We face crises on every front—climate, inequality, insecurity. The economic models we've been told are “normal” have failed. So what kind of politics could work for people and planet? In this video, I compare socialism, social democracy, capitalism, neoliberalism, and my alternative: the politics of care. Which vision do you want for our future?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
We face crises on almost every front. We have inequality, insecurity, and climate collapse.
The economic models we've been told are normal have very clearly failed us.
So let's ask a basic but really quite radical question in this video. What kind of politics do we really want?
To explore this, I want to actually look at five basic ideas inside political economy, which describe systems of politics that we could choose, and they are: socialism, social democracy, capitalism, neoliberalism, and what I call the politics of care.
Each of these has its strengths, limits, and consequences, but only one puts people and planet at its heart, and I want to explore why I think the politics of care is our future.
But to do that, let's just have a look at what the others are before discussing what's wrong with them, why they have weaknesses, why they haven't worked for us, and why we need to replace them.
Socialism is a political and economic philosophy based on the belief that the economy should serve the needs of the people and not profit. It advocates for collective ownership or control of the means of production through the state, or cooperatives, or communities. And for the redistribution of wealth to ensure fairness, equality, and universal access to essential services.
In socialist thinking, democracy must extend beyond the ballot box, most particularly to the workplace and into the economy. The profit motive is not the organising principle for the economy: meeting need is. And contrary to caricature, and there's been a lot of that, socialism does not necessarily imply authoritarian government or central planning, but it does seek a just economy based upon solidarity, participation and sustainability.
In contrast, social democracy does something different.
Social democracy accepts the existence of capitalism but seeks to tame it. It recognises that markets can generate wealth, but insists that the state must intervene to curb excess, redistribute income and provide public goods like health, education, and social security, a social safety net in other words. Through progressive taxation, labour protections, and a strong welfare state, social democrats aim to reduce the inequality and outcomes from a capitalist society, resulting in what they hope will be a decent life for all.
Social democracy is, as a result, reformist, but it's most definitely not revolutionary in taking on and challenging capitalism.
It seeks to humanise capitalism rather than replace it, but its historic achievements are now under threat. Without renewed ambition, social democracy risks being little more than crisis management for a failing system it no longer dares to challenge.
That system it doesn't dare to challenge is capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production, and in particular, land and capital, are privately owned and controlled for profit.
Its defining features are markets, competition, and the pursuit of a return on investment.
In theory, capitalism allocates resources efficiently and rewards innovation. In practice, as we have seen in the world at large, it concentrates power and wealth, creates economic instability, and treats both people and planet as inputs to be exploited.
Markets do not value care, sustainability or justice.
The only thing they value is the one thing they measure, which is money. Capitalism promises freedom, but delivers insecurity and inequality for many, while granting the wealthy a controlling influence over politics, the media, and society. Left unregulated, it corrodes democracy itself.
Neoliberalism is the next idea that I mentioned we'd look at, and neoliberalism is the ideological project to remake society in the image of markets. I stress this is much more than a theory of economics. Neoliberalism is a political ideology based on the principle that markets know best.
Created in the 1940s, but dominant since the 1970s, it has promoted deregulation, privatisation, austerity, and the shrinking of the state, claiming that the private sector is always more efficient than the state, and individuals must take responsibility for their own outcomes in life, it having been assumed that they have sufficient resources to manage those choices that it is claimed are available to them.
In reality, neoliberalism has entrenched inequality, hollowed out our public services, transferred wealth upwards, and created powerful corporate monopolies. It undermines democracy by subordinating it to financial markets and technocrats. It has eroded the social contract while blaming the victim. And despite its promises of growth and efficiency, it has delivered stagnation, precarity, and ecological crisis.
So what's wrong?
Socialism has a focus on work and control of the material world and the workplace, but it ignores everything else. The rest of life and everything that is of value within it is beyond the socialist's thinking. We are simply talking about material well-being and nothing else, and in the modern world, that's a wholly inadequate way of thinking.
Capitalism and neoliberalism have failed the majority.
Social democracy no longer dares to challenge either of them, and in the meantime, inequality is growing, care is underfunded, climate action lags, and we are failing to meet needs.
It's time for a rethink. We have to decide what we really value, and who the economy is really for.
That means, in my opinion, putting care at the centre of political economy, not as a sector, or as a burden, but as the purpose of economic life.
Let me explore what that means. Care, or the politics of care, as I like to call it, recognises our interdependence, that none of us stands alone in this world.
It prioritises well-being for everyone over GDP and GDP growth, and it presumes that relationships are more important than transactions.
The focus in a politics of care is on sufficiency and sustainability, and not on endless growth.
Values, care, empathy and mutual responsibility are the focus of attention.
A politics of care would, however, and I stress the point very strongly, allow for private enterprise, because otherwise there would be a restriction on people's ability to express themselves. But when we talk about private enterprise, we are not talking about capitalism in the way that we have understood it.
This is not the gross aggregation of money in the hands of a few so that they might control society at large.
This is about allowing people to participate in private enterprise in a way that contributes to society and does not either dominate it or extract from it.
In other words, a politics of care would have to prevent exploitation of people, and of the state and of the planet, and it would do that by limiting the way in which large entities could be used to both control politics, and to capture all those resources by changing the governance structures which would be surrounding them so that they never have the chance to do that again.
And vitally, and this is absolutely fundamental to a politics of care, it would have to achieve that by shrinking finance so that it served real economic needs and was not the master who dictates what we must do.
We should not be living in a world where the payment of interest is the fundamental goal of life, as it is for too many at present, because the mortgage or their rent dominates their outgoings, or it dominates the way in which they're paying for their car or whatever else it might be. We should instead be looking at finance as the way to facilitate a life well lived.
