"Democratic Socialist Aims and Values": Labour Leaders go to Market

Labour Briefing no. 69, 28 September 1988, p. 8 · printed under the name Paul Lawson

Transcribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.

"Democratic socialists believe in market allocation — but market allocation guided by agreement that the competitive system should pursue the objective of greater freedom, greater equality and greater choice". There in a nutshell you have the philosophy of Kinnock's Democratic Socialist Aims and Values.

Its stress on the market is reinforced with repeated reference to creating conditions in which individuals can make maximum use of their own resources and abilities to do well in a competitive society.

All this adds up to a new departure for Labour's leaders, well to the right of traditional mainstream Labourism, and a flagrant attempt to accommodate to Thatcher's championing of individualism over collectivism.

This philosophy has uncanny resemblances to has been called the "possessive individualism" of Hobbes and Locke in the 17th century.

These theorists of the rising capitalist class regarded the development of individual potential as intimately linked with private property and the market society. But of course, unlike the authors of the Policy Review, Hobbes and Locke admitted that only a minority could enjoy the benefits of market capitalism.

In contrast, Kinnock and Hattersley commit a classic utopian error — when they imagine some sort of "agreement" that will guide market allocation towards freedom, equality and choice.

Market capitalism is about inequality. Equality, freedom and choice presuppose allocation on the basis of social priorities and needs, which the market by its nature must ignore.

The document fails even to mention a key word for understanding modern Britain: "capitalism". There is no recognition of the underlying logic of the market: that of private profit. Democratic socialist aims and values apparently no longer entails any break with this logic.

The policy proposals in the Review mark a sharp break with Labour's guiding thread since 1945 and before — a strong public sector in a "mixed" economy and a powerful welfare state. In essence, the document accepts that basic changes made by Thatcher are here to stay, and that Labour's previous collectivist notions have had their day.

This conclusion is partly right. The Wilson and Callaghan governments failed precisely because they couldn't go beyond managing capitalism. Kinnock and Hattersley propose to start anew not by making a socialist critique of past failings, but by a sharp move towards a more openly pro-capitalist philosophy.

By definition, socialism is collectivist in spirit and practice. Pro-capitalist political theory has always falsely counterposed the rights and needs of individuals — including their rights to material well-being and freedom of choice — to social solidarity and collectivism.

Kinnock and Hattersley accept the false choice posed by all such theories: East European totalitarianism versus "freedom" of the market. If this were the real choice facing advanced societies we would be in a hopeless historical dilemma — dictatorship of the market or of the faceless bureaucracy.

Such a view is deeply pessimistic about human potential; its premise is the supposed inability of the mass of ordinary people to run their own society according to their own democratically determined social priorities.

What about the notion of an "agreement" to make the market function in favour of fairness and freedom? Agreement with whom? The big corporations which dominate the market?

When Norman Willis flew off to the US to appeal to Ford's better nature over the Dundee debacle, his scornful predecessor Len Murray commented: "The problem is that Fords don't have a better nature". Neither do their competitors.

In the Putney debates Oliver Cromwell championed the rights of "men of property" against those "who have no interest (i.e. property) other than in breathing". Cromwell, at least, was a good deal more honest about the realities of market capitalism than Kinnock or Hattersley.

transcribed from the page image, 2 Nov 2026; spelling as printed ("uncanny resemblances to has been called" - a word apparently dropped, kept as printed; "Democratic socialist aims and values ... entails"; Fords). The article runs across the gutter of the centre spread: it starts in the right-hand columns of page 8 and finishes in the two left-hand columns of page 9; the kicker and headline are split across the fold ("Democratic Socialis|t Aims and Values", "Labour Lea|ders go / to Market"). The by-line (By Paul Lawson) is set between rules in the second column on page 8, mid-article. The two bold opening paragraphs are given as the bold standfirst. No jumps beyond the spread. Left out: the Labour conference greetings adverts and Socialist Outlook subscription advert on page 8; Richard Hanford's "Neil takes a lead!" cartoon, Eric Heffer's "Real Policies for 'People at Work'" and Gill Lee's "Big Backward Steps" on page 9.