This is the text of a talk I gave to Liverpool Green Party on 27th January 2016. I took part in the composition of the party’s Philosophical Basis in 2000. It is broadly the same today though there have been some revisions. The quotations here are all from this document. It is available on the party’s website .

Other parties do not usually have an official philosophical basis. So what is the point of it?

Within the party it functions as a guide with which other policies must be consistent. More generally it serves two purposes.

Firstly politicians disagree about what needs to be done. The disagreements reveal different values and presuppositions. Most political debate is quite shallow. To tak abortion as an example, we have disagreement between a woman’s right to choose and a baby’s right to life. How do we seek progress? Either we just try to shout louder, or we ask each other what we mean by rights.

Secondly, by understanding the underlying philosophy we can see how our policies fit together. When we have a clear idea of that, it helps us explain our message simply and clearly.

Modern political debate reveals three tensions: between humanity and the environment, the individual and society, and rich and poor.

Humanity and the environment

After centuries of thinking that the modern west is obviously superior to other societies because of all our science and technology, in the 1960s scientists started pointing out that we are destroying the environment.

How did modern western society produce destructive lifestyles, when no other society has done anywhere near as much damage as we have done?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The usual consensus takes us back to the later Middle Ages. The Black Death hit Europe in the middle of the fourteenth century, and for three centuries there was a succession of plagues. Sometimes, in some places, so many people were dying that there weren’t enough left to bury the dead.

This changed the way people thought of nature. Until then the establishment view was that there was nothing wrong with nature. Illness and suffering were caused either by human damage or by God punishing sin.

The new attitude was best expressed by Francis Bacon at the beginning of the seventeenth century. People were noticing the changes made by new technologies. Bacon proposed that by bringing together science and technology we should be able to control nature and make it more amenable to human well-being. Fritjof Capra writes:

The terms in which Bacon advocated his new empirical method of investigation were not only passionate but often outright vicious. Nature, in his view, had to be ‘hounded in her wanderings’, ‘bound into service’, and made a ‘slave’. She was to be ‘put into constraint’, and the aim of the scientist was to ‘torture nature’s secrets from her’. Much of this violent imagery seems to have been inspired by the witch trials. (Capra, The Turning Point, pp. 40-41)

This is the dualism that ecofeminists object to: man dominates woman, the ruling classes dominate the lower classes, humanity dominates nature.

And the mind dominates the body. This was one of Descartes’ contributions. Reality consists of two spheres. The physical universe is nothing but atoms pushing each other in accordance with laws of nature. The spiritual universe is where the mind relates to God. Humans live in both, because we are mind and body. Other animals don’t have minds, so they can’t suffer, so there is nothing wrong with vivisection.

The attraction of this view was that it reduced the physical environment to mere matter, with no value until humans find a use for it. Our minds are outside the world, looking down on it as detached observers, and it’s there to be used. In the physical world, only humans have value.

So here is a model for anthropocentrism: the value theory in which only humans have value. The human mind is going to get a complete understanding of the universe. The universe is just like a giant clock, atoms pushing each other according to laws of nature. Environmental philosophers call this the mechanistic paradigm. Most leading scientists thought like that until about a century ago.

From this mindset, fracking may have downsides, perhaps bees are being wiped out by pesticides, but we are finding out how the world works so technology will produce an answer.

When I was born my mother had all her teeth taken out. There was a medical reason, but in those days it was a no-brainer because false teeth are better. We have created them. Natural teeth are merely the product of evolution.

Then science moved on. Einstein produced relativity theory, lateer came quantum theory. Now the universe looks incomparably more complex than the human mind will ever understand. We cannot remake the world to suit ourselves. So today we have conflict between the instrumental view of the environment and the view that we need to respect the way it is.

Conventional political and economic policies are destroying the very foundations of the wellbeing of humans and other animals. Our culture is in the grip of a value system and a way of understanding the world which is fundamentally flawed.

Each organism is dependent on other species and on the physical world for its survival. Whereas human value judgements normally focus on human needs, value ultimately lies in the well-being of the whole ecosystem.

The Green Party recognises that humankind depends on its environment for its welfare, and conversely that human activities have a critical impact on environmental processes, with serious implications for the welfare and survival of other species. Therefore the proper relationship between humanity and its environment should be one of interdependence within it, not control over it. Like all forms of life, we take from others and give back in return. We should ensure that human activities contribute to, rather than destroy, the richness of life.

