1. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 1
OCTOBER 1952
1.1 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
1.1.1 I. INTRODUCTION
The Party is discussing questions which bear closely on its object and principles, questions it has not always deemed it necessary to discuss. We are busy criticising our own position. This healthy situation has developed, not, I think, as a perversion resulting from the world's indifference, nor as a mere clerkly desire for a half-century stock-taking; it registers, rather, the impact of actual history. It reflects (as does the whole field of science) the uncertainties of a revolution in process—from liberalism to communism—in contrast with the certainties of the nineteenth-century consolidation of revolution achieved (from Mercantilism to Industrialism).
We used to say that conditions were ripe for Socialism. We still take this view, with a pinch of salt. From this questioning of ripeness stems our controversies: why aren't the workers socialist; is there a transition stage; do men make history; can we hasten the ripening with mirrors to reflect light from the sun of Socialist society? In other words, ripe? how ripe? how to ripen? And this questioning is a social product. It is perhaps our acknowledgment (as yet unconscious, as always in the first place) that the Industrial Revolution which established " social production " is not immediately followed by the revolution for social ownership, but by the State Capitalist revolution which establishes the institutional technique (and thereby the ideological demand) for the classless administration of the common weal.
The proposition put forward have to be compressed within a page so that much more than is said must be left unsaid, and most of what is said must be left unexplained.
1.1.2 PHASES OF A SINGLE REVOLUTION
The Socialist Revolution, which is the aim of our movement, is the final phase of a single revolution from production for use at one level to production for use at another, in which the succession of intermediate revolutions and social systems (Patriarchal Communism, Chattel Slavery, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Capitalism 1, 2, 3) are pre-requisite phases. Whatever the political incidents which the Socialist Revolution culminates (what we call the "political act"), it is an historical and social process going on now and daily, and in which the dynamic element is capital. Whatever the form which the " political act " takes in the event (on which the Party wisely does not offer the precise prescription, which would be prophesy), it remains that it is the discussion of Socialism by Socialists which is the immediate Socialism-precipitating process ("What Socialism will be like" has its relevance here.) It remains also that this discussion of Socialism is conditioned, determined, by the social effects of the accumulation of capital. What, therefore, has just been called the " immediate precipitant " is still itself the end result of its social, capital-determined, antecendents. It registers the accumulation of event which is history, it records the noisy breath of capital like everything else which (under Capitalism) is capital breathing. To insist on the history-creating character of ideological elements which are themselves social end-results has no point unless it is to urge creation out of nothing, and all the " Ah, buts " to this are only the pull" of the animistic conception of history which the world (including the Party) has not yet outgrown. To insist that men make history is only to insist afresh, as of old, that man is God—an intractable habit not easily thought out of because it springs from the fact of thinking (the Word). To say that men's activities are always purposive, pre-conceived, makes sense; to say that man's being precedes his consciousness makes sense. Tell me that a necklace of alternate black and white beads-begins with a black, or a white, and I'll accept it without hesitation as the starting point of your point. Insist, as a principle, on the precedence or subsequence of either thought or action, and I can only await the further development of history which will compel you to conceive of their concurrence.
1.1.3 UNITY OF SOCIETY AND THOUGHT
History, which had hitherto been regarded as episodic, is accepted after Hegel as continuous. History, which had been regarded as created by the ideas of great men, is accepted after Marx as the product of human production. The current insistence that it is created by the: ideas, not of a.few great men, but of a lot of little ones, is only a bourgeois vulgarisation of the Feudal error. It is the proletarian revolutionary's version of God. History,. which appears as a succession of revolutions (because the human senses cannot perceive the daily accumulation of event until the bell rings up each hundred) is a continuing series of social integrations in which the new includes the old, not by arithmetic but by digestion— social integrations which compel (with which concur) new conceptual integrations. The Newtonian physics, which wrote the laws of the universe on a postcard, accommpanied the integration of the Nation State out of the separate Feudal baronies and dukedoms. Linneus and Darwin integrated living species, and Marx integrated social phenomena, in the Industrial Capitalism which integrated the former separate capitalist classes and working classes. Today, in the integrative Total State, with its concept of one world, Einstein integrates space with time, energy with matter, electro-magnetic waves with light, etc.
1.1.4 BEGINNINGS OF SOCIALIST EXPROPRIATION
The present revolution is dissolving industrial capitalist liberalism and digesting it into the new muscle and blood and thinking of Communism (Bad Thing). What is called the Welfare State is the combined effect of two revolutions which followed the Industrial Revolution: the revolution from the technique of absolute surplus value to the technique of relative S.V. (of which the nineteenth century legislation and social movements were the administrative apparatus), and the present State Capitalist revolution which is the permanent war economy. The State has become Welfare because it is a Warfare State. Whereas the nineteenth century abolished destitution poverty as a necessity of relative S.V., the twentieth century organises and equalises poverty as a necessity of war. Behind both is the accumulation of capital: because it both raises the " organic composition " of the worker, and intensifies international competition. Fiercer competition urges on the concentration of capital in the State; State control furthers the depersonalising of property: this depersonalisation begins the expropriation which is the Socialist aim.. It begins" to change power based on naked ownership to power based on functionjHt begins to change domination of class by class imo anonymous administration ol things. It nobbles the captains of industry and moguls of commerce, as Mercantilism nobbled the pirate Drakes and Raleighs who opened up the world market. In the industrially developed west, the new bosses are at first the old bosses: in the east, the industrial revolution starts already at the political boss stage. But in the west, too, the Commissioners hold power by appointment, not by inheritance, a revolution the reverse of that by which elective tribal leaders became hereditary lords. The Commissions are integrated and subordinated at Cabinet level, and the Commissioners do not themselves receive or determine the amount of disposal of the surplus value produced by the workers. Within an industry, profit begins to become less the aim and more a condition. The aim is to provide the service required by State policy, while to cover costs, replacements and extensions, remains the condition which limits the service. Within the State there begins the form of production for use, while between States there remain the classical commodity relationships, the hungry search for markets and the Bomb.
1.1.5 WARFARE-WELFARE STATE AND THE SOCIALIST ETHIC
Welfare is the counterpart, in the fields of distribution and administration, of what takes place in the field of production. Rationing, national health service, and direction of labour, are the hall marks of military capitalism. (Communism):
It is the common issue of rum and medicine and duty. It is not fantastic to conceive the extension of State control to all Insurance; nor of the addition of transport to the " free " services by compulsory weekly stamp; nor of the- unification of weekly stamp, quarterly rates and annual assessment into one PAYE, with Family Allowances, Pensions, Licences; nor of the increase in the centralised taxation to cover gas, electricity, refrigeration, laundry; nor of its extension to basic foods up to the standard ration fixed by the War Office—and the deduction at source of 90% of incomes instead of the 40% at present taken by the State. Is this more fantastic that a Socialist Revolution by workers conditioned to classical capitalism? . Does the removal of the stigma of public assistance by its universalisation, or the replacement of furtive out-relief by respectable ration book, or the equalisation of speech and dress and education and military service, play no part in fostering Hie feelings favourable to "distribution according to needs"? Do Legitimacy Acts, equal pay, psychiatry instead of flogging, make no contribution towards the Socialist ethic of "equality of consideration"? Do we accept the materialist determination of "ideologies"—or are we idealists converting by logic independent of history? Do we proclaim that money must go, and raise our hands in revolutionary horror at the suggestion that we are already seeing it off? ; Do we accept the "transformation of quantity into quality" and the "historical necessity for Socialism" as empty articles of religious faith? Do we hold that each society carries the next in its womb, and prudishly disown the misshapen foetus?
1.1.6 DO MEN MAKE HISTORY ?
Whatever we wish, we cannot escape the influence of the Warfare-Welfare revolution whose vast social integrative processes are reflected in every field of thought—we least of all whose aim is to restore the integrity of men (split by the short historical explosion which divided use from value) in an integrated society based on use. We may well, within this journal, reconcile the pro- and anti-election schools by recognising our function neither as education nor as politics but as politico-criticism. We may even resolve the dilemma of Marx, which Engels fumbled, and from which the Party still suffers, of historical determinism and political free will. "All too long have the philosophers been content to interpret history, the time has come to change it." Here is an insoluble problem, because it is a problem wrongly stated. The only way to make history is to interpret it. Marx made, history because, he interpreted it, in the most brilliant historical document ever written. The only sense in which men consciously make history is in becoming conscious of what is happening, which is (in our time) to make State Capitalist society conscious of its preparatory function. The genius of Marx lay in his talent for seeing so clearly what was going on under his nose. And it still remains to some extent our evil genius that we see so clearly what went on under Marx's nose.
1.1.7 THE POSITIVE CASE
That time is done. We in turn are shaken into thought by revolution. Willy nilly we are all both mother and midwife of the more positive case which will replace the propagandist's impossible task of telling people what they don't know by the historically creative one of the articulating for them what they do. We move from the negative attack on capitalist reform to the positive presentation of Socialism, in proportion as our propaganda stems from an integrated concept of history, which sees the succession of class societies as phases of a revolution from production for use at one level to production for use at another; in proportion as it is informed by a social philosophy which is shrewd enough to integrate the closing stages of one society with the emergent stages of the next, and by a political philosophy which is not afraid to proclaim the permanent needs of human nature instead of the historical relativity of human conduct.
This is the core of the positive case for Socialism, which emphasises less' the poverty of the means of life (which Welfare makes more meaningless)_ and moire the poverty of the mode of living (which Warfare makes more meaningful)". It is the core of the positive Socialist case which integrates the need for good material things to enjoy with the equally paramount need for self-respect; the need, therefore, to integrate work with art, art with craft, craft with play, play with education, education with living. It is a positive case, not dragged out of the Utopian blue, but construed sensibly from the sum of human need—the need by upright, thinking, social man for work, for creative work, and for the enjoyment of other people's enjoyment of his work—and the sum of human history, whieh in creating the apparatus and attitudes for organising common poverty prepares for its transmutation into the organisation of common weal.
F. EVANS.
1.2 THE BALLOT AND SOCIALISM
An open letter to all Members of the World Socialist Party
(We print below the substance of a dispute in which the W.S.P. Has been engaged for some time on the question of the ballot. Some aspects of the issues involved are, we believe, the subject of the referendum, and any decisions arrived at are of course the domestic concern of the W.S.P. Nevertherless there are matters and opinions involved in this controversy which go beyond the W.S.P. Controversy and members of the S.P.G.B. As well as members of the W.S.P. And the companion parties are unlikely to resist the stimulus of argument. It can be taken for granted however, that were principles or general propositions are questioned, they will be argued on merits, and not in relation to the dispute in the W.S.P. Incidentally, though it may come as a surprise to some who regard the S.P.G.B. As “formalised” or “rigid”. “FORUM” has been started on the assumption that no proposition is sacred and may be challenged.
Here follows an open letter from a group of members of the W.S.P. And a reply by Comrade Cantor of the W.S.P. – Editors)

Dear Comrades,
At the 1951 Conference of our party, held in Detroit, the question of the party's stand on the ballot was discussed at some lengths and the following "compromise" statement was drawn up for presentation to the membership in the coming referendum:
Under capitalism where the State machinery is in the hands of the capitalist class, the ballot can be used for the purpose of measuring the developing socialist consciousness of the working class. When this consciousness reaches a majority stage, the ballot can become the revolutionary weapon for the introduction of socialism.
If at the time the socialist majority is obtained, material conditions preclude the use of the ballot, then the majority will use whatever other means are at hand to introduce socialism.
If this statement is voted in as the party position on the ballot, the W.S.P. will be adopting a stand contrary to the one which it and its companion parties have had since the S.P.G.B. was first organised. These members who refuse to accept the party position that the ballot will be, not that it can (possibly) be the weapon of emancipation must answer the following question:
What other method than the ballot can a socialist majority use to show itself and the population as a whole that it is a majority to begin with? And Jlflw, other than by means of the ballot can it make its demands and wishes known?—unless these members actually reject the thesis that socialism must be brought about by a class-conscious majority.
The position of the companion parties on the question of the ballot has been set forth on numerous occasions in the S.P.G.B. pamphlets and in-, articles in the S.S. and W.S. over the years. To quote a few references :
This political machinery must be captured by the workers organizing themselves into a political party, having for its object the overthrow of the present social system and the establishment of a system of society based upon common ownership of the means of living. Thus organized they must wrest control of the political machinery from the ruling class by means of the ballot, and having achieved this control, must use it to strip the capitalist class of their possessions, and consequently of their privileges.
The vote is to be the weapon. Let us inquire, therefore, what is the real nature of the vote. (pp. 41 and 42 Socialism—Library No. 9.)
In a leaflet issued by the S.P. of C. entitled THE VALUE OF THE VOTE, reprinted from The Western Socialist for Feb., 1937, the following statements are made:
We contend that class society can be eliminated and Socialism introduced, when a majority of the workers, making use of the modern weapon placed in their hands in all bourgeois democracies —The Franchise.—take political power away from the capitalist class for the purpose of so doing.
and again:
We accept the use of the franchise as the proper method because, in the ultimate analysis, it appears to be the only sane, feasible road to working class emancipation. We realize with sorrow the slowness of the pace, and would gladly discard our weapon in favour of anything that would get us to our goal sooner. But, alas, these better ways are not in evidence. We must therefore continue to educate and organize as before, understanding that when the expression at the polls attains a satisfactory status both the workers and capitalists " will know what to do ". Their collective reactions to this social stimulus will mark the end of the old order, and the beginning of the new.