So, the politics of care is about undertaking economic activity that meets needs, but which only considers the option of meeting the wants of some others if the needs of everyone have been met. The priority is not the few. The priority is the whole.
So health, education and housing become public goods. They are essential, and everybody must have them, and access to them, and access to them at an equivalent standard as well.
In this world, tax is not a mechanism for funding government, which is believed to be true in the other models that we've talked about, but it is instead, as it actually is in reality, a policy tool to shape society and behaviour, something that I described in my book, The Joy of Tax.
And tax is used, for example, as a consequence to reduce inequality and to support public provision by creating a society based upon equality and not inequality.
Cooperation is at the core of this, then, but it goes far beyond the world of work. It's not just about building a fair workplace; it's about building well-being for all. So children, pensioners and those who can't work for whatever reason it might be, everybody has a right to live in a world dominated by a politics of care.
And it's not even just about humans alone because in a world of capitalism, we've ignored what are called by it, the free gifts of nature, but what we know now is they're anything but free. We have to care for our planet, the wildlife, the plant life, the biodiversity and our environment. These all matter in the politics of care, of empathy, and of humanity, which focuses upon the freedom to be and not to serve.
In this politics, we think about society and justice.
That is not true in any of the other systems I've described. Socialism, social democracy, capitalism, neoliberalism, and all the other forms of politics that we've talked about, fail to put people ultimately at their heart because materialism, or a profit motive, is. And that's not acceptable anymore.
Life is about more than material consumption.
It is about more than profit motives.
It is about more than maximising the ability to consume.
Life is about the right to be who we are.
It's now time to build an economy around these ideas, in my opinion.
But what do you think?
I've just given you my views at length. There are two polls on this channel following on from this video.
The first is on which of the options I've just talked about, the five choices that I've outlined, you would prefer.
The second asks you something else, and that is, would you like me to expand on these themes in more detail?
This is a relatively complex subject, and I've only touched the surface of it.
Would you want me to discuss these ideas in greater depth?
And in particular, would you like me to look at how a politics of care could really work?
Let me know in those polls and leave any comments you want. We do look at them. Thank you very much.
Poll 1
Which political system would you prefer that the UK used?
- The politics of care (71%, 242 Votes)
- Socialism (15%, 51 Votes)
- Social democracy (12%, 42 Votes)
- Neoliberalism (1%, 3 Votes)
- Capitalism (1%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 340
Loading ...Poll 2
Would you like the issues in this video to be addressd in more detail?
- Yes, to both of the above (55%, 177 Votes)
- Yes, to more on the politics of care (36%, 116 Votes)
- Yes, to more on the choices available (7%, 22 Votes)
- No thanks: that's enough (3%, 9 Votes)
Total Voters: 324
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I have to say that the concept is absolutely sound.
Really interesting, thanks. The Politics of Care proposition is very tempting and I agree with much of what you said, but I would want to understand what it would look like in practice and what a transition from where we are now to an economy based on Care would comprise. Who would lose out and how would the potential losers try to stop it? Where would the bar be set for when needs are deemed to be met? Who would determine that? I would love to know what a Social Democracy with teeth would look like and whether that would be a viable alternative.
This is something I must do more on then…and will. A 30 page outline plan exists…
A broader definition of socialism than the one used here, encompasses the politics of care. Genuine socialism is concerned with all that is social, especially the wellbeing of the many. Broadly, socialism as a political system can be seen as one that is not focused on individualism.
You can say so, but that is not what it is. That is why this has to be discussed.
The only label I’m sort-of happy with is ‘socialist’ – but I think you misscharacterise this in at least 2 crucial ways:
1. Socialism has always been a ‘broad church’ (no pun intended) including traditions that place a lot of emphasis on non-material aspects of life. Working in the co-operative and social enterprise movement a lot if my life, I have, for example, worked alongside many quakers and explicitly ‘christian socialists’ whose motivations I think most would call primarily spiritual; and
2. I haven’t come across a socialist opposed to a vibrant small business sector for many years. The general socialist view seems to me to be that the remote shareholder big business model is flawed because it inevitably prioritises profit extraction, whereas most small businesses are in fact made up of people embedded in their local or online communities and simply trying to do a good job for them, and make a living doing something they love and (hopefully) are good at.
I would add that I don’t think external regulation can make remote-shareholder-owned businesses socially and environmentally responsible. This requires more fundamental alteration to the internals of corporate governance – and I think to work, these changes will curtail shareholder returns, so effectively disincentivise businesses growing to enormous size. Good !
So, you’re not a socialist then.
Sorry, let’s get things right or we just set up hostages to fortune by misusing words that will be exploited by opponents. We need to get this right.
Socialism as a brand is very damaged.
If you want to know how radical we have to be, consider now that the exploitative, debt enslaving capitalism we live under is called ‘freedom’.
Do you understand now?
Richard’s thinking is sound – there is so much work available, so much opportunity and so much output from caring for people and the planet and it can be sustainable too.
And remember this – socialism was basically materialistic in nature OK and in that sense potentially just as bad as capitalism. Socialism was too much about who was in charge – labour or capital – and never really went further than that in my view. What happened was a race between both political creeds as to who could out produce the other and make the people happy with ‘stuff’ at a huge cost to the planet and health and safety.
Believe you me, caring is where it is at folks – come on now, suck it up, and get with the programme!
We have to get the language right or we can’t succeed.
Sticking with socialism which people very obviously do not understand and is fodder for the right makes no sense.
I wondered if you could clarify the role private enterprise plays in protecting freedom of expression? You say you stress this point very strongly, but don’t seem to explain it.
Can you tell me what you are citing that I have written? Please provide the words and link so I might understand your request. It appears out of context to me.