The central integrating principle underlying all Green Party policies is that all human activities must be indefinitely sustainable. They must neither use resources faster than they can be replaced, nor create effects or products which cannot be assimilated indefinitely by the environment.

Individualism & communitarianism

By the end of the eighteenth century some critics were arguing that the spiritual realm doesn’t exist at all. Everything is matter. So where do we locate the human mind? It must be a product of physical matter. Our thoughts are caused by physical processes in the brain, neurons firing.

How do you and I know this? Because the neurons firing in our brains make us believe it. But how do these neurons know what to make us think? Here’s me thinking I’m talking sense but maybe I’m only saying random nonsense generated by bits of brain.

Neurologists and philosophers still debate this. The main political response has been social engineering. The idea is that people’s minds are determined so they don’t know what’s best for them. On the other hand we do know. It’s a complete contradiction but it’s still very influential.

The implication is that we need technical experts to manage society. Projects of social engineering since the 19th century include racism – wiping out human societies that they thought hadn’t evolved as far as Europeans had; eugenics – killing off criminals; and various political and economic programmes. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all thought they knew how to make the world a better place.

So we get a split. On one side are the people who emphasise that the individual human is the supreme locus of value. On the other side are the social engineers who know what the people need even if the people don’t think so.

The old Liberal Party had its roots in individualism, the Conservative Party has its roots in communitarianism. If you ever listen to Prime Minister’s Questions, Corbyn asks questions about people who are homeless or starving, and Cameron replies with statements about managing the economy. Managing the economy is now the dominant form of social engineering. So what matters more: empowering individuals to make what they will of life, or the project the experts are working on to make progress?

Traditional politics divides humans from nature and the individual from society. The rejection of this way of seeing the world is fundamental to Green philosophy. Rather than set them against each other, the Green Party seeks healthy interdependence of individual, nature and society.

The Green Party affirms the importance of individual freedom and self expression. We believe people should be free to make their own decisions on matters which do not adversely affect others. Its importance lies in valuing the opportunity people have to make their own decisions, accept responsibility for them and develop in their own way.

Rich and poor

Even if you are committed to the project of endless economic growth, you can still disagree about how to achieve it. Should we make sure everyone is well fed and well housed and educated, so that they can judge for themselves how to contribute to society? Or should we put all our investment in a few experts who will work out what to do, and drive down wages to make people work harder for less pay? Here we get the debate between left and right about how to achieve economic growth, or indeed how to achieve any goal that society as a whole considers worthwhile.

Wealth creation

For capitalists, wealth is created by business leaders, managers. For Marxists, wealth is created by the working class. For Greens, wealth is created by nature. Human work plays a part, like this projector didn’t grow on a tree, but even human creativity is only possible because of the rich resources nature provides.

So when land is eroded and species go extinct, real wealth is being destroyed.

We reject the view that wealth can be measured solely in monetary units, a view which allows its adherents to think it consists primarily of the results of human labour. This error has caused successive governments to pursue objectives which appear to increase the nation’s wealth while in fact they reduce it. Symbols of wealth, like money, reinforce the error and dominate political decision making. Economic growth is a poor guide to human welfare.

Wealth distribution

Whenever I hear a Marxist saying wealth is created by the workers, I ask them why the unemployed should receive any wealth at all. To me this is a personally significant question, because I had to retire early when I was physically incapable of doing anything. I’m not contributing to the economy; why should anybody give me anything? The reply I usually get is a fudge: the unemployed count as workers.

The capitalist equivalent is now being applied in all its ferocity in Britain, as the rich get richer and the unemployed and disabled get driven to ever greater poverty. It’s all perfectly logical if what matters most of all is economic growth and the value of individuals is to be judged by how much they contribute to the economy. If I agreed with them I would accept my moral duty to commit suicide.

But if the wealth is created by nature, then life is a gift. Nobody has got any right to claim a greater share of the wealth than anyone else. In my view this is a far more coherent ethical basis for equality than anything the Labour Party can offer.

Society should guarantee access to basic material security for all and should provide a wide range of opportunities for personal fulfilment in both a material and non-material sense. If hardship is even a possibility, a sense of insecurity will prevent individuals from acting in accordance with ecological constraints. A guarantee of security will not ensure voluntary ecological behaviour, but it is a necessary precondition.

Work

What is work? When I had my ATOS interview it was all too obvious. (Anybody else had an official interview to assess benefits?) According to the present system, work is anything that anybody is willing to pay you to do. If the Queen paid you to sit at home twiddling your thumbs, as far as the jobcentre is concerned that would be work. If you are bringing up your own children, you’re not working.

