I meant to read more of the comments but time is a constraint. I think there is a small but perhaps important error in the concept of the state. You have defined in some ways what narratives are attempting to do, create equality. But I don’t understand if that is the States occupation, what about the ideals of the origins of the state? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution? I’ll leave it here for now for lack of time. I believe the States occupation should be to uphold those values within those documents.
Let me add a little more. Regarding the imperative to 'uphold the values within those documents'. I'd make a subtle shift and say the state should build the rights framework in such a way as to empower the population to uphold them. (Though of course the state should uphold them in such things as the application of the law, certain matters of foreign policy etc.
Thanks Rebecca, and don't worry about the brevity - your point is super-relevant, and hits the spot perfectly. Furthermore I agree completely: You have hightlighted a point at which I've been insufficiently clear. (If I've understood your correctly).
In responding, a comment first on what I even mean by 'equality'. I don't mean positive discrimination and equality of outcome etc - I leave such things for others to argue about. What I'm speaking of is the imperative that all must be equal under the law.
The function of the state is to enshrine a framework of rights based in the values of those who elected them (or embraced by those who elected them via process of inspiration rather than co-ercion or brainwashing). So absolutely, the constitution, the Magna Carta et al. And next, to oversee the issues of compliance with those. And that this must be done 'without fear or favour'.
Thank you Michael - you understood me exactly. I'm so glad. "Equal under the law" as well is perfect.
Since you're refining, in a good way, I'm going to push back a touch on the 'function of the state' as you're defining. "Based in the values of those who elected them" feels like we are putting the founding documents to the side... I'm thinking the framework of rights is based in the founding documents. And that the State is a small "s" state, in the sense of solely created to support (not control) ....
I don't advocate at all putting those documents aside.... 'values of those who elected them' can include.... we still believe in the Constitution (or perhaps that should be turned around 'we do not support any re-evaluation / revision of the Constitution).
But in any case other legislation goes on apart from the Constitution - though like you, I'd wish to see it minimised).
And yes also to 'state' with a small s. That's a primary goal. With a properly developed relationship between 'the three social functions' (eventually), I'd say the state should have no responsibility for 'outcomes' (educational, economic, etc). It should legislate to empower the people to be responsible for those things.
It is a very fine thing to attempt. It would be excellent if Steiner's ideas could permeate our culture a bit more. Unfortunately Steiner is widely ignored, possibly due to people being allergic to what they see as "mysticism".
Yes - Steiner's threefold concept is the inspiration behind much of my writing on 'World in Transition'. My aspiration is to develop the theme little by little for a wider audience, approaching it from the self-evident logic inherent in it - and to some extent the 'timeless archetypal' nature of it. I touched on the latter a little in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-failed-mantra-of-french-revolution In reality I didn't put it across as well there as I wanted to, so I've got plenty more work to do!
Message recieved by email from Michael Wood, reposted here with permission:
Excellent and challenging piece Michael.
May I throw a spanner in the works? It seems to me that the problem democracies face is actually the fact that socialism is undemocratic. If one looks at the Webb's Socialist Commonwealth and Atlee's 1945 manifesto based on it, it is obvious that it excludes, like communism, any other philosophy or policy. Cooperation is only possible between those who share an ideology, but differ on means. Democratic parties that believe in a free market economy can cooperate. In truth they cannot cooperate with Socialists of any stripe and I believe that attempting to do so has led us into the worst of all worlds. Indeed was it not the Liberal Party's replacement by Labour that killed off the Civic baby before it was born?
Atlee failed because he would not (or could not) impose a one party state which was the condition needed to create the Socialist commonwealth. The Labour party is a socialist party that is from time to time taken over by a 'centrist' Blair, Starmer e.g., in order to make it electable (or is their own ambition that drives them) Whatever the reason the compromises made by both sides are, I contend unworkable and we finish up in a neither fish nor fowl world.
I am not in favour of banning things, but socialism should have been banned in the last century following the Webb's manifesto because it clearly challenged and sought to replace democracy. The communist experiment in the USSR and latterly China is surely proof enough that it does not work. Reform and the SDP seem happily to work together in certain areas, because they share a common free enterprise based democratic belief. It's a belief that Labour espouses only when it's leaders are hungry for their turn at the Whitehall trough. I don't think it's anyway to ruin a country.