There are 2 quite separate issues here. One is understanding socialism – which is, as I said, and very broad movement weaving together many threads, and bringing together people with various motivations, but the shared aim of creating a more equal, less exploitative society. The other is merely tactical: is ‘socialism’ a term that plays well at the moment.
My view on the tactical issue is that ‘socialism’ was deliberately muddied in the US, and this carried over to some extent in other anglophone countries. More recently, however, it is seeing a return to favour in the US, especially in opinion polls focused on young people, and, following Sanders, is being increasingly embraced on the left of the Democratic Party. But also – perhaps because of my bilingual family situation – I see it still as the only term that is internationally descriptive of mainstream progressive – and caring – values.
We are going to have to disagree.
If no one knows what socialism means it is a term of no use.
Let me offer an illustration. The Israeli government is distorting language to justify a genocide. If we do not agree what a genocide is we cannot hold it accountable. Likewise if we do not agree what socialism is we get this Labour government. We play into the right wing agenda if we use terms loosely, and you are doing that. I won’t.
Excellent piece, thank you.
Bookchin recognised the vital importance of interdependence:
“An ecological society presupposes that the notion of a universal humanitas, which ‘civilization’ has imparted to us over the past three millennia, has not been lost. It also assumes that the strong emphasis on individual autonomy, which our contemporary ‘modernists’ so facilely attribute to the Renaissance, will acquire unsurpassed reality-but without the loss of the strong communal ties enjoyed by organic societies in the past. Hierarchy, in effect, would be replaced by interdependence, and consociation would imply the existence of an organic core that meets the deeply felt biological needs for care, cooperation, security, and love. Freedom would no longer be placed in opposition to nature, individuality to society, choice to necessity, or personality to the needs of social coherence.”
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ecology-of-freedom
I know you have issues with Green party policy, but having been active in the party including a lot of door knocking I would say that the vote winner locally is having people who genuinely care about the people they represent and are not caught up in political dogma. And ironically one of the first things we did was help get residents parking extended in an area of dense Victorian housing where parking had got so bad people were walking 10 minutes sometimes and moving house. Labour used to engage in their local communities, but now it is the Greens and LDs who are more able to do this because they are not dictated to by a top down controlling party. We have to be community first, party second and a politics of care.
Might a better political set up include a more equitable and cohesive attitude and set of practices concerning debt than our present one.?
Perhaps one that recognises that debt grows faster than a real economy and so distorts and destabilises society unless this knowledge is included in the perception and management of debt?
Might the periodic remission of non-commercial, personal/living debt, as used by Hammurabi’s Dynasty around the 18th century B. C. E., be worth consideration?
https://michael-hudson.com/2025/07/from-hammurabi-to-hedge-funds/
How would you do that?
I was wondering if you deliberately decided to omit fascism from your video. If so can I ask why?
Because it is now only a form of neoliberalism.
Not very often I disagree with you Richard, but in this case I do. While I agree in part with your definition of socialism, I disagree that it has nothing to say beyond the material. For me, the entire purpose of socialism is to remove physical want from the equation in an equal society, freeing people to make better use of their time doing things that matter, improving their social wellbeing as well as their material wellbeing.
Since socialism does not factor in a requirement for the profit motive, for example the things that we create and consume can be built with longevity in mind, rather than the built in obsolescence we have now, improving sustainability and helping the planet to heal. Granting freedom from physical want also takes away much of the fear of automation, since everyone will have access to those things needed to live – food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, education, healthcare. Jobs that are possible to safely and sensibly automate can be without being detrimental to anyone’s needs, freeing those people who would have performed those tasks to de something more meaningful.
Freeing scientists from the constraints of the profit motive will allow for genuine advances to be made in medicine since curing disease rather than treating it would become the focus. Scientists would be freed to pursue knowledge for it’s own sake, rather than trying to find new ways to make money.
In the end, I would expect this to be a world where people are better educated, live healthier lives, have more time to focus on life beyond work and enjoy a more complete family and social life.
I don’t think we fundamentally disagree with the ultimate goal of what we want the world to be, and maybe socialism has become a tainted word through association with nations and parties who are anything but socialist. Ultimately what matters is the outcome – a saner, more sustainable world where care for each other and for the planet we inhabit is central to life rather than ignored.
The trouble is, you are defining what you want socialism to be but not what it is properly understood to be and that is a complete gift to the right. Why hang on to a word that describes what is a materialist ideal that essentially denies the right to private property or the choice to own it via democracy? Why does doing that make any sense at all?
I want to beat the right. Why give them all the ammunition they desire? I just don’t understand that becvfaise doing so cannot deliver whaty you say you want. So why not do what Einstein suggested, and do it dfferently?
I agree that, given the way socialism is clearly (properly or improperly) understood in the UK (where there is in any case no party claiming to be socialist), the word socialist should not figure in the name of any new party or movement there.
I should have made clear that I do like the concept a policy of care that ‘puts people and planet at its heart’. But I feel that socialism, as it has evolved over time since its Marxist origins, could & should offer that. Indeed, your initial post appears to accept that. But in your replies to a number of comments here, you seem to have shifted towards the caricature of socialism of which you (rightly it appears) say there has been much, at least in the UK.
Just saying!
Noted, but I am not sure I agree.
“Richard Murphy says:
August 4 2025 at 7:34 pm
The trouble is, you are defining what you want socialism to be but not what it is properly understood to be and that is a complete gift to the right. Why hang on to a word that describes what is a materialist ideal that essentially denies the right to private property or the choice to own it via democracy? Why does doing that make any sense at all?
I want to beat the right. Why give them all the ammunition they desire? I just don’t understand that because doing so cannot deliver what you say you want. So why not do what Einstein suggested, and do it differently?”
Was your reply to Alex Ferrie and I agree.
Socialism is seen as an ideology – but it is morality really.