How did this absurdity happen? After the Second World War the Attlee government focused on the things that needed doing: building houses, making sure everyone was fed, and so on. They set up institutions to directly employ people to do what needed doing.

Since then the idea of the Government judging what needs to be done has been replaced by economic measures. Your work is valued if it contributes to the economy. Any activity contributes to the economy so long as money changes hands and you declare it on your tax returns. So more and more people work to provide luxuries for the rich instead of necessities for the poor.

The quality of work is as important as the quantity. As working practices adapt to new technologies, there is an increasing divide between the work that needs to be done and the paid employment which provides incomes. The Green Party believes that employment policies should aim to match the work which needs to be done with the abilities of people.

Just think of the Junior Doctors’ Strike. That mattered, because junior doctors do something constructive. If the advertising industry went on strike, we wouldn’t mind so much.

Capitalist economic theory in general works on the basis that work is something people don’t want to do. Life is divided between work and leisure, another dualism. We need to be motivated by money. Here again Greens disagree.

The Green Party recognises that work plays a central part in a healthy and balanced life. People have a natural desire to make a contribution to the common good. We therefore oppose the view of work which treats it as an unfortunate necessity to be performed by machines whenever possible… Labour-saving devices may be valuable in some circumstances, but not all. We believe that access to creative, rewarding work is a fundamental human right. We also oppose the view that hard work is to be praised for its own sake. A healthy life is a balanced one, including time for both work and leisure.

There is a limit to how much work needs to be done.

Property

Going back to the early Enlightenment theories of government, the monarchist tradition believed the king was the supreme owner of everything. Opponents argued for the right of individuals to own property. The king should have no right to take it away. As this stage owning property became an essential human right.

Now, of course, we have a completely different situation, where the 1% own far too much. Time for change.

The Green Party believes that, since human well-being depends on the use of land and its physical resources, property laws should be designed to ensure that all have access to the things they need. All those who have a stake in property should have a real say in how it is managed. Common goods need to be accountably managed by the community that depends on them. Property laws should permit neither states nor individuals to treat their property in whatever way they choose. Instead they should aim to ensure that all people, where they wish it, have their needs met through access to the land and its resources, while maintaining its quality for future generations. Property laws should therefore impose duties on owners as well as granting rights.

Progress and Technology

Is there such a thing as progress at all? Some environmental philosophers think not. Other Greens argue that there is a proper place for progress, but a different kind of progress.

We value the processes of researching and developing new technologies. However, they should not be considered self-evidently desirable, nor should lifestyles based on more complex technologies be considered necessarily superior to lifestyles based on simpler ones. All too often the expression ‘You can’t stop progress’ is used to express despair, and aptly describes a society which knows it is regressing but has not found the means to stop. Technology, like other aspects of human culture, needs to be used selectively and within limits. The path of technological development is not a given, but a choice made by society. We should choose to develop technologies that are inherently beneficial to the common good.

Political principles

The Philosophical Basis also includes a list of political principles: democracy, equality, human rights, rights of future generations, minorities and internationalism. On democracy,

A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between equal individuals in a democratic society… Nothing should be decided at a higher level if it can be decided at a lower one. But the Green Party accepts that regional and national governments will continue to have an important role.

On empowerment,

We seek a society in which people are empowered and involved in making the decisions which affect them. We advocate participatory and democratic politics. Leadership should always be accountable, consensus-driven and moral. We reject the hierarchical structure of leaders and followers.

On resistance,

The Green Party does not believe there is an automatic moral obligation on all people to obey their governments. It seeks to maximise the extent to which obedience to laws is based on consent and minimise the need for conformity through deterrence. We believe there are occasions when individuals and groups in society may openly, and peacefully, protest at an unjust law or practice through civil disobedience.

Summary

Modern socialism began as a reaction against capitalism. Capitalism was a reaction against earlier pre-modern restrictions on what the rich and powerful could do. Both socialism and capitalism have their historical roots in the idea that we can improve human life by treating the natural environment as a resource available for any use we choose. Greens have a different vision of human well-being, which is about living in harmony with the natural environment.

As a result of all this many Green Party policies are of the left, but we get to them by our own route. Because Greens conceive of human well-being much more in terms of living in harmony with the environment, in some ways we’re wanting to reject what capitalism and socialism have in common.

We still have many things in common with them, not least that we face the state of the world as it is now. We respond from the perspective of our own philosophy, which in some ways is older, and we would like to think, more realistic.