I know that the great and supposedly good wax lyrical about compromise and negotiation. My experience in business was that negotiations were a waste of time unless there was a desire on both sides for a resolution of equal benefit. Sadly politics is not at present grown up, but rather a Punch and Judy parody of bombasts who would, I think, struggle to sell hot dogs at a soccer game.
Thanks for the feedback, and spanners in the works are always welcome!
I have been thinking about how to reply to this, but I realised that I'm not entirely sure how to interpret what you are saying. Are you taking the argument I've made to be one in favour of socialism? If you could clarify that I will be able answer more fully.
By the way, if you don't mind could we do it in the comments section of the substack post, including a re-post of your comment above? One of my aspirations is to stimulate some dialogue (which is working out reasonably well) and sometimes seeing the one comment / exchange stimulates others to join the conversation.
(Message recieved by email from Michael Wood, re-posted here with permission):
Hi Michael,
No, I don't think you are advocating socialism, but it seems to me that as with so many well meaning democrats you are failing to identify the cause of the problem. I do not dispute that society requires rules, but I think in a free society it develops mores that suit rather than ones imposed by dogma. I believe the state has grown too big. Mission creep is to an extent inevitable because those rewarded by telling others what to do will always seek greater rewards by extending their reach. I truly believe that socialism is an evil that has damaged liberty.
It is a great observation that when people are rewarded for telling people what to do, they will naturally try to increase their scope for more of the same. I fully agree.
I also agree that society must develop its mores freely, and not have them imposed. That's fundamental to me, and to the world-view I'm seeking to articulate.
Perhaps I have given the impression that the 'third set of instituions' of which I speak would in some way be bureaucratic rule-makers? Not at all. They would be more similar to the 'civic society' of old – but in the long-term with far greater reach, and better-defined relationships with both corporate business and government. They would form freely and without limit or interference either from corporate / business entities or others of their own kind.
In reality, I have a dilemma at this point because the picture I'm seeking to develop is rather too big for a series of Substack posts. I have a large and heavy book almost complete which will do the job better, but I have to confess that I haven't even begun the task of looking for a publisher yet. So for now I do what I can, seeking to engage a little via bite-size 'Substacks'.
All I do starts from the view that the world has entered the biggest phase of change since the Enlightenment. And that part of that, in the long run, will be a complete revisioning of politics. Thus while realistically we today have to vote, and to some extent think, within the structures that exist now, my view is that we must also begin to think beyond them.
In that regard, I seek to keep 'World in Transition' above the 'left vs right' arguments: Whatever their validities in certain regards and certain details, I think the real issue is at a higher level. I see the root of the malaise in our society as being the post-Enlightenment habit of seeing everything as a machine, controllable by pulling the right levers and pushing the right buttons. And of believing that simple, material efficiency matters, and human depth does not. (I had a bit more to say about this in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/a-cure-for-21st-century-madness ). I'd say that it is from this tendency, this 'mechanistic thinking', this obessions with all-encompassing systems, and controls, and percieved efficiencies, that the anti-democratice elements of socialist thought emerged. But I'd also say that if they hadn't, we'd still have pretty much the same set of problems. Which is to say we'd still have business interfering too much in government and government intefering too much in business – partly because money-power has taken over everything, partly because it's an inherent outcome, irrespective of 'left and right', of seeing the world as through machine metaphors, and partly because there are no 'culutural' institutions to counterbalance the corporate and governemental ones.
I turn to the world 'culture' for a moment: It may be subject to many definitions, but the one I'm inclined to says it is 'that which arises freely from the people'. This brings us back to the question of 'mores freely developed, not imposed': For me it is shocking to stand back and realise that today just about nothing arises freely from the people. The web of state and corporate powers has by now left no room for that.
What I'm proposing then, is that there are three fundamental and timeless elements to society: The making of rules (by which I'm referring to the legislative function of government). The trading of commodities. And cultural activity. The latter should operate in complete freedom. And its scope is wide: not only science, the arts, education, religious belief / non-belief, but also 'for profit' activities which are not commodity-based. (An 'outside the box' perspective that I touched on that in michaelwarden.substack/p/the-economist-is-wearing-no-clothes).
There are good arguments to be made that much of history can be seen as shifting relationships between 'culture, state and commerce', thus defined. And also that this 'trinity' represents something archetypal and timeless, often developing through its own inner momentum more than through political decison making or 'ideology'. And that when any one of the three elements is not properly represented, the relationship between the other two will become in some way distorted, corrupted or dysfunctional.