So why subject ourselves to critical tales from the right of blind ideology and the unsuccessful ‘socialist’ Soviet Union and be buried in that rabbit hole. You’ve suggested a politics of care, I’ve suggested the politics of love and hope.
Both are pretty much the same and both are difficult to argue with.
If the right really don’t want these things ( I doubt they actually do) then what do they want – and why should we vote for them?
The ball is then in their court.
Thanks, Peter.
I hold my hand up and say I wasn’t really aware of the difference between socialism and social democracy, maybe because of the way many use the terms. Both of the above, and capitalism, date from a time when we thought natural resources were so abundant, and nature so resilient, that they were discounted. Neoliberalism and the mathematical economic models have wilfully ignored the well-being of planet and people. Your Politics of Care sounds more aligned with the idea of doughnut economics, where we balance things out. I’ve worked for myself and can appreciate the benefits of small and micro businesses – my aim was WFH to avoid childcare costs.
Tell us more!
I will
Remember co-operatives that started in the mid 19th century? Cutting out the big CEO and communities in local areas working together to make a living? Anything, any system, however grand which does not have the welfare of people at the centre, the majority of ordinary people not those who live in palaces, is going to fail.
My Christian faith gives me some kind of antenna to seek out fairness and justice in my own small way. I can make common cause with those who live and let live. The present system we have regardless of the Labour Party in power is just not working. We are heading for societal collapse and civil disturbances. We have no agency to participate and those who hold the levers of power are corrupt, greedy, selfish and often incompetent. A sra change is required when all we get is a new captain of HMS Titanic.
Re “Socialism as a brand is very damaged” (PSR) and “We have to get the language right or we can’t succeed ” (Richard):
That appears to indeed be the case in the UK (which is why, after much hestitation, I voted for the Politics of Care), but more generally I think depends on where it is applied.
Here in France, the declared principles of the Socialist Party (PS) have evolved over time into what appears to be closer to a social democratic party while (hopefully!) encompassing at least some of Richard’s thinking.
I hope you will forgive the following extracts from French Wikipedia under “Parti socialiste – France”:
“La quatrième déclaration de principe [of the PS] est adoptée en 1990. …. [Elle] prône « une société d’économie mixte qui, sans méconnaître les règles du marché, fournisse à la puissance publique et aux acteurs sociaux les moyens de réaliser des objectifs conformes à l’intérêt général. Le PS adopte par ailleurs la notion de « développement durable » pour redéfinir plus globalement le modèle de société qu’il entend promouvoir.”
Enfin, la version actuelle de la déclaration de principe a été adoptée en juin 2008. Elle affirme dans son article premier: « Être socialiste, c’est ne pas se satisfaire du monde tel qu’il est, c’est vouloir changer la société. L’idée socialiste relève, à la fois, d’une révolte contre les injustices et du combat pour une vie meilleure. Le but de l’action socialiste est l’émancipation complète de la personne humaine. »
Cette version marque un changement par rapport aux précédentes. Elle ne fait plus référence aux « oppositions des classes », parle pour la première fois de la création de richesse, prône une « économie de marché régulée » et « un secteur privé dynamique » ”
…
” [Les socialistes] placent l’égalité, le développement durable, le progrès et la démocratie en tête des finalités d’un PS qui se définit comme républicain, laïque, réformiste, féministe, humaniste et décentralisateur.”
Well said anrigaut – I’m glad you quoted that – and I’m aware that we could quote similar statements from socialist political parties all over the world. I do wonder if there’s still a bit of the old cold-war mentality, lingering American influence perhaps, or English exceptionalism in the impulse to move away from language the world understands perfectly well.
Let’s be clear – that is a statement of weak social democracy, and not socialism at all – of which it is a denial – and approprpriately so. And it is the pokcy that seeks to make anmdneds for Mitterand, but no very effectvely. So, what are you suggesting this actually means?
PSR has this right, I feel. While there are laudable elements in Socialism there are too, much as I hate them, elements of the other alternatives that work. Just not enough, to whatever degree.
There is a need to break with past politics in its entirety, not because it never achieved anything – it did – but because it has acquired too much baggage for the clarity we need to define what really matters and for folk of many persuasions to feel this is not a partisan effort. No doubt, in time, this reframing will also acquire its own baggage and need a refresh but for now it feels like our best chance to create an intentional caring society.
Thanks
Thank you Richard B.
I honestly think that our host Richard M is onto something here I really do. It sounds simple – because it is. Because after the politics of caring will come the economics.
The problem with “socialism” is that it has a wide range of possible views, from communism to democratic socialism, depending on who is advocating it, or dismissing it. This makes “socialism” divisive, and problematic. So when neoliberals wanted to control the markets, they called them “free markets”.
As author Philip K. Dick wrote: The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If YOU can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.
So it makes sense to be specific about a caring party. It will be interesting to see what the Corbyn-Sultana Party will be called.
Much to agree with
(I offer this in solidarity.) Unusually, I found this post unhelpful. Not because I disagree with the values inherent in it but because I can’t see where it takes us. The post is too static in its descriptions of political positions. People who call themselves socialist mean slightly different things by it; people who call themselves social democrats mean slightly different things by it; even people who call themselves capitalist mean slightly different things by it. I’m not sure how many people would call themselves neoliberal but they would probably mean slightly different things by it. Are people who subscribe to your definition of a politics of care only allowed to believe one definition of what it actually means? And when it comes to the political manifestation of these ideas, all parties contain different factions with different emphases even within the factions. Politics evolves, not always for the good, and we certainly need more ‘caring’ in the world but attaching fixed labels to dynamic ideas does not, in my opinion, advance the cause.
