Equality, Fraternity-and Bernard Crick
| Author | Nick Ellison |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1985.tb00114.x |
| Date | 01 October 1985 |
| Published date | 01 October 1985 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Equality, Fi?aternity
-
and
Bernard
Crick
45.
EQUALITY,
FRATERNITY-AND
BERNARD
CRICK
Nick
Ellison
Of
several recent attempts to reconsider the case for democratic
socialism Bernard Crick's are the least equivocal about the importance
socialists must continue to place upon values (Crick 1982, 1984a, 1984b;
Kitching
1983;
Plant
1984;
Dunn 1984). Indeed
so
great is Crick's concern
that he has reiterated his arguments three times in as many years. Concen-
trating on his Fabian Tract (Crick 1984a
-
in the following referred to as
'Crick'),
I
argue that Crick's approach to socialist values
is
open to
question because he fails
to
relate satisfactorily his conception of equality
to his notion
of
fraternity (parts
I
and
11).
The difficulty of maintaining
a compatible relationship between the principles is illustrated by the fact
that Crick is forced
to
alter his stated view
of
equality in order to retain
a central role
for
fraternity. By doing
so,
however, he fails to maintain
equality as a-definitive value (part
Ill).
Crick acknowledges the enormous variety of ideas contained in the
concept of socialism but nonetheless claims that
a
common core of meaning
can be discerned. While socialist theory is concerned foremostly with the
relationship, of primary producers to the means of production, socialist
doctrine asserts 'the primacy and mutual dependence of the values of "liberty,
equality and fraternity"' (Crick, p 7). Doctrine 'draws on the theory to
believe that greater equality
will
lead
to
more co-operation than competition,
(and) that this
will
in turn enhance fraternity' (Crick,
p
7).
Exactly how socialist doctrine
is
influenced by its body of theory
Crick does not discuss
-
he is more concerned with the nature
of
the values
comprising the doctrine itself.
Of
these 'only equality is specifically
socialist', but liberty and fraternity 'take on a distinctively socialist
form when the three are related
to
each other' (Crick, p 13). In the abstract
such a formula may seem plausible but its efficacy clearly depends on the
exact definitions given
to
the different values
-
particularly to equality.
Crick claims that democratic socialists should conceive their egalit-
arianism negatively as a theory of 'legitimate inequality'. 'The important
point', he notes, 'is to see that inequalities of reward and power are
unjustifiable in principle unless some clear public benefit follows from
them that could not otherwise exist' (Crick, p 17).
He
acknowledges a debt
to John Rawls and
\.I
G
Runciman in spite of the fact that 'some socialists
have misread their arguments as merely a radical form of liberalism' (Crick,
p 17). Crick maintains, however, that 'even
if
that was their intention,
if
in fact all inequalities were called into question, constantly questioned,
criticised and forced to justify themselves in the public interest, then
one would at least be in
a
society with
a
dominant egalitarian spirit' (Crick,
P
17).
I
shall regard
it
as uncontentious for present purposes that this
definition of equality, loosely based upon the Rawlsian difference principle,
is
compatible with Crick's conception cf liberty (Crick, pp 13-16). The
difficulties in Crick's schema really concern his desire to give fuller
expression
to
his claim 'that with greater equality there can be greater
fraternity' (Crick, p
19).
'True equality', Crick notes,
'is
no more but
no
less than the removal
of
all unjustifiable inequalities' (Crick,
p
21). Those that remain
will
To continue reading
Request your trial