This brings us back to the question of what is was that killed of the institutionalised level of that cultural activity (showing itself in embryonic form as 'civic society')? Was it, as you suggest “the Liberal Party's replacement by Labour that killed off the Civic baby before it was born?" I'd say perhaps in part. That much would be consistent with my suggestion that the emergence of the 'nanny state' was partly to blame.
Taking it a global level, historian Niall Ferguson (in his 2012 BBC Reith Lecture) took that view. He too was arguing for the re-animation of civic society (though not on the grand scale that I ultimately am) and asserting that it had previously been destroyed by 'well-intentioned nanny-stateism´. Noam Chomsky meanwhile has suggested it was systematically and deliberately destroyed by corporate business from World War Two onwards. And sociologist Robert Putnam has suggested it fell victim to technology. My own view would be that all three are right, all three were factors in the death of civic society. But I'd put the nanny-state perhaps third behind the exaggerated power of corporate business and the inevitable effects of technologies which have instensified various short-comings in our own behaviours and thinking, and which we have not yet adapted to.
Clearly, I'm taking a very long-term view, and one which might raise questions of 'realism', However, in matters of social evolution much that is unthinkable at one moment, suddenly become inevitable not long afterward – and we are living in volatile times.
We are also stuck with the reality for now that that roughly half the people in the world believe all that is wrong is because of the left, and roughly half that it is because of the right. That doesn't seem likely to change. My view is that our best hope is start seeking something beyond that arguement, and also that the times, and the increasing break-downs, are calling for the same, as well as creating an opportunity for it.
I can see that in the meantime we must continue to make political choices within the reality of the day, and that includes me. But my aspiration here is to see beyond it.
The Elephant in the Room part one in World View was so good I wanted to share it with all...so I am glad to be a new reader of your work and thank you for such carefully considered and important ideas. P. Foot (retired Waldorf teacher)
Thank you Paula! Your feedback is warmly appreciated. And so is the onward sharing of my work. Please don't hesitate to share you thoughts on forth-coming posts, and also to continue sharing with others!
I meant to read more of the comments but time is a constraint. I think there is a small but perhaps important error in the concept of the state. You have defined in some ways what narratives are attempting to do, create equality. But I don’t understand if that is the States occupation, what about the ideals of the origins of the state? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution? I’ll leave it here for now for lack of time. I believe the States occupation should be to uphold those values within those documents.
Let me add a little more. Regarding the imperative to 'uphold the values within those documents'. I'd make a subtle shift and say the state should build the rights framework in such a way as to empower the population to uphold them. (Though of course the state should uphold them in such things as the application of the law, certain matters of foreign policy etc.
Thanks Rebecca, and don't worry about the brevity - your point is super-relevant, and hits the spot perfectly. Furthermore I agree completely: You have hightlighted a point at which I've been insufficiently clear. (If I've understood your correctly).
In responding, a comment first on what I even mean by 'equality'. I don't mean positive discrimination and equality of outcome etc - I leave such things for others to argue about. What I'm speaking of is the imperative that all must be equal under the law.
The function of the state is to enshrine a framework of rights based in the values of those who elected them (or embraced by those who elected them via process of inspiration rather than co-ercion or brainwashing). So absolutely, the constitution, the Magna Carta et al. And next, to oversee the issues of compliance with those. And that this must be done 'without fear or favour'.
Thank you Michael - you understood me exactly. I'm so glad. "Equal under the law" as well is perfect.
Since you're refining, in a good way, I'm going to push back a touch on the 'function of the state' as you're defining. "Based in the values of those who elected them" feels like we are putting the founding documents to the side... I'm thinking the framework of rights is based in the founding documents. And that the State is a small "s" state, in the sense of solely created to support (not control) ....
Yep, we are still on the same wavelenght....
I don't advocate at all putting those documents aside.... 'values of those who elected them' can include.... we still believe in the Constitution (or perhaps that should be turned around 'we do not support any re-evaluation / revision of the Constitution).
But in any case other legislation goes on apart from the Constitution - though like you, I'd wish to see it minimised).
And yes also to 'state' with a small s. That's a primary goal. With a properly developed relationship between 'the three social functions' (eventually), I'd say the state should have no responsibility for 'outcomes' (educational, economic, etc). It should legislate to empower the people to be responsible for those things.
It is a very fine thing to attempt. It would be excellent if Steiner's ideas could permeate our culture a bit more. Unfortunately Steiner is widely ignored, possibly due to people being allergic to what they see as "mysticism".