Your suggestion is, I think, akin to suggesting that maps are not useful. Of course they are not the same as the territory. That I entirely accept. But that does not mean they are not useful
In fact, I even think you are saying language is not useful. But unless we define out terms how can we communicate, most especially when the far-right quite specifically use loose language to secure power? Indeed, that is how Labour won power. Surely we need to do better than that if we are to have a functioning political system. Do you y not agree?
Of course maps are useful but only if they are dynamic – offering an accurate representation of the terrain. When a new railway or road is built (heaven forbid) or climate change leads to the fens to be underwater, we need a new map. My point was that I found your definitions to be too inflexible to be of real use. I accept that we need a shared understanding of the meaning of the language we use but I fear you are heading down a dead end in trying to map the political landscape in what I find to be a narrow and restrictive way. But we certainly do need a change in our national and international politics and I support your efforts to advance a more caring society.
So, how would you define terms, dynamically.
I just don’t find labels very helpful in the real world. You have already responded to a commenter by saying “so you’re not a socialist then”. I’m not sure where that gets anyone. My interpretation of his comments would suggest that he would fit quite happily into a world run on ‘politics of care’ principles – as would I. Of course we need to have a shared understanding of what lies behind the label but we need to acknowledge that politics involves overlaps of belief. The image that keeps coming into my mind is the debate from Life of Brian between the Judean Peoples Front and the Peoples Front of Judea.
Robin
Politely, it would seem you do not understand the significance of words, like so many on the left, which is precisely why we are in such trouble, because the right do do and have exploited the weakness you so clearly demonstrate.
Sorry, but I am bemused by your comments. In fact, I cannot understand why you comment here, because it seems words mean nothing to you. I think you have big questions to ask of yourself.
Richard
Sane. A word of latin origin meaning “Healthy”.
Insane. A word meaning “Unhealthy”.
I think most everyone can agree that our world is quite insane right now. Unhealthy behaviours give rise to unhealthy environments.
The various “-isms” of the C18th, C19th and C20th were all characterised by the unhealthy assumptions of their creators and the societies in which they lived. Capitalism born out of the violence of monarchs and knights, was a response to hunger and material deprivation. It has achieved its end. We live in times of relative abundance. However, the unhealed wound remains. This greed (the fear of want and clinging desire of dopamine) remains, but is no longer required. Greed, addiction, it is the wound of many at this stage in our evolution.
It takes someone, and a group, and then a whole society to step back, to breath, and to reflect honestly on its madness and its unhealthiness. Only then, undertanding (standing under) the old systems, can a saner, healthier system, emerge.
In a wholisitic system, like those seen in the body and in Nature, there is growth and contraction with a self-reinforcing integrity. Trees, for example, connect via their roots to create a whole system, with a symbiotic help of the fungal kingdom (rhizomes), they draw from the soil and distribute via the root systems to all the trees. The Mother tree, when her time is done, transfers her resources to all the trees in her root network, before she dies in the storm. A system in Nature. A sane system. A system that cares about every player in its game.
Individuals exist within the ‘wholarchy’ of communities, which exists within the context of the Natural world.
The insane individual exists alone. Or eroneously believes that they do. They do not. But it is the traumatised narcisist that will exploit and extract as if their needs alone existed. A lonely existance. Our man-made systems of life (politics economics etc.) are a testament to man’s woundedness and self-isolation. The rugged individual against the world. Insane.
It is time we healed ourselves. In doing so, we might have a chance to heal this damaged world. We must stop projecting our wounds out into the world, and be brave enough to accept back our own pain (not of our own making). Truly a brave act. In this way we heal. In healing we might heal others. In healing our collective we might allow Nature to restore ‘Herself’.
Nature, in the marco, will always heal. It’s systems are sane and self-regenerating. They are adaptable. We need only stand back, give time and understanding. Watch. See. Rejoice even at the results (and the process unfolding).
Time heals all wounds. If we embrace stillness, and a little compassion: compassion for self; compassion for other.
Care is a sound philosophy. A basis for a sane philosophy. Care for self, care for community, care for the environment that enshrouds us and provides all our finite needs. Care is sane. Care is grown up. Care is what humanity needs at this moment in our evolution. Don’t deny the Spiritual also.
Great Good Luck to you All
You really can’t talk about socialism as a viable option because of the behaviour of communist countries who’ve tainted it. In China today, for example, demand is suppressed in order to prioritise exports. Same goes for Social Democracy where Germany does the same as China. See the book “Trade Wars are Class Wars.”
If I could stick my oar in here. As I see it, you have only described two forms of politics, Socialism and Capitalism. I say this because I see Social democracy, Neoliberalism and your Politics of care as subsets of Capitalism. In capitalism, capital has the power, whether it is money, land, precious metals etc. Social democracy, neoliberalism, Politics of Care, and Fascism, all give capital, power. Socialism gives democracy the power, the aim being to curtail the power given to capital and make it subservient to democracy.
That said, Capitalism is not always bad, and Socialism is not always good, as either can be hijacked, but I think, on balance, Socialism is the best way forward as Capitalism’s tendency is always towards neoliberalism
You have said on here, that perfection is not possible, and of course, Socialism is by no means perfect, but I think it can incorporate the aims you have for Politics of Care.
Well, you clearly see what I said in a very different way to me.
I did, in no way, endorse capitalism, which you confuse (entirely erroneously, as the right want you to do) with markets and the right to own property (a universal human right) whilst suggesting only the denial of that right is socialism, which is apparently democratic, but of course you simply saying so denies the option of choice, meaning your argument equates socialism with totalitarianism because it can do nothing else. Talk about gifting arguments to the right; this is a classic.
If concerned about the right language than emphasising ‘care’ that can lead to ‘stronger’ xyz real economy might be useful.
