One of the original spurs for the development of soicalist thought in the 19th century was the anger felt by many about poverty and inequality.  In the middle of the 19th century, Bradford - just down the road from me - was one of the richest places on the planet, in terms of the wealth that was being produced there, at the heart of the global textile industry.  It was also the home of absolute abject poverty for many of the people working in that hugely profitable industry.  Such geographically concentrated inequality sent shock-waves running through society.  The two main responses were philanthropy and socialism.  And it was socialist ideas that ended up contributing to some massive transformations in society.

There certainly have been transformations in British society: there is still absolute poverty in Britain (very localised) and relative poverty (much more widespread)  So even before we put this in an international context, the spur of that anger should still very much be present.  If we look at the international context, the people in absolute poverty who work for multinational corporations making enormous profits: the need for a repsonse is, if anything, more acute than it was in the middle of the nineteenth century.

To a certain extent, socialism in the labour movement has been a victim of its own success.  At the inception of the Labour Party, the words 'working class' and 'poor' were virtually synonomous.  The Labour Party, as the working-class party, was the party of the poor.  Through a variety of socialist and social democratic policies, the condition of the British working class has been transformed, a process which some sociologists refer to as 'embourgeoisement', leading some to suggest that 'we're all middle class now', or that the interests of the many are now more-or-less the same as the interests of the wealthiest.  Those few who were 'left behind' then become labelled as the 'socially excluded': they are society's "other", while the majority are in different states of relative prosperity.  It is very tempting to be drawn along such a road and see an 'underclass' who require special treatment to bring them into the party the rest of us are enjoying: a philanthropic response, rather than a socialist one.

Such an attitude ignores the reality of poverty at the inception of the Labour Party: that within the working class there were always those who were destitute and desperate and those who were relatively prosperous.  There were the 'labour aristocracy' - skilled workers with disposable income, and there were those who were destined for the workhouse.  The genius of the labour movement was to unlock the common ground; to unite a divided labour.  One of the best examples of this would be the National Unemployed Workers Movement in the 1930s, where for the first time the unemployed - even the long-term unemployed - were characterised as unemployed workers and comrades rather than competitors of those in work.  This is something that we have lost, to a certain degree.  We need to look at community politics and reaching out to those in absolute poverty to be active parts of a movement of social transformation.  There are other potential common causes that float around the 'socially excluded' - that put forward nationality, race, religion and other potential identities to 'include' people.  Socialism can be a stronger identity than any of those.

I understand the left-of-centre case for means-tested benefits: that it is an efficient way of getting money to the people who need it.  But it is a practical example of the sort of thing I'm talking about here: an essentially philanthropic response to the problem, treating 'the poor' as a special case, excluded from the society the rest of us are enjoying.  A surprisingly high number of pensioners do not receive the benefits they are entitled to, and the perceived stigma of the means test is one major factor in that.  I realise this is one aspect of this post that will be followed up further in discussion, so shall look forward to that!

Poverty is also an extraordinarily important issue on an international level.  I think there is sometimes a tendency amongst modern Marxian thinkers to over-simplify the concept of an international division of labour, between the north and the south (ignoring inequalities within both developed and developing countries) - but socialism in 2007 is an international movement and set of ideas.  This is another area that needs a great deal of discussion: what are socialist answers to global poverty?  It is very clear what socialist explanations of global poverty are, and which proposed solutions are problematic for socialists: socialist solutions are more tricky.  I look forward to discussion on this point.

Redistribution of wealth and power is at the heart of socialism.  Our focus in this post has been poverty; but it is not just poverty that interests socialists, but inequality.  Poverty exists alongside unprecendented wealth.  It is pure right-wing mythology that the wealthy have 'earned' their wealth and the poor haven't worked hard enough or done enough to get their share.  We are all aware that, even today in a supposedly more meritocratic age, a good deal of wealth and power is hereditary.  And the economic, social, poltical and cultural structures of society bring more wealth and power to those who already have it, and further disempowers and impoverishes those who do not.  Much of what has been discussed on other threads is about that one clear truth about capitalist society.

There is no excuse for poverty in a world that produces so much wealth.  It is the structures and systems that are in place that distributes wealth the way it is currently distributed.  Socialists propose no more or no less than to create systems and structures that distribute wealth and power more equitably.  There have been examples of this in Britain; in terms of power, the increase over many years in the franchise has been the result of a marriage of convenience between socialists and liberals, both of whom saw merit in an increased franchise.  The National Health Service is a fantastic socialist creation, a million times better than a system of private hospitals and 'charity' hospitals.  I can point to policies and approaches in other countries.  It is not my business to suggest that there are socialist paradises on other islands or continents.  I can point to socialist policies that have worked, others that have gone wrong: governments that have tended to take a socialist approach, etc.  I'm am not suggesting that we should take a foreign system of government and implant it in the UK.  I am suggesting that we apply a socialist perspective to our policy making, when devising new approaches.  

We live in a world of extraordinary inequality.  The amount of wealth that exists on this planet, the skill, the knowledge, the scientific possibilities: it is incredibly exciting.  It is the dominant philosophy in the global society that leads so much of that promise to be wasted.  Our scientists use their skills to devise new ways to kill our comrades; our industry puts them into practise; unthinkable sums of money blip across computer screens in capital cities all around the world while there is absolute poverty on the next street.  Money does not trickle down: we are not all wealthier because of the super-rich.  Money - and power - has a stubborn habit of staying exactly where it is.