The workers will take possession of political power, and their opponents will either concede the victory or take the consequences.
In The Western Socialist for December, 1947, an article by J. A. McDonald entitled WORKERS AND THE VOTE sums up as follows:
"Given a working class that understands the nature of Capitalism and Socialism, and the revolutionary action that is essential to change one into the other, we need have no fear concerning the weapon of emancipation—the vote."
In all our literature there is but one instance where there is any equivocation on our position on the ballot. This is in a leaflet entitled: " Introducing the W.S.P.", which is being distributed. This article, written by comrade Cantor, appeared originally in the W.S. for Nov.-Dec, 1949, minus the equivocating statement. " However, as a minority party, the World Socialist Party does not, nor should not, lay down the exact steps by which the majority, once it becomes socialist, will introduce socialism," which was ruled out by the unanimous decision of the editorial committee when the article first came up for review. At a subsequent meeting of the NAC in Detroit, the statement was reinserted by that body without appeal to the membership and the article was ordered drawn up in leaflet form.
There will be a referendum on this item also. We urge the membership to vote against the distribution of a leaflet which contains a statement that implies a luke warm position on the efficacy of the ballot as the revolutionary weapon.
We can sum up our stand on the question of the ballot as follows:
We advocate the use of the ballot as the means by which the working class will emancipate itself and the rest of mankind from class society. We have examined and found unacceptable such means as armed insurrection, general strike, workers' councils and spontaneous, un-organized mass action.
Until such time as we are shown how a conscious majority of socialists can make itself known and wrest control of the state from the capitalist class in any other way than through the ballot, we refuse to waste our energies upon idle conjecture.
We, therefore; urge our fellow-workers to join with us in a political party that is organized for the sole purpose of abolishing the wages system by means of the only weapon that is at our disposal—the franchise.
Group of Boston Comrades W.S.P.
1.2.1 COMRADE CANTOR'S REPLY I.
The Open Letter issued by a group of Boston comrades has succeeded in doing one thing: it has elevated to a principle question whether or not socialism will come about through the ballot. The Open Letter categorically states that socialism will come about in one way only, through the ballot. If this position is adopted, then the line of demarcation between socialists and non-socialists will be the belief or non-belief in the ultimate efficacy of the ballot, and those who believe it may result from some other action by the conscious majority are repudiators of majority action, advocates of violence—in short, hold principles a socialist should not hold. Another reason for the unten-ability of the Open Letter position is that it violates the materialistic approach to history. Before even the material conditions—those of a conscious majority—are at hand, the Open Letter advocates know them in advance.
For this reason we cannot take seriously the charge that we, the supporters of the 1951 conference position do not believe in the action of the conscious majority. Rather it is the opposite. Were the material conditions at the time the conscious majority comes about to be such, as to obviate the ballot (and by the ballot we do not mean a vote, but the ballot as existing under the present economic system),
and were the majority to utilize some other method, then it would be the Open Letter advocates who would be rejecting the majority. They would say to the majority: See here, my good majority; you are not carrying out this revolution as some twenty-five or fifty or a hundred years ago we stated you had to carry it out. It is necessary to reject your methods, and use the ballot as the only weapon of emancipation.
No, it is these comrades who hold the 1951 conference position who are permitting the socialist revolution to be carried out by the conscious majority, and it is the Open Letter position which would have the majority reject itself.
1.2.2 II.
If indeed the socialist revolution must wait upon the development of a conscious majority, and the World Socialist Party contains only a relatively few members of the working class, why should the method of obtaining socialism —the ballot or not the ballot—-become of such importance at this stage? Are not those who uphold the 1951 conference position just as dogmatic as the Open Letter supporters in demanding today that their position be favoured as against the other? To answer this in the affirmative is to misunderstand the position of 1951 conference. We state the possibilities of the ballot as a weapon of emancipation, but we do not close the door to other possibilities, depending on the development of material conditions. Thus, those who believe it will be the ballot are acceptable in the Party under our position. The Open Letter declares the ballot to be the only weapon of emancipation. Those who are of the opinion that history may dictate other methods to the conscious majority would be excluded from the Party under this position.
As badly split as the socialist movement has been in this country and in many cases the schisms have resulted from this constant attempt—such as executed by the Open Letter in this instance—to narrow it down further, we should not make it more and more difficult to become a socialist by drawing closer and closer the lines of defining one.
We have our principles. We recognise the necessity of majority action, that the political state must be overcome, that the change must be a revolutionary one without any transition periods. Beyond this at this particular stage we cannot go. The growth of the movement itself will be a change in the material conditions, and new circumstances will alter the case. But the Open Letter position does not permit the growth of a movement of any sort, because it immediately excludes socialists. This is the importance of this ballot issue, that it stands in the way—as similar dogmatic positions have stood in the way on other occasions—of the uniting of the socialists into one organization.
It will not solve the problem to quote from S.P.G.B. pamphlets or articles which have appeared in the Western Socialist. These articles contain no analysis, and do not deal specifically with the conditions in the United States. They are mere ukase-like statements or outright rejections containing " must be ", and " must ", and the " workers will ", and the " vote is to be the weapon ", etc. The question we are dealing with here cannot be settled that easily. As a matter of fact, we shall demonstrate the lack of analysis on the part of the Open Letter advocates and their insistence on sheer dogma in the following section.
1.2.3 III
(We have taken out section 3 with the exception of one paragraph. Section 3 deals mainly with the peculiarities of the American Constitution and the deficiencies of the American balloting arrangements. As this section stands alone in its subject matter and the rest of the matter deals with general propositions it seemed the logical thing to arrange the two parts in this manner. Section three will appear next month. The one paragraph from section three we publish follows immediately and precedes section 4.—Editors.)
Of course, the above arguments do not apply to Great Britain where a Parliamentary system permits a change in government over night, so to speak, and where there is no Constitution to be protected and defended. The workers are better able in England to effect a revolutionary change through Parliament than the workers in the U.S. through Congress. However, the same arguments used in this paper—that if the State, remaining in the hands of the ruling class minority physically prevents
the majority from taking over, then the majority would have to decide on other action to assert itself—these arguments prevail not only in England but in any country in the world.
1.2.4 IV.
Socialists are continually pointing to history, and stating that we must learn the lessons which history has handed down. Can any deduction be drawn from such a study to indicate the precise manner in which the socialist revolution will be carried out, whether by the ballot, a congressional majority, or some other method? It is our contention that there has never been a successful socialist revolution, and therefore we have nothing to guide us. Even if there had been, the material conditions would be-so changed, as to necessitate a change in our attitudes.
Successful bourgeois revolutions have,, however, taken place, in the past. They were revolutions carried out by the leadership of a minority, fought by the majority, and .culminating in the victory of a new minority ruling class, with the latest form of exploitation over the majority. These bourgeois revolutions taught us what the socialist revolution must not be—a minority movement in the interests of minority, and what it must be—a movement of the conscious; majority in the interests of the majority.-
These are the only premises history has set forth for the socialist revolution, and they are general premises. History has given us nothing of details as to whether the ballot can, may or must be the way to bring about socialism.
One thing we do know, and that is as long as capitalism exists, the State will exist, and this state with all its forces will be employed to defend the interests of the ruling class. Thus, one might say that the minority cannot forever stand in the path of the majority, but what is there to guarantee that the socialists can have the opportunity In become the majority as long as the State exists? We have nothing on which to base our answer. In Germany and Italy, where social-democratic movements did not threaten the complete abolition of capitalism—but only its reform—the state acted swiftly and established a police dictatorship. In the United States, the most powerful capitalist nation in the world, and in which the brutality of the police in strikes has little parallel throughout the world, movements are already under way to outlaw "subversive" groups from the ballot. What use would the socialists be able to make of the ballot if they are not allowed even to appear on it? Our opponents might reply that nothing can stand in the way of a growing socialist movement, but how, from their viewpoint, is this growth to be recorded without the ballot? How will the socialist minority be able to get on the ballot? By demanding " civil rights"? The capitalists who control the State will see to it that these rights are not asserted.
If an outright dictatorship such as existed in Germany and Italy—and now exists in Russia—were to come about in the United States, the socialists, according to advocates of the Open Letter, would have to conduct a struggle for the ballot. Assume by some manner or another they force the dictatorship to place the socialists on the ballot—this is just for argument's sake because it can't happen this way—and then the socialists achieve a majority. The armed forces are still in control of the capitalist class. The socialists state: we have the majority, and demand the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class. The latter refuses to surrender. Then of what avail is the ballot? Our opponents will say that along with a developing socialist majority will come a sympathetic response from the armed forces. How do we know this? How do we know the forces may not be balanced?
The position adopted at the 1951 conference does not have to answer the foregoing in a dogmatic fashion, and herein lies its strength. This position states that the socialists will utilize the ballot to measure the socialist consciousness of the working class, but it does not bind itself (or the majority, which it cannot bind anyway, in spite of the Open Letter attempts to do so) by the ballot, so that if the ballot is denied to the majority, or if the ballot does not reflect the wishes of the majority, or if the minority blocks the majority in spite of a majority ballot, then the majority " will know what to do ".
The Open Letter states that "until such a time as we are shown how a conscious majority of socialists can make itself known and wrest control of the State from the capitalist class in any-other way than through the ballot, we refuse to waste our energies upon idle conjecture." But the question we would like to ask is, How can the.Open Letter comrades show that the ballot will be the method of wresting control of the State from the capitalist class? Would they issue a certificate of guarantee to every one who joins the World Socialist Party that it will be the ballot, and nothing but the ballot? Is it not just as much idle conjecture on the part of the Open Letter, as it is on ours? Of course, we may be proved wrong, and we openly admit we may be proved wrong, because no one can predict the future in a society as complicated as. ours. But the Open Letter refuses to admit it may be wrong. It knows, without equivocation, beyond a per-adventure of doubt that events are going to take place as they predict them. This is dogma at its highest point.
The Open Letter quotes that part of the I.W.S.P. pamphlet on the ballot which states, "However, as a minority party, the World Socialist Party does not, nor should not, lay down the exact steps by which the majority once it becomes' socialist, will introduce socialism." Yet it fails to quote the preceding statement that " the World Socialist Party holds that the ballot presents the most practical and possible way for the workers to obtain political power." No doubt this was an oversight. In any case we wish to point out that neither the 1951 conference position, inn that of the I.W.S.P. pamphlet rejects the ballot, as the Open Letter would seem to imply. What else is there to advocate today but the ballot? With the socialists as few as they are in the United States today, advocacy of any method to achieve socialism is practically meaningless, as the socialists are not in a position to do anything about this advocacy. Perhaps by the time they are a majority, they will have to advocate some other method.
One might say in opposition that the World Socialist Party, as a political party with the aim of capturing the State, must inform the workers how it is going to accomplish its political objective. But can the World Socialist Party guarantee that it will be the party which will carry out the socialist revolution without committing itself to a leadership ideology? How can the World Socialist Party assure the workers that the conditions at the time a majority is obtained will be identical with those prevailing today? Of course, it cannot guarantee any of the two.
The 1951 conference -position does not advocate violence. There is no specific virtue in the use of violence, nothing to commend it as a way to socialism. But history has taught that the violence always arises from the other side, from the side in power, and that the workers are forced to defend themselves physically.
Our position declares in advance that the majority will not be thwarted. If a majority sentiment exists for socialism, and the existing legalistic balloting system stands in the way, then the majority will be compelled to find another way to carry out its objective.
As socialists we must first of all advocate a revolutionary change in society. The method must be that of a conscious majority. The Open Letter comrades shy away from this .point, because they make the ballot or not the ballot the principle question, and not the revolutionary action of the conscious majority. Such a position as this can easily lead to the World Socialist Party taking an anti-revolutionary attitude, that is, opposing a conscious majority engaged in revolutionary activity—we will not say what type specifically—because it is not employing the existing ballot machinery.
A socialist party must be supple. Never swaying from its main objective, it must nevertheless be prepared to alter its attitudes with each new change of material conditons. This is our approach, and on this ground we take our stand.
1.3 TRADE UNIONISM
1.3.1 RESTRICTIVE PRACTISES
An ex-member of our Party once said that we had an attitude to things but not a policy. He was expressing a similar idea to those who say that we make comprehensive generalisations but stumble over details. There is much truth in that.
To reason from the particular to the general is faulty. To generalise and ignore the particular is worse. Those who see the wood but not the trees are just as handicapped as those who cannot see the wood for the trees.
On our broad generalisations—on our attitude to institutions and events—we are mostly agreed. It is when we come to define the limits and the details that we start to argue. It is simple to say to a fellow worker, " Along this path, brother, lies the way, and the only way to your emancipation." It is not so simple to explain to him how to overcome the many obstacles that lie in that path.
We can say quite boldly, and in concert, as we said in the July, 1952, issue of the S.S., " We support Trade Union activity that is genuinely in the interests of the working class." When we are called upon to define whether a certain line of activity is genuinely in the interest of the working class we get at loggerheads.
During the past few years we have heatedly debated such issues as, the closed shop; craft, trade, or industrial organisation; the political levy; breakaway unions; restrictive practices, and others. The 1951 London bus strike over the employment of women conductors gave impetus to the arguments over restrictive practices. It is still one of the best examples to use in these discussions.
Capitalism is a competitive system. Capitalist competes with capitalist to capture and to keep markets. Worker must compete with worker to get and to hold a job. No matter how comradely the workers may be, capitalism forces them to push and jostle one another in the struggle to get a living. The competition does not cease when the worker gets a job, he must still compete to keep it. He also needs to guard his wage rates and working conditions, which usually means that he must get into a Trade Union and continue the pushing and jostling in an organised manner. Out of this come the so-called restrictive practices that some members of the Party condemn as not being in the interest of the workers and claim, in consequence, that the workers should not indulge in them.