‘George Lakoff described conservative voters as being influenced by the “strict father model” as a central metaphor for such a complex phenomenon as the state, and liberal/progressive voters as being influenced by the “nurturant parent model”
I don’t want to get into a futile dispute about the definition of terms but I’m rather troubled by your brief dismissal of Social Democracy.
As an alternative, here’s a paragraph from Wikipedia’s rather fuller description:
“Social democracy maintains a commitment to representative and participatory democracy. Common aims include curbing inequality, eliminating the oppression of underprivileged groups, eradicating poverty, and upholding universally accessible public services such as child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers’ compensation. Economically, it supports income redistribution and regulating the economy in the public interest.”
What’s not to like?
The fact that it’s completely failed because it embraces capitalism? None of those claiming to be to be social democrats – or democratic socialists come to that, have done much if any of the above for decades? Why are you flogging a dead horse?
I don’t think social democrats “embrace” capitalism” but rather reluctantly accept its existence and hope to limit its power. I think you have spoken in the past in favour of a mixed economy; does that exclude capital?
I wonder if what GK Chesterton said of Christianity – that it hadn’t been tried and found wanting but found difficult and not tried – might be true of social democracy too.
Anyway, I look forward to your further thoughts on the politics of care.
My point is, it has not worked because it has not challenged capitalism since the 70s, hence Labour’s refusal to tackle water. So let’s not pretend it works. It doesn’t.
So, we need something that does challenge it. That is what I am interested in.
Indeed. So what you need is a party (new or old) that – whatever its name – actually delivers that.
But be careful what you wish for – anyone can say they care.
In France, the same parties keep changing their names, to the point it gets hard to remember which is which. Macron’s party began as En Marche (on the move) and is now Renaissance (rebirth), Marine Lepen’s far right Front National is now called Rassemblement (gathering), while on the (far?) left , Melanchon’s party is called Les Insoumis (the rebels). The more moderate right remains Les Republicans, but I know of no French political leader who would not claim to be republican.
So I are you saying I shouldn’t care?
Why?
Please explain.
But most Social Democratic parties adhere to mainstream neoliberal / neoclassical equilibrium economics /politics.
Precisely
Great topic.
It seems that it is difficult to define socialism and capitalism alike, in a definition that all agree. Both are being used as scarecrow/caricature and both evolved a bit.
Social democracy that you describe is the Godesberg Program (1959) of Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, when they dropped marxism. Before that they argued that a revolution is not necessary to bring down capitalism in favour of socialism, democratic reforms can do it. They claimed that, at a time when universal suffrage was a very radical proposal. If poor can dictate (make the governments and thus the laws) they may dictate (vote) to confiscate the wealth from the wealthy. That was the main idea of 19th century, that’s why Marxists were advocating for revolution. Marxists were wrong that the establishment would never allow the pleb to vote and elect a government and reformists were wrong that vote reform can bring a peaceful, civilised transition from capitalism to socialism. Socialists, known later as social democrats moved to the right. Imho their blind spot is abandoning philosophical and systemic analysis, therefore started treating symptoms with patches more and more instead of analysing how the system works.
Imo both socialism and capitalism failed humans because their only metric of success is quantitative materialism –> maximalization of capital (under social or private ownership) is considered a fundamental good, like an axiom. Both had a sweet spot that capital maximalization coincided with the human needs but not in a sustainable fashion (it went adrift). Historical socialism and historical capitalism failed before depleting all natural resources. Finite resources is a problem that we will face, but those systems are not failing (yet) because of this but because of other systemic contradictions they have.
It is a bit unfair to say marxism is materialistic, when the argument was that the you cannot achieve something against the material conditions (you will have a reality check eventually). It recognised that there was a more fluid “superstructure” over the materialism, but it is fair to say that criticism (and evolution) of marxism and other system theories (liberalism, social democracy, christian democracy etc) from all political spectrums went into deep freeze and transformed into some kind of caricature religious (axioms).
I am not touching yet the “politics of care” as I wait to see more elaboration on the topic, my only question is how Workers Party GB manifest is substantially different from what is proposed with “politics of care”?
Try the fact that it won’t be socialist, or totalitarian for a start.
This is one of the most accessible and thoughtful introductions to economic systems I’ve read. The way the “politics of care” is framed—focusing on well-being, connection, and sustainability—feels both urgent and deeply right.
One thing that feels worth considering: for real democracy workplaces need to be democratically governed. Employees should have genuine, equal influence over decisions that shape their lives and work.
Because here’s a quiet but important truth: most people are decent. They want to do good, to contribute, to work in ways that matter. When people have a real say in how their organisations are run, they tend to make thoughtful, ethical, and sustainable choices—not out of idealism, but because they’re directly invested in the outcomes.
Without democratic workplaces, power still ends up concentrated, and decisions are made far from the people they affect. That makes it harder for care to become ingrained—it becomes a lived reality only when people can shape the systems they depend on.
So while the video powerfully argues why care should be at the heart of economics, I’d gently suggest that democratic workplaces aren’t just a detail—they’re the foundation. Because when people are included, they don’t just protect their own interests—they help build something that works for everyone.
I agree with you.
That is an issue of real importance to me and I will talk more about it when I can.
You’re adopting a too narrow definition of socialism.
As Tony Benn pointed out in his book, Arguments for Socialism, there was a lot more to the old Clause IV of Labour than securing for workers the full fruits of their industry – another paragraph committed the party to work for the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, “…extending our interest beyond those who are actually in work to the old, the young, the sick and indeed to the whole community.”
You’d enjoy his comments on growth – finite raw materials but not human knowledge.
I also note the term democratic socialism, which is very much a British tradition borne from experience. Such socialism embodies libraries and life-long learning as well as worker rights.
I read Clause IV – and what I say about socialism fits it. It was unworkable.
