I was left open-mouthed recently by
the Trump supporter who, in a brief interview, said that she was “terrified” by
socialism. An extreme reaction, surely? But then she lives in America, where the
media deliberately conflates social democracy with Stalinism. On this side of
the pond, meanwhile, millions of us are thankful for having been beneficiaries
of Britain’s post-1945 socialist reforms. Our differing political views are not
surprising: as Claude Levi-Strauss observed, “One must be very naïve or
dishonest to imagine that men choose their beliefs independently of their situation”
*.
Everything I perceive lately is coloured
by the imminent general election, in which the principal contestants present
extremely opposed theories of governance. But why extreme? Whatever happened to
consensus? Was that, in Joni Mitchell’s phrase, “just a dream some of us had”? Utopian
or not, the idea of a society in which wealth is more evenly distributed need
be neither the end of capitalism nor the beginning of Stalinism. In the past
twenty years or so the rate of disparity between rich and poor in both the USA
and the UK has accelerated and this seems to be at odds with the principles of our
democratic systems, which, supposedly, guard the majority against the minority
of would-be plutocrats, kleptocrats and autocrats. Either democracy is not
working well for the benefit of the masses, or the masses are failing to ensure
that democracy works in their favour.
We should be thankful that, compared
with previous times, we do have considerable political freedom. The thoroughness
with which authority was forcibly imposed, historically, was brought home to me
this week as I wandered through the centre of the City of Lincoln, where the
layers of history run deep and, here and there, resurface to tell their
stories. The Romans established themselves militarily at Lindum, as they named
it. Later, as they conquered more northerly realms, it became a colonia, or
administrative hub. Not much remains of their infrastructure, but the essential
layout of the city, based on fortification, endures. The city’s north entrance
arch still stands and traffic passes through it on what was Ermine street, the
Romans’ main route to the Humber estuary. (Ironically, there is a photo in the
museum of a lorry, painted in the livery of ‘Humber Transport’ circa 1950,
which became stuck fast under the stone arch.) The medieval southern gate to
the city stands on the foundations of the Roman original that marked the end of
the road from Exeter, the famed Fosse Way. The Romans brought unification,
order, stability and the rule of law to their colonies, but the improvement of the lot of the masses was not on their agenda.
The Romans left, abruptly, to look
after their own back yard and the ‘Dark Ages’ set in. Uncertainty became the
norm until, in medieval times, the power vacuum was filled by monarchs and priests,
sometimes working together, sometimes at odds, to control the wealth produced
by the country and its people. Lincoln, again, reflects this story, since it is
dominated by the massive castle and magnificent cathedral standing side-by-side
at its highest point. Less prominent, but just as significant, is the Guildhall,
where the city council has met since 1520 and where ancient symbols of power
are kept, such as swords representing fealty to the Crown and royal charters granting
‘favours’ such as the right to hold markets.
By the end of the day, reacquainted
with our long history of subjugation, I had strengthened my resolve to exercise
my vote in the rejection of any politician whose words and deeds smell of the recurring
themes of the past – plutocracy, kleptocracy and autocracy. Surely, faced with
these, a little socialist compassion is not such a terrifying proposition?
* Claude Levi-Strauss, anthropologist (28 Nov 1908-2009)
Power to the people.....
ReplyDelete