We recognise that the competitive struggle amongst workers for a limited number of jobs is a result of the capitalist system. To tell them to give up struggling amongst themselves is equivalent to telling some of them to resign themselves to hunger and unemployment. Capitalism will not be destroyed that way. As soon as a worker gets a job and takes competitive steps to keep it, it would seem that he is acting in a manner detrimental to his class interests.
I claim that if workers make no effort to resist dilution and if they allow employers to move other workers into jobs just as and when it suits the employers, they will not only sacrifice the wage levels and working conditions of the particular job concerned, but they will also help to reduce the general wage level of the working class as a whole. That certainly cannot be claimed to be in the interests of the working class.
It has always been our case that variations in supply and demand cause fluctuations in prices and we do not exempt the price of labour-power. Following from this we argue that it is invariably a bad time to make wage increase demands when there is considerable unemployment. The supply of labour-power exceeds the demand and the tendency is to press wages down. Workers in some jobs resist the easy importation of other workers because they know that the employers' object is to keep wage rates low or force them lower. No harm is caused to working class interests by this resistance. On the contrary, without some resistance the employers could, by astute manoeuvring of the reserve army of labourers between one job and another, even between one country and another, could depress the general level of workers living standards to the detriment of the whole class.
It is in that light that the 1951 bus strike must be regarded. We can dismiss the superficial idea that busmen opposed
the entrance of women into the passenger transport industry purely out: of an anti-feminist bias. London busmen, like all workers, but more so than most, were suffering a wage reduction, not by having their pay reduced, but by having their living costs increased without a corresponding increase in their pay. They were trying to resist this wage decrease. The London Transport Executive was short of staff and the bus men considered, having a mind to the supply and demand factor, that the time was favourable to, at least, maintain their real wage by seeking an increase in pay. If the L.T.E. had not wished to force wage rates down, it could have increased the weekly pay, thus attracting more workers to the industry land solving the staff shortage problem. But the L.T.E. chose to draw from the reserve army of female labourers at a real wage that was daily declining, with the obvious intention of keeping the level of money wages paid constant whilsl the cost of living soared higher and higher.
Once the L.T.E. was allowed to draw on this reserve army, the favourable position of demand exceeding supply was lost to the London busmen. So they said, in effect, to the L.T.E., Restore the wage decrease that we have suffered by paying us an additional £1 a week and then you can employ as many women as you please, but, if we do not get that £1 a week, we will resist the employment of any more women in the industry. That, we are told by some Party members, is a restrictive practice. I consider that it was a very sensible practice and one which, had it been successful in its object (it was sabotaged by the Busmen's Union), would have been in the interests of busmen, of the women who could eventually become, conductors of a higher rate of pay, and of the working class in general.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that female bus conductors will, in time, completely replace the men conductors, leaving the men to wander off in search of other employment, and, possibly, to be rounded up and used by some other employer in the same manner that the L.T.E. is using the women, to the detriment of other workers' pay and conditions. So the process can go on.
I know that if the working class was class-conscious it would not tolerate such things. But workers can only stop these things from happening by abolishing capitalism. Until they do that they must protect themselves from the the capitalist class even at the expense of shoving one another about. We shall not be assisting them by telling them not to compete with one another whilst they still accept wage labour, any more than the pacifists assist them by telling them to refuse to fight in war-time whilst they are still imbued with nationalist ideas.
I make no defence of any line of working class action that sets out purposely to harm or hinder some other section of the working class. But, any action aimed at resisting or opposing the capitalist class, even though it may result in a temporary disadvantage to some other section of the working class, that action I will invariably support. In a class war of this nature a sectional gain by one side can be considered a gain to the side as a whole. Nothing is lost if, in advancing one section, another section is kept at a standstill. It has been argued that the workers can strike in support of their demands instead of employing these restrictive practices. The strike is a double-edged weapon, both costly and dangerous. Very sensibly, workers only resort to it when other avenues have failed. Even where strike action is contemplated it would be foolish to welcome dilutees into an industry, under the conditions of the London busmen's example, immediately before the time of the proposed strike. Dilutees are usually non-union elements and it takes time to organise them. Once they are admitted to an industry, as the women were admitted to the passenger transport industry, they are a danger to any attempted strike action until they are organised and have the same outlook as the older workers in the industry. Having but recently obtained the job they are opposed to losing any working time and will usually vote against strike action. With that outlook they are, of course, potential blacklegs and a menace to strikers.
To generalise on restrictive practices and say that they are harmful to working class interests, then to stretch the generalisation to cover every issue that arises, gives rise to the claim that we have an attitude to things but not a policy. It makes us look a bit sheepish when we are called upon to define our position in relation to some particular issue and we can only reiterate our generalisation, frequently knowing, even though vaguely, that it does not suit the case in court.
There is one argument advanced against my point of view that I think is nonsensical. It is claimed that this competitive pushing, jostling and shoving amongst the workers prevents them from clearly seeing their common class interests. Workers do not compete with one another with anything like the same ferocity that capitalists do. But does the spiteful unscrupulous competition within the capitalist class prevent the capitalists from recognising their class interests? Class consciousness can grow amongst the workers out of a loathing for the system that makes them push one another around.
W. WATERS.
1.4 THOMSON DISPUTE
(The editorial in the June S.S. "A New Form of Censorship" evoked much controversy in the Party. At the request of the E.C. we publish some details of the matter. We reproduce part of the article below and the letter of protest from the Kingston Branch. Further criticisms of the article were submitted to the E.C. by some of its members and these are crowded out of this issue.)
1.4.1 CENSORSHIP?
The Manchester Guardian for the 9th May, printed a statement by the proprietors of the City Press, a London weekly newspaper, which contained the following paragraphs: —
" Alexander Publications, Ltd., proprietors of the ' City Press ' newspaper, regret to announce that the ' City Press ' is not available this week. The Trade Unions concerned with the printing of the paper have objected to the publication of an article giving the point of view of D. C. Thomson & Co., and giving support to that company in its dispute with the unions.
"The unions have informed the ' City Press ' that publication will be permitted if the article concerned is deleted, an important matter of principle involving the whole question of freedom of the press and freedom of expression being involved, Mr. W. S. Alexander and his associates refuse to concede to the requests of the unions."
If the position is as stated above, and we have reason to believe that it is accurate, then it is another example of the mistaken attitude of those who seek, not with any bad motives, to prevent the expression of ideas or criticisms that offend them.
We are not at the moment concerned with the merits or demerits of the dispute out of which this apparent attempt to silence criticism arose, but with the harmful principle which some workers in the printing trade appear to be pressing—that they shall have the final word in what shall or shall not be printed.
There are already considerable obstacles to free expression of opinion in the most allegedly democratic countries, particularly for those holding views contrary to the ruling ideas. Such obstacles include libel laws and the like, the extent of influence exercised by those who support the present capitalist regime, the lack of finance and other means to ventilate unpopular views and similar technical difficulties. If to these difficulties are added the right of workers in the printing trade to set themselves up as some kind sf censors of what shall or shall not be printed, then considerable strides will be made towards accepting the principle, beloved of dictatorships, that nothing is printed except what suits a ruling clique. In other words the struggles of centuries for freedom of opinion, and the achievements in that direction, will have been wasted.
To strike over wages and conditions of labour is part of the worker's fight for livable existance under capitalism, but to strike over the constitution of the product of labour is something entirely different. A little reflection should make this clear. Imagine the situation if action in harmony with the latter became a part of trade union practice. Vegetarian trade unionists would strike against handling meat; atheistic trade unionists would strike against handling Bibles; Christian trade unionists would strike against handling certain scientific matter; cycling trade unionists would strike against handling motor-cars; and so on. The net result of this would be bewildering confusion.
It may appear that we are taking too serious a view of a few isolated instances, but evil trends commence in a small way and, if left unchallenged, take root and unconsciously become part of established practice. As our readers will be aware, we have already been victims of this budding censorship and we can forsee the lengths to which it might be carried if left alone. Those who seek to suppress opinion that offends them are moved by intentions that, to themselves, appear to be in the best interests of humanity. As people hold conflicting views upon what is in the best interest of humanity, the acceptance of the censorship principle means, in effect, that those who have the power can determine what views shall or shall not be ventilated and, in the last analysis, will remain in power; thus, either social progress ceases or there is a weltering ferment of discontent which will eventually flare up into disorders that bring only confusion in their wake.
1.5 EDITORIAL
In the first issue of FORUM editorial comment is reduced to brevity by the amount of material submitted for publication. Maybe, that is as it should be. The articles, except for the Thomson dispute which the E.C. requested to be printed, have been solicited by the committee responsible for publication. The article by Frank Evans is introductory and it followed by five others amplifying his case. The material on the ballot from the W.S.P. illustrates the extent to which this controversy has developed. The article Restrictive Practices was planned before we received instructions to publish details of the Thomson dispute. Both these questions illustrate the contrast between agreement on general principles and the disagreement which can arise when those general principles are applied to particular events. The article by J. Trotman deals with a controversy which seemed to have been disposed of when we asked him to write it but which we were sure was only sleeping. Some opinions expressed at Delegate Meeting indicate we were right in assuming that no recent decision in the Party on this question can really satisfy anyone as to what the Party's view really is.
The one quality which stands out in these contributions is the implied loyalty to the principles and fundamentals of Socialism. May it—let it, remain that way, and FORUM could become the means of bringing Socialists in the parent and companion parties into a direct relationship with each other which will be to the benefit of all of us.
1.6 HEARD AT THE DELEGATE MEETING
"Forty years ago when I first joined the Party I earned ninepence an hour as an electrician. To-day, if I worked at my trade, I would earn three shillings and ninepence an hour. Forty years ago I paid twopence a week dues to the Party, today I pay threepence."

1.7 Is the Time Opportune for Contesting Elections?
Should we Doff "The Big-Hat"?
The first issue of FORUM has come at an appropriate moment for a discussion on the question of contesting elections; 'not because of the possibility of a poll on the subject in the near future, but because the grave increase in the Party's debt will have settled the question of the next election for most members whatever their general attitude to the question, making possible a more objective approach to the whole problem than is possible when in the heat of an immediate issuer—except possibly for a few who seem to feel that they are carrying a banner for a pro- or anti-parliamentary faction.
Ths chief concern of the writer, therefore, will be to attempt to deal with some of the arguments which spring from a wrong approach and to establish what he considers to be' a correct perspective ; for the purpose of arriving at correct decisions in the future. It is also an endeavour to find a path between those two incorrect extremes of opinion which say on the one' hand that only one contest will be necessary, and on the other that every election must be contested without qualification.
We all of us want to see Socialists on the floor of'the House of Commons. When we contest elections we feel that at last we are on the road and we get a great kick out of doing all the necessary work. Consequently we all have a strong desire to indulge in the kind of activity which, if it is not consciously guarded against, 'may easily distort" the perspective which we are trying to establish. It is such a desire, intensified " to the point of passion, which can alone explain such peculiar and somewhat religious like arguments such as that of the. E.C. member who asserted at the 1950 Delegate Meeting contesting elections had something to do wilh a "Socialist Spirit ", whatever that may be. But in more serious considerations.
Firstly, what is the purpose of a General Election? It is to obtain representation in the House of Commons. No one will deny that this is impossible for us at the moment and nobody argues from this point of view, but, it is as well to keep this in mind as a first step towards seeing in perspective. Some, of course, use this as an argument for nol contesting elections and rule out all other considerations as irrelevant. Such an argument, however, is sheer nonsense as, if it can be shown that the Party gains some benefit from contesting an election which is not directly related to this main purpose, this must be taken into consideration when arriving at a decision; and it is in fact around these secondary considerations that most of the arguments turn.
The most important of the secondary considerations is the by-product of propaganda value which - is obtained by having a candidate in. the field. A number of extra indoor meetings in the constituency contested is possible; apart from this, it is difficult to see what can be done with a candidate which cannot be done without one. As to the propaganda value of the candidate himself, there is no doubt that he brings the name of the Party before the public through mention in the press, radio, etc., but this in itself is useless as the object of our propaganda is to publicise our ideas and' not our name. Any indirect effect this may have in creating ,a desire to explore our ideas must be very small if it exists at all. If literature sales are any. indication—and . they are the only indication we have— the effect was small indeed, sales for the first half of 1950 during which the election was held being only £49 up on those for the same period of the previous year, an inoreate only to be expected during the height of an election, candidate or not. It is interesting to note in this connection that whereas the Parliamentary Committee reported that no inquiries about the Party) could be traced to our election campaign, a small and inexpensive advertisement in an Esperanto journal produced numerous inquiries from all parts of the world, including England.
The foregoing observations should help us to put the propaganda value of a candidate in its true perspective.What remains now is to decide whether this is the most effective way in which to spend our resources, for even when we have something apart from debts left over after normal running expenses have been deducted, for a party such as ours these resources will always be meagre and not to use them in the most effective way possible is a hindrance to the Party and a disservice to the socialist movement.