I found this extremely helpful and very keen for more detail. I wondered how Politics of Care might fit in / align with Universal Basic Services?
A few points about this.
I would suggest that two of your examples, may be three are not understood widely by the british public.
Politics of care is obvious, due to it being your concept, which I agree with and voted for. Social democracy is a continental europe thing, I would argue, with Rachel from customer services claiming she is one. I think that says it all. Neoliberalism is the one that few know about and when they realise this is the cause of the last forty five years they might think twice about giving Reform a go and explain what Labour truly meant by change.
Further to the comment about fascism I would argue that you need to explain how one leads to the other, with citations. We need as many resources to counter Farage Inc as possible. Although Trumps actions do give a very good source.
Private enterprise is the point that I think needs further explanation.
I would argue that Cooperative bank and supermarket are a reason that this solution is far from perfect.
I would point out that people assume that private enterprise is just massive corporations. It may dominate now but that was not always the way.
One line of my family was involved in the London wholesale vegetable trade. I have a directory of the sector in the early sixties. Thousands of family businesses throughout the UK. Now it is a few corporate packers feeding big supermarket, a few of which are suffering from over leverage. How many towns have a greengrocer.
Another example that I would site is the channel 3 license model. The likes of Bernstein and Grade made a profit. It also built studios around the UK which employed people. Perfect, probably not and it was before the time of fifty seven channels and nothing on. Now the television and radio industry is centralised in a few locations, most of the studios have been demolished, leaving a shortage and there is a massive problem with freelance staff taking barista jobs etc because there is no work.
There is nothing wrong with profit. The problem is these days profit is synonymous with greed.
I could also point out that the BBC of this time helped small businesses but that is more about MMT and spreading government money.
Thanks, but what I am genuinely confused as to what you are suggesting. Might you clarify? There are points I agree with e.g. re some parts of the Co-op, but in other areas I am not sure what conclusion I am meant to reach.
Apologies for the confusion.
On the main subject, I was trying to say that people know about socialism and capitalism although I would suggest the understanding may be skewed by the right wing media. I think the comments about socialism may bear this out, although with more individual understanding of the meaning.
Neoliberalism, I suggest, has little mass awareness. I know it exists and is the core of the problem. It is the details I do not understand. For instance the detail of how the unemployed help its mechanism. You did touch on this in a video a few months ago but it was very small. May be it is but when you know some people consider those on the rock & roll as a sub species it would be good to know the full detail of how this works.
With a really accessible book like The Deficit Myth, MMT is easy to understand. I don’t know of such a book about neoliberalism. Many have mentioned the George Monbiot one. May be this is the answer. I will check the library catalogue later.
My attitude is know your enemy.
I am a dyslexic who loves books but reading is the issue. It is finding an author like Stephanie Kelton who writes in a style that works for me. Although I look through your blog, the videos are my go to. That is the way my brain works. Watching Top of the Pops as a kid has been great for my daily dose of Pop Master.
I mention citations because the far right, although not exclusively, will say any old rubbish. People take it as fact. Being able to say look at this or this. Your trolls prove that just mentioning your output is not enough for some. I also realise a list of citations will still be dismissed by a minority.
My enterprise examples were more about what we know now was not always this way. My experience is that this history is easily forgotten and people are not as curious as you or your contributors. Businesses had managing directors not CEO’s, only American ones had titles like president.
While researching my family I am shocked how much ordinary history is lost. Covent Garden is an example. Everybody has heard of the place but the archives are light on the detail of it’s original role.
While on the Nottingham tram I overheard a conversation between two men about where one worked. It was at the old Central television studios, now a university campus. Ok I am curious about this stuff but one of the studios still has television lights hanging from the ceiling.
You have spoken of the days of the local tax office. Many lines of my family ran businesses. One was based on a yard with many engineering firms. One had the tax man in, who went to lunch and walked past the merchants. The conversation they overheard could be boiled down to, £100 for cash. Next day the VAT man turned up. The wheeler dealer owner was told by his accountant not to dispute the £50k bill. This was the eighties, I have finally bunged the number through an inflation calculator. Now £155k.
Hope this ramble tidies up the confusion and doesn’t add to it.
Knowing your a lark, did you hear The World Tonight ? A school head was allowed to elaborate in detail about the ‘joys’ of school budgets. Around the thirty minute mark.
Sorry about this 600 words. My original 300 could have been cut up into individual thoughts.
Ian
Sorry, but this is a perfect example of a comment that could have beem much shorter.
Might you note that for the future?
Richard
If there’s Class War it’s largely because a small elite have most of the control over capital. If you’re going to create a Politics of Care then you have to democratise this control with out ditching the entrepreneurial spirit of Market Capitalism. When there’s no market such as water and sewage services you need to devise democratic control in a different way.
“So are you saying I shouldn’t care? Why? Please explain.”
No, of course not! What I was trying to say was that any political party (old or new) may ‘say’ they care (it sounds good) without necessarily doing anything constructive about it, at least in a direction you (and I) would like to see.
So, of course there has to be a platform to support the claims. But your dismissal did not make that point and yes, it did irritate me as a result and if that showed, I apologise.
A politics of care sounds great.
I wonder how it will be managed. What is going to stop the narcists, psychopaths and sociopaths finding ways to exploit it as they have and do with capitalism/neoliberalism.
So yes, I want to know more.
It will come…
How close is the politics of care to donut economics? Which is ‘to provide for the needs of the people within the means of the planet’. Seems similar.
I would say Donut is quite close to what I wrote in the Courageous State several years earlier, but with a much stronger macro element which Donut lacks for me.
How do you think that Jeremy Corbyn has so many followers? It’s because he cares about people.
And yet he calls himself a socialist, a democratic socialist. We live together in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect, is what it says on the back of my labour party membership card, which I rejoined when he became leader.
