Socialism. That’s a word and a movement and a vision that’s seeing some hard times—perhaps even extinction. Socialism never “took” in the United States as it did in much of the rest of the world for a host of reasons. The American Dream and reality functioned as an ideological alternative to socialist values of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The right to vote for a significant segment of the population kept the issues of democracy and workers’ rights from getting tangled and polarized, as they were in Western Europe. The frontier as a land of second chances and opportunity; the challenge of organizing the diversity of American ethnic and racial groups; the widely held value of equality as equal respect, not equal outcomes--these are just some of the reasons advanced for why socialism did not root itself in the American body politic.
But those readers who are adamantly opposed to this political movement and body of thought should appreciate that socialist traditions and doctrine have been extremely diverse, that reformist social democratic parties have been successful in combating poverty, substantially lessened inequality, and had, for most of their history, healthy and dynamic economies. Hence, socialism does not inherently mean—Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot—some of the greatest murderers of all time.
Given the variety of “socialisms,” socialists could never agree as a whole that even a real socialist country existed, anywhere and at any time. Fans of Sweden thought it to be on its way, but not there yet. Fans of the USSR were regarded by their reformist critics as heralding a nation that was utterly in contradiction to socialist ideals.
Likewise, many socialists were not utopians. George Orwell did not look to socialism to transform every aspect of human existence and solve all problems. He was convinced though that socialism promised more security, more equality, more freedom, and simply more “decency.” American philosopher and Marxist (in the 1930s) Sidney Hook stated that “cultural progress consists of transferring problems to higher and more inclusive levels. But there are always problems. ‘History’ according to Hegel, ‘has no other way of answering old questions than by putting new ones.’ Under [Socialism], man ceases to suffer as an animal and suffers as a human. He therewith moves from the plane of the pitiful to the plane of the tragic.” 1
It is due to these arguments that many socialists did not define socialism as an economy with common ownership of the means of production and planning substituting for markets, but preferred less institutionally specific and value-based definitions, along these lines:
A society is socialist to that extent that it provides the possibilities for the free creative development of every individual. G. Petrovic 2
A social order in which there is maximum feasible equality of access, for all human beings, to economic resources, to knowledge, and to political power, and the minimum possible domination exercised by any individual or group over any others. T. Bottomore 3
A libertarian could agree with the goal in the first, but pursue an entirely different reform agenda, while the second might be adopted by liberal democrats in the US.
So, set aside any prejudices and read how one man sought to achieve the two goal statements (and definitions) we just presented.
This essay of celebration is an effort to inspire people to read a foremost British socialist, a Labor Party intellectual, a Christian, and renowned celebrated historian and economist.
R.H. Tawney was a highly respected economist and economic historian specializing in the Tudor period in England, who became widely known as much for his social criticism and activism as for his work in the field of economics. As an executive member of the Workers’ Education Association (WEA) during the first part of the twentieth century, Tawney spent over half a century advocating adult education and workers’ education programs. Tawney has also published substantial works on equality, religion and capitalism, adult education, labor, and British History.
One of Tawney’s unique contributions to economics is the way in which he interwove his understanding of his own faith, Christianity, into his ideas on power, equality, wealth/privilege, and institutions. His book, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism 4 pioneered the notion that institutions of capitalism were founded upon the basic principles of Catholicism and that its institutional structure derives from Christianity. Tawney was a stark critic of capitalism, arguing that “…capitalism encourages the wrong instincts in men (acquisitiveness) and goes against the grain of the instinct for service and solidarity which exists in men and can be drawn out by different social arrangements.” 5An obvious vote for socialism in the face of capitalism. Also intriguing is Tawney’s argument that under capitalism the idea of culture is treated as a possession. 6
Tawney’s approach to economics was influenced by both his Christian and socialist beliefs; he was most interested in how societies navigated issues of equality, issues of wealth and poverty, relationships between people, basic questions about being human in society. In a sense, he was interested in how societies and individuals interacted, and how they functioned as a means to their respective ends. In the words of biographer Ross Terrill, “Tawney was interested not only in the treatment of individuals, but also in the consequences for the health of the whole society of the way individuals are treated. It was in the realm of social relationships that he bid for equality; equality was a means to the paramount good of fellowship.” 7 Tawney’s book Equality is one of the great works on the subject. 8 His definition of equality is built on what he considers its three pillars: equal worth, self-fulfillment, and social function. 9
Equal Worth: all people are a part of humanity. This belief comes from Tawney’s beliefs in the brotherhood of Christianity. “Men are of equal worth because of their common condition (brotherhood) as sons of God.” 10
Self-fulfillment: for Tawney, a society that embraces self-fulfillment is one where “‘all its members may be equally enabled to make the best of such powers as they possess.” 11 Here, self-fulfillment is defined in terms of how they use their capabilities to benefit society. 12
Social Function: Tawney links the idea of equality with that of social function. “Distribution should never fall out of relation to service rendered to the community.” 13
Tawney was also actively involved in advocating adult education policy and promoting workers’ education programs. In 1905 he joined the executive of the Workers’ Educational Association. He remained a member of the WEA executive for 42 years, serving as president from 1928-1945. 14 Through his work with the WEA Tawney formed his beliefs on the importance of workers’ education and adult education programs. Tawney’s views on education can best be summed up in his own words:
Education... though it is much else as well, is partly, at least, the process by which we transcend the barriers of our isolated personalities, and become partners in a universe of interests which we share with our fellow-men, living and dead alike. No one can be fully at home in the world unless, through some acquaintance with literature and art, the history of society and the revelations of science, he has seen enough of the triumphs and tragedies of mankind to realize the heights to which human nature can rise and the depths to which it can sink. 15
For Tawney, quality education for all people (not just the rich or powerful) is the backbone of society.
Finally, I would like to deal with Tawney’s beliefs and extensive work on the issue of power, wealth, and privilege. He defines privilege as “the special advantage of wealth and status enjoyed by certain groups in a capitalist society.” For him, privilege and tyranny were the greatest failures (and, in fact, the product) of the capitalist system. 16 In a just society, privilege should be at a minimum with power and wealth equally shared and distributed amongst the people. Too much material wealth results in one person’s power over others in society. 17 Tawney believed that “individual differences, which are a source of social energy, are more likely to ripen and find expression if social inequalities are, as far as practicable, diminished.” 18 Tawney believed this was to be done through social organization heavily controlled by the state; 19 he advocated government programs to expand public services such as roads, hospitals, schools, and parks…“quite simply, surplus private income had to be converted into social income.” 20
Tawney served as professor of economic history at the University of London from 1941-1949. As a professor he was known for his eccentricities. One account remarks of Tawney, “…a remarkable personality, who was apt to put a still lit pipe in his pocket as he lectured.” 21 In the words of another of his students: “my first impression was one of surprise....There was none of the academic manner about him; none of that air which is so inclined to freeze; he was one of us. We had expected the frigid zone; we were landed at the equator. Tawney was not a teacher: he was a man of the soul.” 22 Although we may not “buy” all of his solutions, it’s hard not to be inspired by his character and accomplishments. And we share his goals. If not the “socialist for all seasons,” he is “a man for all seasons.”