It must be remembered that this dubious propaganda advantage of having candidates in the field at election times costs the Party anything from £800 upwards. The last campaign, it will be remembered, cost the Party £1,235 and it was proved conclusively in S.W. London's circular on the subject that a special parliamentary fund made no difference to our total income, ft must be .asked, then, whether such sums—when we have them—could not be spent more usefully in other channels, such as publishing more literature, or, for that matter giving it away, provincial propaganda work, full-time editors or other staff doing more directly useful work than providing a figure-head for about a month in every five yens. Finally it must be recognised thai socialist propaganda is essentially a long-term policy and electoral activity essentially a short-term method. It is unfortunate, but the most sensational methods which are useful to other organisations are not necessarily the best for one which bases its case on understanding.
One other kind of argument which has to be considered is that election campaigns provide a stimulus for the members and increase their activity. Unfortunately, however, all the evidence goes to show that the increased activity is confined to the electioneering itself and the stimulus lasts no longer than the actual campaign. This perversion of our function in order to contest elections for the sake of contesting them to provide an artificial stimulus for the membership is a kind of political masturbation which, whilst it may be fun, is extremely wasteful of our resources and is indicative of an adolescent organisation making a rather pathetic attempt to simulate adult activity.

Of a similar nature is the argument that a candidate is of value because it makes a show oi doing something. Quite apart from the possibility of attracting support merely because we are making a show, support which is therefore non-socialist and dangerous (remember the 200 non-socialists at the first contest), this argument springs from the "If you can't fight wear a big hat" principle. Compared with the giant stetsons of the major political parties our " big hat " is reduced to dimensions smaller than the button on a pimple cap. It frightens no one and impresses no one. To those who were stirred by the article in the S.S. which asserted in our first campaign that " a shadow has fallen across the capitalist world " and made the ruling class " tremble ", it is suggested that were a capitalist observed reading it he would not so much be trembling as shaking—with laughter. No, comrades, we cannot fool the working class with such devices and we must stop fooling ourselves.
A last word to the few who have made no decision on the present situation. Some shirk their responsibility by leaving the financial question to the E.C. Comrades, we are approximately £900 in debt, our expenditure is exceeding our income, the special appeal for funds has met with small response so far and there is a. pamphlet waiting to be published through lack of money. The E.C. is pushing ahead with preparations for the next elections, not because it is irresponsible but because it has been instructed by the Party. The responsibility is yours.
J. TROTMAN.
1.8 Reply Kingston Branch
15th July, 1952.
It is the opinion of the Kingston Branch that this leading article expresses a point of view unworthy of our Party. The article expresses a general opposition to censorship and applies that opposition to the action of the employees of Alexander Publications Ltd. who refused to print an article giving the point of view of, and support to, D. C. Thomson in his dispute with his employees.
We endorse the demand for freedom of the press and for freedom of speech, but we are not prepared to claim that the printers employed by Alexander Publications Ltd. acted in a manner detrimental to their class interests. The dispute in Thomsons is being fought over the workers' right to organise in Trade Unions. The defeat of Thomson's workers may encourage other employers to follow his lead. All workers are affected by this issue, and the printing trade workers are in the line of fire.
The action of Alexander Publications' workers was not so much a matter of assisting their fellow workers in the light against Thomson, as a refusal to assist Thomson in his fight against them. We admire them for it. Kingston Branch cannot identify itself with the condemnation of their action expressed in the June S.S.
There was no attempt at censorship; just a plain refusal to assist, a class enemy in his dispute with fellow workers. Thomson has the whole field of capitalist printing machinery at: his disposal. Let him and his supporters use it, but do not expect the workers to help him. THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GAGGING A MAN AND REFUSING TO BE HIS MOUTHPIECE.
If Alexander Publications' workers had downed tools and come out in a straightforward strike in support of Thomson's workers—if they had refused to print anything at all - that, we presume would have been applauded by us as an example of class solidarity. Because they threatened to stop work for a short time on one particular article, they are to be condemned for the opposite. It was a STRIKE, not a censorship. In refusing to print that article those men struck just as dockers do when they refuse to handle one particular type of objectionable goods. This action cannot be tied up with the examples quoted in the June S.S., such as cycling Trade Unionists striking against handling motor cars or atheistic Trade Unionists striking against handling Bibles. The suggestion that these situations are similar makes nonsense and holds us to ridicule
In this issue workers economic interests are at stake, and they have taken the simple and straightforward action of refusing to be the medium for expressing a capitalist point of view over a dispute in progress with fellow workers in the same trade. We hope that all class-conscious workers would do likewise. We should express pleasure that this action came from men who possibly are but vaguely class-conscious. We agree that the workers are not ignoramuses and that they can make up their own minds on all questions—IF they get all points of view. The capitalist is very loath to allow expression of working class points of view, so the workers usually gel a lop-sided view of most questions. Are we to add to the bias by urging workers to print their class enemies' propaganda whilst all sorts of obstacles are in the way of printing their own?
Let the capitalist put over his point of view. Let him print if, film it, broadcast it, televise it; let him put it over any way he can. But do not let the Socialist Party tell the workers to help him do so, under the guise that they will be defending the freedom of the press that their forefathers so bitterly fought for. Their forefathers got no help from their class enemies, nor did they expect it—that is why the struggle was so bitter. The capitalist class must not be encouraged to expect help from the workers in an issue such as this. They will never be shamed into relinquishing their system, or even part of their profits, by the Socialist Party adopting an " After you, Sir," attitude. We, in Kingston Branch, oppose censorship. But we say, " Strength to the Alexander Publications' workers for their STRIKE."
(There are also letters from E. Lake, C. Groves and J. Trotman on the above matter and which are all critical of the editorial in question. Owing to pressure in space these are held over until next month.—Editors. ).

2. Forum
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 2
NOVEMBER 1952
2.1 THE TRIALS OF COMRADE TROTMAN
" Electoral activity is essentially a short-term method."'
" The most sensational methods which are useful to other organisations are not necessarily the best for one which bases its case on under standing."
"-. . . providing a figure-head for about a month in every five years."
J. Trotman.
According to J. Trotman,
(1) Electoral activity is short-term: socialist propaganda is long-term. Therefore socialist propaganda and contesting elections are opposed.
(2) Electoral activity—that is, fighting elections—is sensational; good for anti-socialist organisations, but bad for a Socialist Party. It is a wrong method.
(3) Elections " provide a figure-head for one month in every five years". Therefore the Socialist Party, when contesting elections, has “ heads” (figure-heads), i.e., candidates. If it has " heads ", these must be leaders of the non-heads". Consequently, during elections the Socialist Party becomes non-democratic, i.e., ceases to be Socialist. In fact, the more candidates, the less Socialist.
If these statements are correct, it is self-evident that the S.P.G.B., so far, has been wrong. These statements are NOT consideration of immediate difficulties in Party work—they are a denial of its principles.
2.1.1 Question of Principles
Trotman states early in his article that " no one will deny that [parliamentary representation] is impossible for us at the moment and nobody argues from this point of view"; in the next sentence, however, " some use this as an argument. This is quite right—"some" is J. Trotman.
Friend T. is evidently not yet quite clear on the meaning of socialist principles. These principles have nothing whatever to do with £800, or £1500, or £49 worth of pamphlets, nor with increases in the Party's debts, or the size of its offices.
The principles of the Party were decided on the facts of Capitalism, out of which they arose, irrespective of practical expediency or immediate applicability. The people who founded it decided that the only way of implementing its policy was by parliamentary representation. That had to be decided first. They decided that without any money, loans or premises.
This Party principle will remain right whether the Party is rich or poor, small or large, gets many votes or none. The first thing, when organising a Party, is to decide what it stands for and how to get it. Then, starting out to do it, cross your bridges as you come to them. Trotman and his friends prefer to sit at home, frightening each other with ghost stories about the depth of the water.
There are practical difficulties—of course it will be expensive and arduous, but money will be raised, speakers trained, and members gained in the actual work of fighting elections.
The Party's aim, Socialism, determines its nature as an election-fighting organisation. Everything else is secondary to this fundamental thing. The Party can and should announce its desire to contest at every election. If practical considerations (lack of support) deter it, it should say so plainly, telling the worker the difficulties, but making its object and method clear. When members invent reasons for putting the Party's principles into cold storage they take the first step on the road to reformism.
2.1.2 The Main Purpose
Having dismissed Parliamentary representation because it is not immediately possible, friend J. T. then goes on to consider whether "the Party gains some benefit from contesting an election which is not directly related to this main purpose". Please tell us, Comrade Trotman, what other purpose the Party has which is not even related to its main one.
According to Trotman, among these unrelated secondary purposes are meetings and selling pamphlets. These are not the purposes of the Party, but merely means of making Socialists. Trotman implies that Parliamentary activity is abnormal, that is, irregular and exceptional. If this is true, it must be permanently wrong under any (normal) circumstances.
" Our resources will always be meagre" he says. By this, he evidently has funds (money) in mind. These are not, and never will be, the resources of the Party. Even if they were, to say that they will always be meagre can only mean that the Socialist Party will never have the support of many workers.
This is a denial of the meaning of Socialism, which organises class conscious workers politically. If the Party's resources will always be meagre, then the time will never be opportune to run candidates. Although his article is entitled " Is the Time Opportune for Contesting Elections?", Trotman does not spare one word in 1300 to give us his answer to his own question.
If the resources of the Socialist Party were money, then Capitalism would not be the possession of all surplus money by the capitalist class. The resources of the Party are the enthusiasm and energy of its members, which spring from a clear grasp of its principles.
2.1.3 Value of Contesting
Trotman's sole test of the value of contesting elections is:
1.The number of indoor meetings held in the constituencies
2.The amount of literature sold.
These meetings, he says, could be held without a candidate; and we "only" sold £49 worth of pamphlets more in the year the election took place—" an increase only to be expected during the height of an election", he writes.
Then friend Trotman, who "only" expects us to sell about 2000 pamphlets more during elections than we can when nothing is on, proposes, as his alternative, that this bankrupt Party, impoverished by reckless election spendthrifts, should print pamphlets and give them away for nothing when the workers don't want them—that is, when elections are OFF, not ON.
Comrade T. does not tell us why he expects more pamphlets to be sold during elections. Why, he snorts, there were no enquiries about the Party after the election, whereas "a small and inexpensive advertisement in an Esperanto journal, produced numerous enquiries from all parts of the world".
The enquiries were made only because we ran candidates. The only thing which divides us from the host of freaks and cranks of all kinds, organised in several thousand tin-pot outfits, and makes the S.P. a political party, is the running of candidates independently, in opposition to all other parties.
"When we contest elections . . . we get a great kick out of it," says Trotman. " We all have a strong desire to indulge in it. Election campaigns provide a stimulus for the members and increase their activity," but " the stimulus las's no longer than the actual campaign" so " it must be guarded against". In other words, it's a good thing so let's stop it.
Elections are a perversion of our function., says Trotman. Please tell us, Comrade T., what this function is which elections pervert. The first thing the S.W. London Branch has to leam is that the S.P.G.B. does not exist as a political party until it contests elections. Meetings at election time without a candidate do not count.
2.1.4 The Alternatives
Trotman's alternatives to electioneering are: 1) Giving pamphlets away free. 2) Provincial propaganda. 3) Full-time editors and other staff (unspecified)
But all these things will advance what Trotman abominates—the fighting of elections. If the Party had offices as big as the Dome of Discovery, and gave away enough stuff to fill every lavatory in S.W. London, it would not figure in politics until it contested elections.
Elections are the cheapest form of propaganda, not the dearest. The only unusual outlay is £150. For this we get:
(1) The Party name on the ballot paper. Every elector is forced to face up to our existence, which, otherwise, he does not even know. There is no other way of doing this.
(2) Free postage on about 30,000 election addresses, amounting to roughly £120.
(3) Press publication of announcements, interviews with candidate, reports of meetings which, at advertising rates, would cost many pounds.
4) Enumeration in books, reports and records of the Party's name and object in the libraries of the world (above all, a clear distinction between the S.P.G.B. and the Labour Party). The beneficial effect on socialists, throughout the world, is incalculable.
(5) Broadcast announcements throughout the world. It is the cheapest money's worth on tie market to-day. Even at that, we may have he sporting offer of getting one-eight of the votes and the return of the £150.
2.1.5 Deed Follows Word
But all this is relatively unimportant—the fundamental consideration is the implementation of the Party's principles and policy. That the Party maintains its word, that its declaration of intention to fight at the polls for Socialism is followed by its deed, the real action—this, above everything else, shows workers that the Socialist Party means business. That when we say Parliament is the road to socialism we mean it. That we carry out our intention to genuinely oppose all other parties in the only way possible—at elections..
Neither is Parliamentary election the only consideration; valuable work can be done in local and council elections. Perhaps Comrade T. will advise us whether we should contest these, if the cost is negligible,
A great deal of useful criticism can be levelled against the Party's first election battles, o Trotman's alleged "arguments" against electoral work are merely enumeration of obvious defects to be overcome, e.g., lack of activity before and after the actual nomination days, rash expenditure on leaflets and meetings of doubtful value, insufficient attack on the enemy due to inexperience. These are not reasons for boycotting , but for extending and improving Party election contests NOW. The alternative is extinction.
Horatio.

2.2 Notice from the Education Committee
Come along to the classes at Head Office. Subjects covering a wide range are being dealt with almost every week night from October 6th to April 5th. Your branch has a copy of the timetable, which is also on the notice board at Head Office.
Important.—The Writers Class commences Monday, December 1, 8 p.m.. All interested are urged to attend.