Your definition of socialism does not portray tolerance or respect for other people’s definition of socialism. You are saying that unless we agree with your definition of socialism we are wrong. How is that caring about other people and their views?
If words don’t matter to you, that’s your choice. They do to me. That’s my choice. Why aren’t you respecting my choice to try to do something better?
What gives you the right to say I should not?
After all, Corbyn failed. I learned from seeing the confusion around Jeremy Corbyn very close to. Remember, I essentially created Corbynomics, but John McDonnell wanted to talk maxed out credit cards because he was wedded to a neoliberal view of money. I saw what was the view of a socialist. It was not my view. It was destined to fail. So I am trying to do better and you don’t like it. Why?
Where did I say that words don’t matter?
As an ex- English teacher of course I think that words matter.
The best grade I got in my education degree course was when discussing the Lewis Carroll quote,
“When I choose a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
You have chosen your definition of socialism; I choose differently.
Who is to say which definition is right?
Consensus of academic opinion.
I stand by my choice.
You are defining a form of social democracy, and it’s failed in any case.
What is the point arguing over a failed system that shares a form of capital recognition system that will always fail people? I have a video coming, probably on Friday to explain it, but if you don’t like my opinion, it’s your option to leave. I am going nowhere, and most certainly am not changing my mind. Sorry, but it’s your choice. But, for the record, I am not in any way enjoying your aggression. So why are you exploiting it?
[…] did not expect yesterday's video to get the level of reaction it […]
In the 19th century Auguste Comte, the French sociologist, coined the word altruism as “a theory of conduct that regards the good of others as the end of moral action.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte
I don’t think this concept on its own is sufficient and even distracting since I believe we must seek to balance both the good of others as well as that of ourself. Accordingly an additional word or rather words are needed which I think chimes with the concept of the “Politics of Care” so in the spirit of Auguste Compte I propose the words “intruism” and “extruism”. Intruism is derived from the building term to make something plumb or “balanced true”. So it means balancing the needs of others against your needs. Extruism means failing to do this. The words “intruistic” and “extruistic” can be derived from the first two words so an economic or political system can be described as intruistic or extruistic.
It’s possible of course to extrapolate from the invention of these words and say that the universe has an “arrow of time” in which the universe is becoming more intruistic and human beings on this planet are currently exemplifying this to a degree. See the two sections “Behavioral Control Systems in Lizards” and “Neurochemistry of Stranger Rejection” in the following paper:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247759661_Evolution_of_Parental_Caregiving
Leading on from this paper the author David C. Bell, also a sociologist, went on to devise an explanation for the political system of democracy:-
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3471369/pdf/nihms401950.pdf
The idea behind developing a “Politics of Care” which extends democracy in more areas than currently available can therefore be seen as greatly needed work in accordance with this “Intruistic Arrow of Time”. In other words it can be argued we are being driven towards a “Politics of Care” by a force beyond our control.
Thanks
And I agree with this “I believe we must seek to balance both the good of others as well as that of ourself.”
Democracy is a key part of the polotics of care.
Richard,
I’m not sure I agree with your characterisations of the five political systems you want to discuss but I’m happy to leave that to one side for now.
However, I’m still trying to understand what MMT is all about and how it might fit in to a new kind of politics – have I failed to find your basic explanation?
Yes. I have explained the basis of MMT many times. It’s just about how money works, nothing more.
I think there are elements of socialism as you’ve described it, that could happily be combined with the politics of care – worker/communal ownership of organisations for example. So that shareholders and thus the ‘profit motive’ can be taken out of the equation altogether. Most small businesses aren’t about making profit in the sense of your later blog, they are about making a decent living, not a killing, and therefore could be ok.
I will explain why socialism and what I am suggesting are not the same as soon as I can. The problem is the capital being maintained.
“the right to own property (a universal human right)”
From my reading so far, (mostly Graeber, I will admit) most indigenous peoples didn’t/don’t feel the need for that right. And have found creative ways to counter the harm it causes. E.g. burying property with its owners, breaking property and throwing it into liminal areas, creating rituals that focus on distribution rather than acquisition. And isn’t that waht Jesus meant when he talked about the lilies of the fields?
But, I would have real problems challenging a UN recognised human right.
Could it be that the UN was at least in part, set up to defend/promulgate that right? After all, it was capitalists that set it up.
Are you saying we should end that right?
Actually it’s more sophisticated than my first comment.
Indigenous people do/did have ‘property’ rights of a sort. But they were/are rights over use values, rather than property rights as we think of them in the West. So, the right to garden a particular piece of land, or fish a particular patch of sea, or the right to recite a particular poem, or hold a particular ceremony.
Nobody, certainly not humans, owned the land itself, or the language, or the culture of which the ceremony is a part.
I’m not necessarily suggesting that we get rid of the UN human right.
However, I do think we need to be very careful how we define property ownership, since our current definition (which only dates from Roman times)
is the root of many of our troubles, even before capitalism, and culminating in neoliberalism:
“The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others.”;
“When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any, claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as, he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away.” (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.)
Noted, but I have to live in the land of possibility, and this is not to be found there.
“Progress is the realisation of Utopias”. Oscar Wilde.
No, it isn’t, very obviously, because no one has ever got there.
Jason Hickel has tweeted a useful thread on social and political attitudes, albeit not all are UK specific, to various issues including capitalism as a profit system, public job guarantee, workplace democracy, universal public services, rent controls, progressive taxation, etc. Although he is arguing in favour of socialism, some of the data might be useful for your development of details of the politics of care.
https://x.com/jasonhickel/status/1953126243118813556
Thank you. Useful.
Not related to earlier comments.
I’m sure you know about this, but I found it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb07GSYG_sY
I will watch thanks.