The words of encouragement are much appreciated Jos. And I think you are exactly right about the 'allergy to percieved mysticism'.
Of course, feel free to forward to others you think may be receptive!
Interesting. Reminded me of Rudolf Steiner’s threefold social order thinking
Yes - Steiner's threefold concept is the inspiration behind much of my writing on 'World in Transition'. My aspiration is to develop the theme little by little for a wider audience, approaching it from the self-evident logic inherent in it - and to some extent the 'timeless archetypal' nature of it. I touched on the latter a little in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-failed-mantra-of-french-revolution In reality I didn't put it across as well there as I wanted to, so I've got plenty more work to do!
Thanks for your comment!
Message recieved by email from Michael Wood, reposted here with permission:
Excellent and challenging piece Michael.
May I throw a spanner in the works? It seems to me that the problem democracies face is actually the fact that socialism is undemocratic. If one looks at the Webb's Socialist Commonwealth and Atlee's 1945 manifesto based on it, it is obvious that it excludes, like communism, any other philosophy or policy. Cooperation is only possible between those who share an ideology, but differ on means. Democratic parties that believe in a free market economy can cooperate. In truth they cannot cooperate with Socialists of any stripe and I believe that attempting to do so has led us into the worst of all worlds. Indeed was it not the Liberal Party's replacement by Labour that killed off the Civic baby before it was born?
Atlee failed because he would not (or could not) impose a one party state which was the condition needed to create the Socialist commonwealth. The Labour party is a socialist party that is from time to time taken over by a 'centrist' Blair, Starmer e.g., in order to make it electable (or is their own ambition that drives them) Whatever the reason the compromises made by both sides are, I contend unworkable and we finish up in a neither fish nor fowl world.
I am not in favour of banning things, but socialism should have been banned in the last century following the Webb's manifesto because it clearly challenged and sought to replace democracy. The communist experiment in the USSR and latterly China is surely proof enough that it does not work. Reform and the SDP seem happily to work together in certain areas, because they share a common free enterprise based democratic belief. It's a belief that Labour espouses only when it's leaders are hungry for their turn at the Whitehall trough. I don't think it's anyway to ruin a country.
I know that the great and supposedly good wax lyrical about compromise and negotiation. My experience in business was that negotiations were a waste of time unless there was a desire on both sides for a resolution of equal benefit. Sadly politics is not at present grown up, but rather a Punch and Judy parody of bombasts who would, I think, struggle to sell hot dogs at a soccer game.
With best wishes,
Michael
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the feedback, and spanners in the works are always welcome!
I have been thinking about how to reply to this, but I realised that I'm not entirely sure how to interpret what you are saying. Are you taking the argument I've made to be one in favour of socialism? If you could clarify that I will be able answer more fully.
By the way, if you don't mind could we do it in the comments section of the substack post, including a re-post of your comment above? One of my aspirations is to stimulate some dialogue (which is working out reasonably well) and sometimes seeing the one comment / exchange stimulates others to join the conversation.
Thanks again for taking the trouble to write!
(Message recieved by email from Michael Wood, re-posted here with permission):
Hi Michael,
No, I don't think you are advocating socialism, but it seems to me that as with so many well meaning democrats you are failing to identify the cause of the problem. I do not dispute that society requires rules, but I think in a free society it develops mores that suit rather than ones imposed by dogma. I believe the state has grown too big. Mission creep is to an extent inevitable because those rewarded by telling others what to do will always seek greater rewards by extending their reach. I truly believe that socialism is an evil that has damaged liberty.
Thanks Michael.
It is a great observation that when people are rewarded for telling people what to do, they will naturally try to increase their scope for more of the same. I fully agree.
I also agree that society must develop its mores freely, and not have them imposed. That's fundamental to me, and to the world-view I'm seeking to articulate.
Perhaps I have given the impression that the 'third set of instituions' of which I speak would in some way be bureaucratic rule-makers? Not at all. They would be more similar to the 'civic society' of old – but in the long-term with far greater reach, and better-defined relationships with both corporate business and government. They would form freely and without limit or interference either from corporate / business entities or others of their own kind.
In reality, I have a dilemma at this point because the picture I'm seeking to develop is rather too big for a series of Substack posts. I have a large and heavy book almost complete which will do the job better, but I have to confess that I haven't even begun the task of looking for a publisher yet. So for now I do what I can, seeking to engage a little via bite-size 'Substacks'.