2.3 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
2. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
The mode of change from Capitalism to Socialism cannot be discussed without discussing both the nature of Socialism and the nature of Capitalism, and particular phases of society cannot be discussed without reference to a general theory of history. History in turn is the unique attribute of man. It is possible only because men are what they are, and takes the course it does because men are what they are. A theory of men, a theory of society and a theory of history are the same thing. A theory of history which is not a theory of men or a theory of men which is not a theory of society, is a meaningless abstraction. Society is not a contrivance discovered or agreed upon by men, which they could conceivably relinquish: it is the mode of human existence. But man is not uniquely social, only socially unique. Only human society evolves.
This is simple enough, yet its implications are not necessarily observed, or may even be repudiated, and a nominal subscribing to materialism may not preclude an actual metaphysical outlook. For instance, there are those for whom it is sufficient to say that human nature is the product of human history, and who regard with suspicion the view that history is the product of human nature. Ask how comes history, and they reply "economics"; ask how comes economics and they reply "food, clothing and shelter." But the need for food, etc., is common to all creatures. It accounts for their activity, but not for human history. What accounts for history is the peculiar cumulative character of the human economic activity, the special quality of human labour, which rests on the biological structure of men. This links historical with biological evolution, and rescues materialism from the metaphysic which arbitrarily breaks the chain of causal sequence, arbitrarily fixes its undetermined beginning—creation out of nothing, called materialism. This kind of economic determinism parodies historical materialism because its theory of history is not a theory of man but a theory of economics. It sees human nature as the product of history but not history as the product of human nature. The materialist who wants a theory of history without any truck with human nature may only be reacting against the idealist who discusses human nature abstracted from history. But the materialist who thus merely inverts the terms of the abstraction remains idealist—as the atheist who is merely anti-God is an inverted theist, and the Socialist who is merely anti-Capitalist an inverted bourgeois. Socialist theory requires the recognition that human nature determines the fact, and limits the possibilities, of history; while history determines the nature, and conditions the possibilities, of human conduct. To say that human nature is as human nature does (i.e., that human nature is human conduct) is like saying, with the capitalist economists, that "money is as money does" (i.e., that anything is money that serves as money—salt, tobacco, furs, fish, shells, gold, paper—which tells us something about salt, etc., but nothing about money).
The reluctance to distinguish between human nature as the fount of history, and human conduct which is conditioned by history, undermines a unified concept of human society, and shows itself in many ways. It underlies the insistence that language precedes thinking, thus ignoring the dependence of language on the prior capacity to conceive relationships. It leads to the view that since moral codes are laid down by exploiting classes for the guidance of the exploited, then classless Socialism will be amoral. It hinders any practical starting point to the discussion of what Socialism will like by ignoring what is permanent in specifically human nature over and above what is common to all creatures, the need for food, etc. It is a cataract which obscures the unity of history, the gravitational pull which holds history to its orbit, and gives " the historical necessity for Socialism " its necessity. The equating of human nature with human conduct—the view, that is ,that environment is the sole determinant of human capacities, is a political weapon of the Communist, not of the Socialist, It is the official cult of Russia, whose academicians teach that there are no natural boundaries to the behaviour of wheat, cows or men, that man is what the State enjoins.
The rich, genetically determined variation in innate individual abilities which is a factor in making human history possible—a myriad multiplication of opposable thumbs—cannot be dismissed without dismissing the basis of biological evolution—which is not the right answer to the false social deductions of some geneticists. The equating of human conduct with human nature merely inverts their error, and opens as many windows to idealism as it closes doors: either the moral nihilism which make Socialism look like the vacuumatic absence of Capitalism, or the moral utopism which reduces it to a rational idea. One makes it look like nothing, the other like nothing on earth.
F. Evans.

2.4 SIMPLE ENGLISH AND SOCIALISM
Those whose mother tongue is English can naturally be expected to comprehend it fairly well, though it is remarkable how incomplete is the knowedge of many English men and women, when confronted with words that
they are not in the habit of using every day.
In a country like South Africa, with two official languages, and numerous others, a good vocabulary in any one language is the exception rather than the rule. Even those who regard
English as their mother tongue seldom have sufficient words at their disposal to discuss intelligently anything but the most common everyday affairs; while those whose normal speech is Afrikaans or one of the native languages, might acquire considerable fluency in English, but not beyond the two or three thousand words of everyday speech.
Therefore, if socialism is to make headway in places where English is not the one and only language, some consideration must be given to the needs of those whose knowledge of it lacks depth, or who only regard it as a some-
what difficult secondary language.
Considering the Party's Object and D. of P. this view. one finds that the first word "object" has several meanings. English-speaking people have no difficulty in discovering what is meant, but is the same true of non-English speaking people? Would not a word like "purpose" be less ambiguous?
A simplified version of the Object and D. of P. is given below for the consideration of Party members. It will be noted that the appeal is international rather than national.
J. O. B. (S. Africa).
The Socialist Party of Great Britain
PURPOSE;—To assist in the organisation of the peoples of the entire world into an economic, political and social system, based on the common ownership and democratic control of the world and all its resources.
2.4.1 Statement of Facts and Method
1. That the people of all the advanced countries of the world live under the economic, political and social system known as Capitalism. That is, the land, factories, railways, etc., are owned by the Capitalist or Master Class. The rest of the people comprise the working class, by whose labour, on behalf of the capitalist class, wealth is produced.
2. That, arising from the private, class ownership of the means by which all must live, there is a conflict, or class struggle, between those who possess bur do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.
3. That this conflict can only be ended when the working class decides to take the world and its resources from the master class, to operate by democratic means for the benefit of all, instead of for a privileged minority.
4. That, when the working class has achieved freedom from the domination of capitalism, class struggles will be at an end, since there is no class below the working class.
5. That the working class must achieve its freedom by itself.
6. That, as Governments everywhere exist only to safeguard the interests of the dominant section of the population, by their control of armed forces, police, etc., the working class of the world must organise politically, with full knowledge of what they are doing, to obtain control of all governments. Then, and only then, can they organise the world in their own interests, making an end of privilege and oppression.
7. That each political party represents only the interests of a class. Therefore, the political party of the working class has no common interest with any other party, and must oppose them all.
8. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, affirms its opposition to all o her political parties, with the exception of those formed on similar lines in other parts of the world. It calls upon the workers of this country in particular, to withdraw their support from other parlies, whether they claim to represent their interests or not, and to work for a speedy termination of capitalism, which can only offer privilege for the few, and oppression for the many.
2.5 ON BACKWARD NATIONS
I submit the following propositions on the subject of "Backward Nations", which summarise the views I put forward at the recent Forums. In order not to take up space unnecessarily. I have refrained from including either argument or evidence for the different propositions as this can be done, where necessary, in reply to specific criticisms.
1. There are no groups of people anywhere on earth, regardless of their present culture, who are incapable of assimilating socialist ideas.
2. The so-called backwardness of groups of people has nothing to do with mental capacity or the capacity to assimilate modern ideas.
The culture of such people is complex but of a different kind from that of the West. These groups are coming into the orbit of Western technique at the level of Western understanding without being burdened with the weight of traditional ideas that helps to hold back the mass of people in the West. Coming in at the present level of Western technique, they borrow the ideas associated with it, including revolutionary ideas. Coming fresher into this maelstrom they progress rapidly, shedding primitive or customary ideas almost overnight.
3. Whilst older generations, who have become habited to old custom, may not be quick in grasping new culture, the young take to new culture easily. Custom has not the stifling grip that is often present.
4. Outside of Europe and the U.S.A., the mass of the world's population has already come directly into the Western orbit of culture and is being rapidly transformed—for example China, India, Indonesia, Japan, S. America and a large part of Africa. Where the impact of the West is strong, established customs are broken and the way becomes relatively easy to a new culture.
5. From the socialist point of view the mass of people in the West are still backward. The so-called backward groups borrow Western ideas but without the Western traditional background that helps to crab progress. This makes it easier for them to forge ahead. On the basis of progress in this century the "backward" will have reached a common outlook with the " advanced" by the time the latter have accepted the socialist outlook.
(6) All groups of people, regardless of present culture, can understand socialism if it is explained to them in language that is appropriate to their types of culture. Therefore, the attitude of a socialist is to preach Socialism and help to develop a movement for Socialism wherever he may be, regardless of the particular type of culture of the people to whom he is addressing his propaganda.
(7) Finally it is not essential for all groups of people to understand, experience or develop Capitalism (though they probably will; in order to take part in the establishment of Socialism in the world at large.
(8) The above propositions are based upon the fact that, after the long and chequered development of private property society, the modern idea of Socialism has eventually emerged—this idea can be transmitted everywhere.
The terms "East" and "West" that are used above have only been used as a convenient way of marking off highly industrialised areas from those that axe behind in this respect.
G. McClatchie.
2.5.1 Third Degree
An officer of the Malay Regiment, Captain William Dunlop, was fined £187 in Malaya yesterday for causing hurt to three Chinese to extract guerilla information. He was ordered to pay £20 compensation.
Edward Bunce, a rubber planter, was fined £12 10.S. for causing hurt to one of the Chinese. He will appeal.
The Chinese gave evidence that Dunlop stuck sharp sticks under their finger nails and cut off lumps of their hair.
The hair was given to Dyak trackers from Bornea to use as trophies in place of heads. Head-hunting is forbidden.
—A.P.

2.6 EDITORIAL
DESPITE the problems of launching this new venture, the October issue seems to have been well received by members. At the end of October, two weeks after publication, 900 copies had been distributed from Head Office, and there seems little doubt that very few if any of the 1,000 printed will remain unsold.
As a result of this encouraging start, we have been able to produce a better FORUM this month. Its eight pages and larger print make our work much easier and we are certain will be welcomed by members.
In addition to continuing controversies started last month, and introducing new ones, we include press cuttings, etc., as a regular feature, that were formerly issued as duplicated Speakers' Notes. These notes, even if reduced number, deserve a wider audience.
Now a word about our editorial task. From letters that we have received to date it would appear that there are some misunderstandings concerning the policy of FORUM. One correspondent had the impression that the Editors would choose the subjects and writers to the exclusion of voluntary contributors.
This, of course, is not the case. For the first issue it was necessary, in order to get started, to plan and arrange the features that appeared in October. But we cannot too strongly emphasise that ALL members should regard FORUM as their own, and we expect to receive articles and correspondence accordingly.
IF YOU WANT FORUM TO BE A GREATER SUCCESS -INTRODUCE AND RECOMMEND IT TO OTHER MEMBERS.
2.7 Letters on S.S. article on "Censorship" held over from October.
From E. Lake.
One objection to the article is that it fails to give a balanced view of the question. The attempt on the part of a few printers to prevent the publication of a statement by Thomson & Co., is condemned with a heavy hand, while the overwhelming censorship exercised by the capitalist class is mentioned only in passing and receives little or no condemnation.
The orthodox press has developed the suppression and distortion of news to a fine art, and yet their hypocritical treatment of the printers' feeble effort was not dealt with by us. However mistaken these men may have been in refusing to print Thomson's statement, we must recognise that they were acting, as they thought, in the interest of their fellow workers. This aspect of the case should at least be appreciated by Socialists.
Another objection to the article is the claim that Trade Unionises should not concern ihem-selves with the constitution of the product of labour. Four examples are given to uphold this claim.
(1) Vegetarian trade unionists would strike
against handling meat.
(2) Atheistic trade unionists would strike against handling Bibles.
(3) Christian trade unionists would strike against handling certain scientific matter.
(4) Cycling trade unionists would strike against handling motor cars.
These examples hardly call for serious discussion. Vegetarian trade unionist meat porters refusing to handle meat is a subject more suited to the pen of the late Mr. Gilbert than to that of our Gilmac.
No doubt these cases would call for our opposition, but other examples may support the opposite point of view.
Assume chemists were working on a certain substance they thought was to be used for medical purposes, and discover it was to be used to spread disease. Should we condemn their refusal to continue the production of this substance? Should we condemn transport workers for refusing to convey troops to a strike area? Should we condemn workers employed in the processing of food, who refused to undertake a method of adulteration which, while strictly legal, would be more than normally injurious to the consumers of the food?
And finally, in the event of some jingo press owner attempting to publish a statement with the object of inciting a frenzied mob to attack the offices of the Socialist Party, should we condemn printers who refused to print such a statement?
The answer is emphatically No!
It is self evident that we cannot lay down a general policy opposing trade union action in this matter. We must consider and decide on such cases as they arise.
2.8 From C. C. Groves.
6th July, 1952.
I am opposed to the Editorial for the following reasons:—
1. We are telling the workers that they should give every assistance to their employers in a dispute. I cannot object to Thomson being able to express his point of view, but I cannot ask that the workers involved in the dispute, and other workers, should assist him to do so.
2. In asking workers to assist in the printing of Thomson's article it is equivalent to urging soldiers in an army to load the rilies of their opponents.
3. I think it is to be regretted that such a condemnatory editorial, should have been published when not a word about the Thompson dispute had appeared in the S.S. It seems that we are going out of our way to condemn workers without taking the opportunity of supporting Thompson's employees in their struggle against this avowed anti-union, anti-working-class member of the
captialist class.
2.9 From J. Trotman.
I think that the article was correct in what it said. To condone any action directed towards limiting the free expression of opinion by anyone is contrary to the democratic principle of Socialism, and as such is very dangerous policy.
This does not mean that I view Democracy as an absolute or as one of the cardinal virtues of Socialism. It simply means that I recognise the possibility of workers making mistakes. If their ideas are correct they will be able to stand against the ideas of their opponents and there will be nothing to fear from opposition. In short, I argue that the democratic approach is a practical proposition here and now. It seems that some would deny this.
