’s resources we risk unleashing forces that have caused so much havoc throughout history.
David’s article was written in defence of the Labour Party’s Clause 4, an argument that was lost in Tony Blair’s ‘modernisation’ of the Labour Party, but ‘common ownership’ is a theme which urgently needs re-visiting. It would be (is?) too easy to take for granted the assumption that there is something inherently ‘natural’ about the way that we organize the economy.
When Labour came to power with Tony Blair it seemed like anything might be possible. There was tremendous optimism and excitement, a real desire for change. His government had a real opportunity, the sort not seen since the end of WWII, to reshape our national life. That opportunity was wasted and is now gone.
But the idea of common ownership has not gone away. Whilst I would not advocate a return to the post-war policy of nationalization (though I do believe there are some industries that should be owned by the nation: public roads are taken for granted — why not railways?) companies such as Scott Bader and the success of British credit unions are a powerful challenge to the conventional wisdom about ownership and control in the economy.
It was 165 years ago that the ‘Rochdale Pioneers’ established their Equitable Society. The principles they established could still be a foundation for a re-ordering of our economic life that is genuinely a ‘third way’.
I don’t underestimate the opposition that should a re-ordering would receive, from both Left and Right. (The Trade Unions have not always been supportive of worker ownership, preferring a model of confrontation between workers and owners) But recent events should have shaken the confidence of any who’ve trusted our present model of ownership by Capital. It’s time, to use a terrible cliché, to put People first.
The Christian gospel has always had at its heart a call to the radical transformation of society, a call which has been largely resisted through the ages. We’ve explained away Jesus’ hardest teaching about wealth, ignored the way the first church responded to the gospel, done all we can to privatize (and spiritualize) the meaning of conversion.
Those of us who call ourselves ‘Christian’ need to think again about what that means.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
PamBG 12.15.09 at 10:30 pm
An interesting article in the light of my recent posts on “socialized medicine”. I think that David and you make good points. I am in favour of operating for the goal of the common good rather than individual profits. However, there is also a difference between our ultimate goals (the common good or individual profits) and the process by which we attain those goals. It’s well to remember that part of the failure of “Old Socialism” in European generally (including in the UK) is that the processes broke down and became unworkable and oppressive to the very elements of society that were seeking social justice.
I confess that I don’t know what the “process” solution is. I’m rather more cynical than David about the ability of the government to efficiently run many ventures.
I point out the distinction, however, because too often the goals and the processes get conflated. Many people who believe that government-run ventures are hopelessly inefficient then feel that their only alternative is to advocate radical economic liberalism and survival of the fittest. I think we need more people advocating for private ventures that are run for the common good rather than for the profits of owners/shareholders.
Richard 12.16.09 at 12:25 am
“state run” and “private” are often assumed to be the only alternatives. The reality is that there are lots of other ownership options based on co-operative principles. Worker ownership, customer ownership, community ownership — or some mix of the 3 — all provide viable alternatives.