All I do starts from the view that the world has entered the biggest phase of change since the Enlightenment. And that part of that, in the long run, will be a complete revisioning of politics. Thus while realistically we today have to vote, and to some extent think, within the structures that exist now, my view is that we must also begin to think beyond them.
In that regard, I seek to keep 'World in Transition' above the 'left vs right' arguments: Whatever their validities in certain regards and certain details, I think the real issue is at a higher level. I see the root of the malaise in our society as being the post-Enlightenment habit of seeing everything as a machine, controllable by pulling the right levers and pushing the right buttons. And of believing that simple, material efficiency matters, and human depth does not. (I had a bit more to say about this in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/a-cure-for-21st-century-madness ). I'd say that it is from this tendency, this 'mechanistic thinking', this obessions with all-encompassing systems, and controls, and percieved efficiencies, that the anti-democratice elements of socialist thought emerged. But I'd also say that if they hadn't, we'd still have pretty much the same set of problems. Which is to say we'd still have business interfering too much in government and government intefering too much in business – partly because money-power has taken over everything, partly because it's an inherent outcome, irrespective of 'left and right', of seeing the world as through machine metaphors, and partly because there are no 'culutural' institutions to counterbalance the corporate and governemental ones.
I turn to the world 'culture' for a moment: It may be subject to many definitions, but the one I'm inclined to says it is 'that which arises freely from the people'. This brings us back to the question of 'mores freely developed, not imposed': For me it is shocking to stand back and realise that today just about nothing arises freely from the people. The web of state and corporate powers has by now left no room for that.
What I'm proposing then, is that there are three fundamental and timeless elements to society: The making of rules (by which I'm referring to the legislative function of government). The trading of commodities. And cultural activity. The latter should operate in complete freedom. And its scope is wide: not only science, the arts, education, religious belief / non-belief, but also 'for profit' activities which are not commodity-based. (An 'outside the box' perspective that I touched on that in michaelwarden.substack/p/the-economist-is-wearing-no-clothes).
There are good arguments to be made that much of history can be seen as shifting relationships between 'culture, state and commerce', thus defined. And also that this 'trinity' represents something archetypal and timeless, often developing through its own inner momentum more than through political decison making or 'ideology'. And that when any one of the three elements is not properly represented, the relationship between the other two will become in some way distorted, corrupted or dysfunctional.
This brings us back to the question of what is was that killed of the institutionalised level of that cultural activity (showing itself in embryonic form as 'civic society')? Was it, as you suggest “the Liberal Party's replacement by Labour that killed off the Civic baby before it was born?" I'd say perhaps in part. That much would be consistent with my suggestion that the emergence of the 'nanny state' was partly to blame.
Taking it a global level, historian Niall Ferguson (in his 2012 BBC Reith Lecture) took that view. He too was arguing for the re-animation of civic society (though not on the grand scale that I ultimately am) and asserting that it had previously been destroyed by 'well-intentioned nanny-stateism´. Noam Chomsky meanwhile has suggested it was systematically and deliberately destroyed by corporate business from World War Two onwards. And sociologist Robert Putnam has suggested it fell victim to technology. My own view would be that all three are right, all three were factors in the death of civic society. But I'd put the nanny-state perhaps third behind the exaggerated power of corporate business and the inevitable effects of technologies which have instensified various short-comings in our own behaviours and thinking, and which we have not yet adapted to.
Clearly, I'm taking a very long-term view, and one which might raise questions of 'realism', However, in matters of social evolution much that is unthinkable at one moment, suddenly become inevitable not long afterward – and we are living in volatile times.
We are also stuck with the reality for now that that roughly half the people in the world believe all that is wrong is because of the left, and roughly half that it is because of the right. That doesn't seem likely to change. My view is that our best hope is start seeking something beyond that arguement, and also that the times, and the increasing break-downs, are calling for the same, as well as creating an opportunity for it.
I can see that in the meantime we must continue to make political choices within the reality of the day, and that includes me. But my aspiration here is to see beyond it.
Hah, I meant Womb of course!!
Please do keep up the feedback Paula - it is always great to know people are reading what I send out, and what they think of it!
The Elephant in the Room part one in World View was so good I wanted to share it with all...so I am glad to be a new reader of your work and thank you for such carefully considered and important ideas. P. Foot (retired Waldorf teacher)
Thank you Paula! Your feedback is warmly appreciated. And so is the onward sharing of my work. Please don't hesitate to share you thoughts on forth-coming posts, and also to continue sharing with others!