As to the argument that workers are prevented from expressing their ideas by lack of facilities, surely it follows that if they have the power to prevent an article being published they also have the power to demand that their point of view be printed with the opponent's argument; and, in point of fact, the City Press had already agreed to an arrangement of this character in the dispute in question. From the point of view of accuracy and the Party position I see no grounds for complaint.
It is, however, debatable whether such an article serves any useful purpose and certainly any attempt to deal with such a subject needs to be very carefully written, and, in my view, approached from a rather different angle.
As it is, the article could very easily create a false impression that we were taking up the cudgels on behalf of the employers, and that is not our job at any time. I think a much stronger sympathy for the workers and a greater understanding of their reactions should have been shown. It should also have been made perfectly clear from the start that our sole concern was the general interests of the working class, which of course includes the printing workers.
2.10 From America
THE BALLOT & SOCIALISM
(continued from October issue)
2.10.1 Will of Majority Thwarted ?
WHAT do the Open Letter advocates mean by the ballot as the only weapon of emancipation? In the United States to-day, a majority can be kept from political power for a long period of time. Presumably by a majority the Open Letter means a majority of those elected to Congress, since it constantly quotes the SPGB with its ideas of conquering a majority of Parliament. Now, with the system of representation which prevails in the House—forgetting the Senate for a moment— a political party can have a majority of representatives without having a majority of the population, For example, several states are not on the basis of population, entitled to even one representative, but the Constitution guarantees them one. In the Senate each state entitled to two members regardless of population. Thus, 13 and a half million people in New York have the same representation as 110.000 in Nevada (1940 census). The Open Letter advocates would suggest a change in this system of representation, but do they state how it must be done? Such a change would have to be a constitutional amendment, and the amendments are not carried by a majority. It takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to offer an amendment (and under the system of proportion described this might mean a representation of 75 or 80 per cent, of the population), or upon application by three-fourths (75 per cent.) of the state legislatures, Congress must call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. Then, the amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states, whichever congress may propose.
This constitutional amendment process was purposely introduced by the so-called Founding Fathers (the business and property interests) to thwart the will of the majority.
How then, we ask the Open Letter comrades, can the majority assert itself? How could the majority make any change in the present economic system? To advocate by-passing the constitution would be to bring the charges against the WSP of advocating " unconstitutional methods " and of being "subversive". The Socialist Labor Party does not miss the point. It openly advocates its change through article V of the Constitution, which is the one described above for making amendments.
2.10.2 How Majority Will Assert Itself
When the conscious majority come about, does one think for a moment that it will permit itself to be thwarted by such measures as required by the constitution? It will assert itself; perhaps to the extent of setting up a special convention representative of the people.
This will be a vote; it will be an expression of the majority. Would the Open Letter advocate such a method (incidentally a completely non-violent one, to answer their charge of our advocating violence) and will it come out and state the position of the WSP to be the assertion of the majority, regardless of what the Constitution demands of this score?
Further, under the present system of electing Representatives and Senators, there is a two year lag in the case of the former, and a six year lag in the case of the latter. Thus, it is possible for the majority of Congress not to represent a majority of the population because, immediately following an election, a change of sentiment may come about among the workers, and yet it could be six years before a new election for Senators could be held, or it could even be eighteen years before the majority would be able to assert itself. What would the Open Letter advocates do in a case like that? If they demanded a recall, a new election, this would be the ballot, but it would not be according to the ballot system as it exists to-day.
As a matter of fact, how could a socialist take a seat in Congress, if to do so he must swear to uphold the Constitution, which permits the use of armed forces to put down strikes, and defends private property at every turn? The case of Victor Berger being seated during the first World War, after he was rejected several times by Congress, is cited as an example of how the will of the majority (in his district) was finally asserted. But Berger was a social democrat, and social democrats not only do not oppose capitalism from a revolutionary basis, but it is not opposed to their principles to support a Constitution which guarantees the continuation of capitalism. It would be quite different for a socialist.
2.10.3 Majority Sentiment and Votes
It is demanded of the Open Letter comrades that they clarify what they mean by the ballot. Do they mean an expression of the majority will regardless of the present legalistic set-up, or do they mean adherence to the latter? Another question which the Open Letter leaves untouched is this: What is meant by a majority? Actually a majority means more than half, so that if there are 75 million qualified voters, it would take 37,501,000 voters to establish socialism. However, if 20 per cent, of the population did not vote, then it would take only one more than 30,000,000 to get a majority, but this 30,000,000 and One vote would not represent a majority of the population, but only 40 per cent. The socialists would not represent a majority of the population at all, yet they would have a majority of those voting.
It behoves Open Letter advocates to signify which majority they seek, a majority of those eligible to vote, or a majority of the actual voters.
Under the present voting system, many people are not eligible to vote; for example, those under 21 years of age, those who cannot pay a poll tax in certain southern states, those who have been convicted for a "crime", and migratory workers and other workers who do not establish the proper residential requirements. In order to obtain an expression from the majority of the population, the socialists will have to conduct a struggle to have these and other disqualified people declared eligible to vote. Are the Open Letter comrades advocating that the WSP initiate such a campaign?
How much simpler and more scientific the position of the 1951 conference. The main task of socialists is to spread socialist ideas among the population. It runs candidates when and where it can to measure the revolutionary consciousness of the workers. When this consciousness reaches a majority sentiment (not actual votes, necessarily), the majority will know what to do. This consciousness may reveal itself in the ballots cast under our present legal set-up, or it may find expression in the growth of the socialist party.
2.10.4 Conditions Will Determine
When the Open Letter comrades ask, what o.her method than the ballot can a socialist majority use to show itself and the population as a whole that is a majority to begin with, they should first of all explain what is meant by the ballot. If they mean an expression of sentiment, then a very absence of votes— through a boycott of an election—may constitute such an expression of sentiment. If they mean a demonstration of socialist consciousness, a political strike may constitute such a demonstration. If it be stated that there is no reason to engage in such activities as long as the ba"ot is open to the socialists, in reply we ask, what if the ballot is sea'ed to the socialists by the forces which controlthe State?
I. Canter.
2.11 NOTES TO WRITERS
Our main editorial concern is to produce a well-ordered, balanced and interesting journal. Contributors will help us if they observe the following: —
14. Send in matter typed, double spaced and with wide margins. If it is not possible to have the matter typed then write clearly in INK and on one side of the paper only. State the number of words on the back of the article.
15. Be brief, but not at the expense of making your meaning clear. Keep the main points of your argument in mind as you write and ruthlessly exclude irrelevant and minor points. You will find it useful to use sub-headings as s'ages in the development of your case. It will certainly help us. Visualise your main conclusions before you start. Paragraphs should be neither too long or too short.
16. Be careful to see that you are absolutely accurate when quoting. One of the purposes of FORUM is to clarify controversies. Do not be disappointed if your article or letter is not published immediately. There may be many reasons for this.

2.12 INNOCENTS ABROAD
THE days of the Continental grand tour have long passed. The only way that the Continent can be seen by people (workers) from this country to-day, is by an ability to lower one's standard of living, so that the travel allowance lasts out. It was on this assumption that sixteen of us set out from Dover this summer, on a two month lorry tour of Central Europe.
The distance involved (Zagreb, Yugoslavia was the turning point) precluded any possibility of making a real study of any of the countries we passed through, yet it was possible to gain general impressions, usually confirming our prejudices, though whether this was due to our finding what we wanted to find is difficult to say.
The most striking thing about Belgium was the number of houses built since the war. Outside the towns rows of small villas have been built, all of them ferociously individualist in facade. Holland was a pleasant relief by comparison, with its almost total absence of private building. In Belgium wages are higher but so were prices. In Holland prices were nearly all below "English levels but since the the average wage appeared to be about four pounds a week it amounted very much to six of one and half a dozen of the other.
It was raining and cold the afternoon we :rossed into Germany. Frontier guards and customs men seemed a very melancholy lot. Despite frenzied building activity most of the great cities of the Rhine still have acres of rubble in what were once their centres.
The appearance of the population was Harding. Cripples and maimed were everywhere. Men in their thirties on crutches, daggering around on artificial legs, waggling artificial arms around like sea's' flippers or regarding one in what appears to be a quizzical manner but is in reality a straight look dis-jrted by the plastic surgery pulling their faces. Apart from this depressing side of the picture we got an impression of tremendous industrial activity in the country.
We found the Germans kind and friendly--with the exception of the natives of Frankfurt. This city is the headquarters of the American occupation, and, rather in the manner of Earl's Court landladies, suffers from an ambivalence of emotions towards its guests. The Americans form a very large linguistic and cultural minority among the Germans, and their uniforms and strident nasal accents mark them out as much in Frankfurt as the negroes in the United States are marked out by their colour. But they have money and the local tradespeople boast a large repertoire of tricks—short change, measure, etc., to which the wretched American soldier, who wants to be loved for himself and not for his money, submits. In Munich we met a muscular lady, a trainer of what looked like tame wolves as guide dogs for the blind, who after screaming delight at having met some English people—"You always muddle through"—told us that the Americans were tolerated simply to discourage the Russians from aggression and that otherwise they were extremely unpopular in the city because they were boorish, uncivilised, etc.
Austria seemed surprisingly different from Germany. Whether from history, geography, or any oaier factors, the people seemed more vivacious. Wc were warned before leaving Munich—-"The Austrians are a very poor people "—but to judge by appearance the workers were as well if not better off than the Germans we met. The remark probably arose out of a mild xenophobia. We found this everywhere. The Belgians warned us against the Dutch and the Dutch against the Belgians. Everybody warned us against the Germans and the Austrians warned us against the Yugoslavs.
The first town we came to in Yugoslavia, an industrial centre (by Yugoslav standards) called Jesenice, had poor quality suits in its shop windows priced at twenty pounds and more. The price of manufactured goods was high, for other things the country is undoubtedly the cheapest in Europe to people with sterling. It has other attractions, the glacial lake at Bled, which is heated by sulphur springs, is worth a considerable sacrifice in iravel money on its own.
But it was the people that most impressed us in Jugoslavia. Their sociability and generosity was such that one had a sense of " belonging" after being five minutes in a place. A garage proprietor whom we fetched from his house at bedtime opened up his workshop and cheerfully did our repairs and refused payment, saying: " I am an old motorist myself," as if we were members of a secret brotherhood. This was almost true. The number of vehicles in even the big towns was very small. Everywhere long lines of small carts drawn by two horses and each holding about a cubic yard of stones were leading like ant columns out to where the foundations of a new road were probing into the fields.
The first burst of enthusiasm generated by Jugoslavia's bourgeois revolution showed little signs of flagging yet. The sensation of energy and optimism was inescapable. The standard and quantity of published matter in Slovene, a linguistic minority of a few millions, would do credit to many European countries and the shops were well stocked with food and other goods. A native of Zagreb who had spent twenty-six years in Canada and had returned to Jugoslavia after the war, thinking the millenium had arrived, told us that conditions had been desperate two years before with nothing but pictures of Tito and Stalin in the shops. An important factor in subsequent improvements of living conditions is probably the easier attitude toward the peasants who seemed to be bringing their produce to market and receiving good prices for it. They, the peasants, of course, dominate the scene. Women, aged thirty and looking more like fifty would occasionally be standing at the roadside, motionless as if they had been there for the last thousand years—which culturally speaking they had.
The political situation is very fluid at the present. There is not even the illusion of political liberty in the country.
If Jugoslavia provided the example of least conspicuous consumption we encountered, then Italy certainly provided that of the most. Venice was thronged with opulently dressed men escorting their beautiful and fashionable women out of big cars into gondolas and launches; ordering meals with an assurance that only money can give, in the superb restaurants of the city. It was all like something out of the past to us from a country where such things are done more discreetly, and where such display has become almost synonymous with vulgarity. Anyone who doubts the change in peoples' attitude towards riches and poverty would do well to visit Italy. Here is a bourgeoisie on the way up.
Switzerland was very much the same. The country is alleged to have the highest living standards in Europe, but we saw more down and outs there than we saw in Jugoslavia which has probably the lowest outside Spain.
We were glad to get into France. In a country like Switzerland, geared to the luxury tourist trade, there was not much room for a party of workers trying to get a cheap holiday. Although prices in France were much the same we were always welcome to sleep in a barn when the weather was bad, and our diet was made more interesting by fruit picked at the roadsides.
Although we had enioved the experience we were not sorry to be back. The difference in social conditions between the workers in one country and another is never very great, but that is not to deny any difference, and we were surprised to find how important to us were the little embellishments we enjoy.
K. Smith.
2.13 OOMBALA!!!
ONE of our late rulers went to Africa during the recent Parliamentary recess to lecture to the natives about the benefits of our Welfare State. He had a tribe gathered at his feet and sang the praises of the National Health Service.
" Our people are helped to get glasses, wigs and teeth," he cried.
" Oombala!" chanted the natives with feeling,
" We have decreased working hours and put
up wages
" Oombala! Oombala!" " And we have nationalised our railways!" Again came the chorus, " Oombala!" Afrer the ta'k the head man of the tribe came up to congratulate him and offered to show him the Temple of the Bull up on a nearby hill.
The M.P. was delighted at this chance to add a little local colour to the story he was preparing to tell his constituents, so off they went.
They passed dozens of Sacred Bulls and not a few Sacred Cows on the way up, and the M.P. was about to enter the Temple, when the head man pulled him back suddenly, " Be cireful how you go!" he said, " It's knee deep in Oombala!"
Burnt island Shipyard Journal.
2.14 A Plea for Clarity
Reply to " The Nature of the Socialist Revolution.
COMRADE EVANS may be the author of a very original thesis on the coming Socialist-Revolution. But how are we to know? If obscurity be the hallmark of a brilliant thinker, the comrade would have achieved more, by with invisible ink. We would be as wise in either case. Enumeration of eight points from the article, indicate the high standard of obscurity coupled with the low standard of political accuracy.
(A) ". . . We are busy discussing our own position. This healthy situation . . . reflects the uncertainties of a revolution in process … in contrast with the certainties of the nineteenth century consolidation of revolution achieved."
Reply—We are always discussing our position. This healthy situation reflects the fact that socialists claiming to have accurate knowledge of society must always discuss the
position. What were the "certainties" of the nineteenth century, and what does the phrase consolidation of revolution achieve" mean? What was achieved? Who achieved it?
(B) "... The Industrial Revolution … established social production ... is not immediately followed by the revolution for social ownership, but by the State Capitalist revolution which establishes the institutional technique and thereby the idealogical demand) for the classless administration of the commonweal
Reply—The Industrial Revolution established Capitalist production. State capitalism is but a refinement of Capitalism, and does not amount to a revolution, the word revolution means complete change, fundamental reconstruction or overthrow of a system. Where is the evidence that an idealogical demand, exists for the classless administration of the common weal?
(C) ". . . The propositions here put forward have to be compressed . . . much more than is said must be left unsaid, and, much more of what is said must be left unexplained."
Reply—If FORUM has been so ardently desired by Party members for expressing ideas, why in the very first issue do we meet with compression? If what I want to say, cannot be said, and, if more important, cannot be explained, what are we paying for? Or can it be that Comrade Evans knows not what to say nor what to leave unsaid?
(D) ".. . State control furthers the depersonalising of property, this depersonalising begins the expropriation which is the Socialist aim."
Reply—There is a famous phrase which goes as Capitalism develops it becomes concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, in what sense is that depersonalising? The opposite tendency appears very much in evidence. Can any sort or degree of expropriation compatible with the socialist idea be named at the present day?
(E) " Within the State there begins the form of production for use . . ."
Reply—All production, or most, has use as an aim, since the secondary function of commodities is use, but the primary aim remains extraction of profit. Where will you find production of a single button or tooth brush for the love of the thing?
(G) " The genius of Marx lay in his talent for seeing so clearly what was going on under his nose. And it still remains to some extent our evil genius that we see so clearly what went on under Marx's nose."
Reply—The second part makes the whole of this piece meaningless. Would it be unkind at this point to jibe, that the genius of Evans is in his talent for not seeing clearly what is going on under Evans' nose?
(H) ". . . replace the propagandists' impossible task of telling people what they don't know by the historically creative one of the articulating for them what they do."
Reply—Are we to understand that the spread—slight as it has been—of socialist ideas is not the work of propagandists? Explanation please! As to historical creativeness, surely that is in work done not words said. Changes in history are effected by actions, not by descriptions of actions.
To sum up. If ideas are expressed vaguely then they are open to distortion and misunderstanding, the fault being with the writer not the reader. If you want a child to know raspberry jam is bad for the sewing machine, you say so simply.
Please Comrade Evans treat us as children —but as intelligent ones!
M. Brown.
2.15 OUR PREMISES
At the present time the Party has no cash balance in hand, and it has been suggested that our premises could either be sold or mortgaged, and the proceeds used to replenish our sadly depleted banking account and provide funds for an extension of our socialist propaganda. Having had the premises in use for about eighteen months, we have now had some additional experience on which to draw.
In view of the fact that the decision to go through with the purchase of these premises was bitterly contested by a portion of the membership, views expressed here may be subject to controversy. How does our experience of the past year measure up against our early hopes? What of the future?
Only very few, if any, of our members would consider the proposition of buying premises if they could be leased or rented. Last year, had we not bought premises we would have been able to afford only a few basement rooms or other unsuitable accommodation on rent.
Should we sell? If we did, although we would probably get back more than was paid out we should then be in the same unpleasant dilemma over premises previously stated.
Should we mortgage? Our organisation could use the money, so obtained to spread more propaganda – a necessary preliminary, no doubt to the attaining of our object. Although we should retain the use of our premises, obtaining money on mortgage has disadvantages
We can only spend the money once. If we do not repay the mortgage we must pay the interest. A simple calculation will show that such interest payments will eventually exceed the principal—and, don't forget, the original amount of loan will still be owing. If. on the other hand, we club together to repay the loan, there doesn't seem a lot of point in getting a mortgage.
It might be a sounder scheme to consider methods of getting Party expenditure to equal income, and thus stop the financial rot that seems to have set in on our affairs.
For instance, the cost of stationery, speakers' fares, etc., have risen during the last few years, but the dues have not been increased. Then there is a loss on the sale of the S.S. These are two leakages that could well be stopped.
Some Comrades, recognising that the acquisition of our present H.Q. has got us out of the trouble we were previously in, are content to leave the matter rest. Others of us have greater hopes regarding the development in the use of No. 52. We visualise it being built up as a centre of the socialist movement. The attainment of such an aim would have the effect of revitalising the Party generally through the consequent spread of enthusiasm, as well as by the addition of new blood, i.e., of more workers for our cause.
More activity at No. 52 incidentally means more income from sales of literature; collections and canteen, and money can be made good use of. Producing political plays opens up another field of propaganda previously unexploited by the Parry. Here als No. 52 could be used. Incidentally, this type of training would be helpful for young speakers.
When the Party decides to fight a parliamentary constituency in London, Clapham might be worth considering. There would be no extra cost of election premises, and the interest aroused might help to make the place better known as a Socialist centre.
Once our Premises at No. 52 have proved as useful as many of us believe is possible, then we can confidently anticipate the demand for establishment of premises for other Branches of the Party.
F. Offord.
2.15.1 REPLY
LET us agree at once that unless we can acquire suitable premises to lease or rent, it would be foolish to dispose of our present Head Office.
There is, however, no reason at all why we should not make every effort to find alternative accommodation. For, on the basis of the figures available, if we could rent premises for anything up to £9 per week (our present approximate running expenses at 52 Clapham High Street) we could dispose of our present-premises and utilise the proceeds of the sale for propaganda purposes.
Let us then, not accept the position that we are committed for all time to staying at 52 Clapham High Street, but rather regard it as a temporary freezing of our funds until such time as they can be released for our real work of socialist propaganda.
It is of course., not true to say that the Party had do alternative to purchasing the Clapham High Street premises. There were alternatives, e.g. the basement at Rugby Chambers for storage; the hiring of a small hall for E.C. meetings, but the majority of the members who crowded into the Holborn Hall on 18th February, 1951, were either unaware of them or had already made up their minds to have 52 Clapham High Street. It will be remembered that one of the reasons for the position to the scheme was that it was being thrust upon the Party without adequate information being available, and because no alternative schemes were considered. Another reason was that the scheme would place too great a strain on the financial resources of the Party and this, unfortunately, has proved to be correct. So much so that we are now considering all kinds of desperate remedies for what is virtually our financial ruin. The cost of purchasing the premises, of carrying out repairs and alterations, and the day to day running expenses involved, have played a large part in bringing us to our present financial difficulties. Moreover, a considerable amount must be spent on the premises before they can be fully utilised.
Let us turn to the "hopes regarding the development in the use of No. 52", to quote the writer to whose article we are replying. He visualises No. 52 being built up as a centre of the socialist movement". How is this to be done? Why, by urging the South West London Branch to organise Sunday evening —meetings for the local workers and by producing political plays. It is perhaps unfair to complain of the poverty of the writer's suggestions for what other activities could he suggest, apart from those which have nothing to do with socialist propaganda? Instead of finding premises suitable for our activities some comrades are busily seeking activities suitable far our premises. And so, we get attempts to start activities for which there is no demand, and no enthusiasm in the Party. The realisation that there is insufficient Party activity, i.e., propaganda, education and organisation, fully to utilise the premises leads to suggestions for all kinds of social activity. It may be all very well to have a club in Clapham for the benefit of those living nearby, and those who find it easy to reach, but it is a luxury for which the -whole of the Party must pay and it can be maintained only at the expense of socialist propaganda.
It was argued by those in favour of purchasing the premises that the possession of them would lead to greater activities and enthusiasm.
But it is over eighteen months since we moved in and apart from Tuesday evenings there is seldom more than a handful of members on the premises.
The energies being put into the organisation of socials. jumble sales, canteen management and the energies required for the production of plays and so on, could surely be better spent on socialist propaganda.
The Party does not exist to provide a social life for its members. The fact that some members may derive a social life from their membership of the Party is incidental. The only reason for the Party's existence is the necessity of organising propaganda for socialism
A. P.
2.16 NEWSPOINTS
2.16.1 What We Have We Hold
" This is a rake's progress. If there is one thing we are not prepared to do it is to give up our peacetime markets to our competitors in return for temporary war-time markets."
Mr. Bevan at Labour Party Conference, 29/9/52. News Chronicle, 30/9/52.
2.16.2 ' Peace Could Bring Biggest Slump'
Speaking at Louth yesterday, Mr. Cyril Osborne, M.P., said that if Marshal Stalin were to accept an invitation to the Coronation, or if the Korean war were to end, there would be a dreadful fall in commodity prices. Unless we make plans in conjunction with America to deal with the problems that must arise when the fighting ended, there would be the greatest slump the capitalist system had ever known.
"What, for example, is to happen to the stockpiles of strategic raw materials?" asked Mr. Osborne. " Will they be marketed in an orderly way and on a long-term plan? What about the men who will be demobilised? Are plans being made to find them civilian jobs How long will it take to convert the engineering industry from war to peace production? What is to happen when the rearmament orders fall off?"
Observer, 26/10/52.
2.16.3 E. German ' Socialism '
The time is now ripe for building Socialism in the German Democratic Republic, Walter Ulbricht, Deputy Prime Minister and General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party, announced.
He stressed that the construction of Socialism would not entail the confiscation of small businesses.
" The creation of the economic basis of Socialism demands in the first place the increase of Socialist property through the further development of the nationally owned sector of the economy, which has assumed a Socialist character. Contrary to the claims of our opponents we have no intention of confiscating small businesses, since we do not wish to impose upon the state the unnecessary burden of carrying out the functions which they at present carry out in the production."
The armed forces which will be raised in East Germany will be trained in a spirit of internationalism, in a spirit of respect for other nations and of love for the workers of all lands, stated President Wilhelm Pieck in a speech to the Party Conference of the Socialist Unity Party.
Democratic German Report, 18/7/52.
2.16.4 Canada Hit By British Competition
British competition had plunged Canada's wool textile industry into severe depression, Mr. Ryland Daniels, president of the Paton Manufacturing Company, said at the firm's annual meeting in Montreal.
He said that 87 per cent, of wool and worsteds imported into Canada in 1951 came from the United Kingdom. He called on the Government to set up tariff barriers to slow the flood of imports. The Canadian tariff on imported woollens was among the lowest in the world and was hopelessly' inadequate in the face of present international conditions.
The situation was aggravated by low British wages, which were about 43 per cent, of those paid in Canada, and the apparent willingness of the British to sell at sacrifice prices.
"As a result," said Mr. Daniels, "British worsteds are being landed here at prices much below the cost of production in Canada based on replacement value of wool tops."
British competition might force his and other companies to reduce employment still further before the turning point was reached.—British United Press.
Yorkshire Post, 12/7/52.
2.16.5 Food Scarcity in Madras
Delhi, October 8. Mr. Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, addressing a public meeting yesterday during his tour of the famine threatened areas of Madras state, said the demand for the application of the famine code would not solve the problem of food scarcity in the Rayalaseema area. He said he disliked such an approach to the problem because the idea implied doling out charity to impoverished people. Although there were many poor people in the country, they should not be treated as beggars waiting for charity.
In Madras state nearly four million people live in areas which are officially regarded as " scarcity affected," and therefore threatened by famine (a word which Government officials seem reluctant to use).
According to Government officials, the present food problem in Madras is primarily one of cost and of the inability of the impoverished peasant to buy the food which successive monsoon failures have prevented him from growing himself. To the solution of this problem the Madras Government has contributed nothing by its decision earlier this summer to remove many of the controls on food. Now the State Government is trying to meet the situation by deploying large numbers of kitchens dispensing free gruel to the destitute, and by organising relief works to enable others to earn sufficient to buy such supplies of food as are available.
Times, 9/10/52.
2.16.6 Worth Remembering
The causes of the economic storm which hit Britain last year were not within the Labour Government's control and are not within the control of the Tory Government to-day, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell told a Labour Party Rally at Rhyl.'
Daily Herald, 22/9/52.
2.16.7 They Queue To Learn
..." classes full " notices went up all over London at Women's Institutes, Technical Colleges and Polytechnics within a few hours of the doors opening. . , . Throughout England and Wales 350,000 class entries were received for handicraft classes last year compared with 336,000 for the clerical courses.
Few students give up less than three nights a week to classes—some go five nights—and on nights off there is always homework and reading . . .
The modern question—Lazy? Pleasure Loving? Don't believe it unless you think the profitable pleasure so many derive from a pursuit of knowledge is wrong.
News Chronicle, 22/9/52.
2.16.8 Cyprus Plan
Mr. Antony Head, the War Minister, arriving back in London to-day after a 6,000-mile tour in the Middle East, said that there was no base which could take the place of Egypt.
"We are not looking at Cyprus or any o'hrr place as an alternative base," he said. " There is nowhere that can be compared with Egypt as a base in the Middle East."
To have a base in the Middle East was absolutely vital strategically.
" The base in Egypt is an immense installation," said Mr. Head. " To move it would be a massive project and would take a number of years.
" There is not another place a quarter as good. It was vital to the defence of the West. Cyprus Plan
" If we did not have the base there, we should not have anywhere in the Middle East to concentrate, equip and maintain troops."
Evening Standard, 24/9/52.

3. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 3
DECEMBER 1952

3.1 WILL THERE BE MASS PRODUCTION
" It took both time and experience before the workers could learn to distinguish between machinery itself and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the particular social form in which these instruments are used."—Capital, Vol. I, p. 468.
WHEN I was at the stage of thinking that the D. of P. contained the potted wisdom of the ages, I remember speculating on the implications of some of its phrases. " Privilege to equality and slavery to freedom "—well, equality and freedom are not very precise words, but the ideas behind them have been thoroughly thrashed out and there is general agreement about what they imply. But can we say the same about the comfort that is to replace poverty?
I must confess that I have always supposed that, even if our material standard of comfort -would not, under Socialism, be very-much higher than now, at least it would not be appreciably lower. Our old No. 9 pamphlet confirms this impression by using the phrase p 13) "in order that plenty and leisure may be the portion of all . . ." But now an idea has developed in the Party that causes me to doubt whether this portion is still on the menu. It seems that some of us have been taking it for granted that some goods will continue to be mass-produced—and this apparently harmless assumption is challenged by the opposition of some comrades to mass production on principle.
3.1.1 What is Mass Production- ?
As is inevitable in discussing such questions, there is a certain amount of confusion over meanings attached to terms used. We are told what Ford says mass production is, and can read other statements about it by various authors. For the purpose of this article, however, I shall take the more recent usages given . Chambers's Encyclopaedia: — Standardisation of machine processes . . . with the aid of semi-skilled machine-minders in place of skilled craftsmen working in smaller groups. 1 Specialisation of factories to a narrow range of processes, or even to a single process, on a basis of intensive mechanisation. : Standardisation of products so as to ... . allow long runs of standard components to be produced and to be assembled by such methods as the ' assembly line '. What, then is the row all about ? Opponents of mass production hold that : it involves excessive division of labour, monotonous, repetitive work, and that its prime object is to save time—obviously these are cogent points. Further, however, it is argued that mass production necessarily involves pacemaking, is exclusive to Capitalism, and is inseparable from the existence of large towns. These are more controversial statements with which I, for one, beg to differ.
First, the question of division of labour. Marx had a lot to say about its harmful effects, and many of his criticisms are still valid, though more attention is now paid (for economic reasons) to the problem of wear and tear on the worker than a century ago. A more modern condemnation of excessive specialisation appeared in the Sunday Chronicle, 24.2.52. " A recent analysis of workers in a Sheffield factory revealed that in the course of their work, 91% of them used only a small part of their nervous system. To stave off the monotony, their off-duty hours were given solely to such feverish pleasures as speedway and jive-dancing, and their nervous systems were suffering accordingly." This is the sort of thing that the opponents of mass production are concerned about-—and I am 100% with them. Of course, society must devise some way of overcoming this problem, but let us be careful about what it is we are opposing. Division of labour is harmful when excessive, but it is not necessarily harmful in itself. Suppose we do make a principle of opposing specialisation on the grounds that it fragments labour. Where does fragmentation end and wholeness begin?
I know very little about farm machinery, but am to'd about a threshing machine that requires about a dozen workers each doing a certain job. After an hour or so on one part of the machine, they can change places and so avoid boredom. There seems no reason why it should not be possible, in a society in which people control their own conditions of work, for a machine to relieve arduous toil and yet not entail boredom.
3.1.2 Saving Time
Another point is that mass production is said to involve monotonous, repetitive work. So it does. But so does a great deal of non-mass production. I wouldn't like to argue that writing figures in a ledger all day is much less repetitive than operating an automatic machine. A ease can even be made out that it is more disconcerting to have a slight difference in the details of a job than to have a completely repetitive one, since in the first it is not possible to allow your mind to wander on to other topics while working. But, at any rate, it is obvious that mass production cannot be equated with monotonous work.
Now we come to the question of saving time. Opponents of mass production say its only object is to save time. I accept that. Time is worth saving on any job, under any system, because it enables us to undertake other jobs or to enjoy leisure. There is no greater condemnation of Capitalism than the preva'ence of (he feeling of not knowing what to do with leisure.
Those who repeat the jibe " so you save time on one job in order to save time on another " reveal a prejudice that most workers cannot conceivably know what to do with themselves when they are not working. It is often said that under Socialism the line between work and leisare will blur—but it won't vanish. People will still want to save time from productive work in order to have more time to enjoy as many as possible of the myriad experiences that this world has to offer.
3.1.3 Making More Work
It is curious that those who argue in favour of abandoning mass production imagine that this will result in people doing more things. Let us take an example (with arbitrary figures) to see how this would work out. Suppose one in every 100 now spends his working day baking bread or making machinery to bake bread. Smaller bread-baking units might mean that many as one in 5 (or 20 times more people) should have to put in a minimum of 2 hours it. But there are many other jobs that need to be done. At present there is, broadly speaking, one person to one daily job. If only half these jobs were done, but there were, on average, 10 times as many people doing each one, isn't it obvious that we should have to spend longer than now in achieving even to-day's s-working-class standard of comfort? Instead of spending several lots of 2 hours producing a small group, why should. not some of do one 2-hour shift producing for a large group ?
Then the opponents of mass production say its essence is pacemaking. That is certainly a feature under Capitalism, but remember it is not the machine that sets the pace, but the boss. Excessive speed is the enemy, cries the curse-of-civilisation school. Of course we shall be able to take things easier under Socialism, but that won't be because we shall objectivise speed. Those who say speed is bad in itself are in the foolish position of having, as their ideal, the concept of standing still. Mass production is exclusive to Capitalism, we are told. Preface this statement with ' capitalist' and I have no quarrel with it. There are many ways in which mass production will be different under socialist conditions, but we make it harder to get our ideas across to others if we persist in indescriminately negating features of Capitalism. We hear it stated that the motive of the airplane and ocean liner is commerce, yet the train and sailing-boat somehow escape similar condemnation.-Is it not conceivable that some airplanes would be useful in a society without commerce?
3.1.4 Needs and Plenty
To go fully into the question of mass production necessitating large towns would take us too far from our main subject, and deserves separate treatment.
We must, however, touch upon the satisfaction of needs, if only because we have been so accustomed to talking in terms of plenty and superabundance. What we mean, surely, is that we shall know what society is capable, of producing, and shall want to participate accordingly. I cannot imagine, the possibility of society knowing how to produce something in an efficient and unobjectionable way and yet deliberately choosing the roundabout method.
It seems likely that many more people will want to have products that are morefit for their purpose than are able to afford them to-day. Let us go one step further and suggest that society will virtually abandon mass production of individual things like suits and fruits pies. But why extend this to impersonal objects like pins and bricks ? The quality of mass-produced goods is not necessarily lower than that of others, and in some cases it is higher. Quite often a combination of mass production and handcraft produces the best results.
When I say that I find it difficult to see how society could meet all its need without some mass production, I get the feeble reply, " how did people manage before?" Any historian will tell you how they managed. In medieval times, household appliances were regarded as at luxury. A bed, table, couch, and possibly a chair satisfied the needs of people. I don't accuse the opponents of mass production of wanting to go back to those conditions. I merely suggest that their ideas are not so very far out of line with those conditions. If carpentry, is your hobby, by all means make your own chairs and tables—but don't expect society to abandon social production of most chairs and tables.
S.R.P.
3.2 THE FUTURE OF OUR PROPAGANDA
(Condensed from the letter originally sent sent by A. Turner to the E.C. 5.5.52, and subsequently circulated to branches.)
In its early days, the Party was largely concerned with hammering out an object and declaration of principles, and then proving them correct against rival theories. Our opponents no longer have theories to prove their abject—they can only apologise or try to justify tbeir actions when in power.
The S.P.G.B. alone has an object—Socialism —with theory and analysis to prove its validity. In the past, members were compelled to know and expound socialist theory and economic analysis in order to refute rival theories. These ere: Labour—Inevitability of gradualism ; Communist—Dictatorship of the proletariat, intellectual minority action, etc. ; Anarchist— The state and minority action and the futility of democracy.
These theories are now virtually finished. You seldom meet a Labour or Communist Party member with whom you can argue economic and political theory. In the 1920's and 30's our speakers had to know working class industrial history, Marxian economics and literature, about which they were constantly challenged by opponents.
Today these arguments have gone, and case against them has been proved.
3.2.1 New Motive for Analysis
But we are still challenging all comers to the
battlefield of theory. None are forthcoming, so our young members cannot improve their theory by meeting opposition. Some members, recognising this, see the need to take our proven theory into the wider fields of human society. The relative importance of these fields may be measured by their relevance to most people, e.g., marriage and the family.
Now the Party can turn its attention to what Socialism will be like, which historical conditions compelled it to deviate from. In this, the new motive for analysis and theory will be found. Immediately we describe Socialism in terms of human institutions and functions, we meet opposition. Also, the wider the description of Socialism, the greater the opportunity of making contact with people generally.
Most people are not interested in "Political politics". Repeated economic theory becomes dogma to them and merely irritates them. Most members feel safe when attacking, but scared when defending. When asked about the future, we are on the defensive and say we can't know or give a blueprint of the future.
But people will not be put off by evasions. The hesitancy and discomfiture of the speaker increases as such questions increase, and this may be why new speakers don't continue. Older speakers continue by habit, and unconsciously preclude questions of the future by creating the impression that conditions have grown worse and will continue to do so. This does not fit the facts of experience, so people are unimpressed.
3.2.2 Unexplored Fields
It is nonsense to say there is a general wave of apathy, reflected in the Party. Plenty of literature is being written on subjects closely allied with people's lives. Unfortunately the S.P.G.B. will not venture into them. Members say they are not interested in art, sex, morals, etc.—but this is politics without a purpose.
We tend to concentrate on attacking ideas that are on the way out. When a member does venture into hitherto almost unexplored fields, the hall is full, questions many and discussion lively. Such members are discouraged by talk of hobby horses, bees in bonnets, pretty pictures, etc.
Yet it is these things that make our propaganda listened to and questioned sympathetically. It breaks down prejudice whilst the old propaganda erects more.
Immediately our propaganda changes from just attacking Capitalism to describing Socialism, it will meet arguments and discussion about work, sex, morals, administration, etc. This means members will have to sharpen their knowledge of economic theory and also enter the field of social anthropology. Speakers will keep at it because their duty will become a pleasure, and the audience, from fearing you, will come to understand, admire and respect you.

3.3 A CASE FOR CONCENTRATION

With the publication of FORUM, the opportunity is afforded of re-examining some of the views that seem to nave become almost traditional in the Party, in this article I shall be particularly concerned with those that centre around its organisation in branches. It is my belief that just as the Party is always prepared to give reasons for its principles and policy to others, so it must be prepared to explain to itself why it holds the views it does on organisation and administration.
Whenever a branch has flourished in the past it always s»ms to have been taken for granted that it should try to split up, presumably with the object of forming two branches that would separately achieve more than the single one. But things seldom worked out that way. What usually happened was that some of the active members of one branch left it to form another i an adjoining area. For a time the total activity was increased, since a lot of work was put into building up the new branch. The paper membership was probably increased in -.his process, but there is no evidence that the mere act of splitting up increased the number of active members.
What we have to examine is whether, in the long run, the Party gains more benefit from aiming at concentration of members in branches, or at diffusing them in as many branches as possible. Of course no such question arises in the cases of isolated branches like Bradford and Brighton. Our main concern must be with the 16 branches in the London area, and even of these, several are so distant from their nearest neighbour that my remarks do not concern them.
3.3.1 Reasons for Splitting
First, why is it considered desirable that a branch containing more than about 50 members should try to form another one in an adjoining area? One argument is that some of its members live in that area and the new branch room rould be more convenient for them; the implication is that they would be able to put in more work. Another point is that sympathisers living in the area might be encouraged to become members by reason of the proximity of branch. These two I shall take to be the arguments, on the question of members living close to their branch meeting-places—is this really an important factor when only a couple of miles involved ? How many members can honestly that such a distance make a difference to amount of support they can give their branch? Active members certainly travel—so most be the not-so-active ones that are affected. But, at the risk of giving offence to some of these, I suggest that the causes of their --participation in branch activity are other than the distance of their branch meeting-place. The other argument is easy enough to explode-When we put a notice in the S.S. those who are interested in forming a branch in a certain area to write in, how many do we get from non-members? None—and the reason is simple. People don't join the Party because there is a branch in their area. The impact that the Party case has on them has nothing to do with the distance of its local branch. Of course, the conduct of this branch has an effect, but that is another matter.
3.3.2 Branch Progress
Having examined some of the arguments in favour of larger numbers of branches, we can now turn to those in favour of larger numbers of members in branches. There are two main considerations here—increasing the amount and effectiveness of members' work for the Party, and creating a more inviting atmosphere into which sympathisers can enter.
We must beware of comparing large branches as such with small branches as such. There is no question of the principle of the one being better than the other. What we must consider is whether the act of making one branch into two is necessarily progress, that is, making for the more efficient functioning of the Party. And, as a corollary, are we not justified, in some cases, in advocating the amalgamation of two or more branches ?
Taking a purely short-term view, it appears that members are more active in newly-formed branches. They get a kick out of building up the branch, but—most of the work is official. There has to be a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Literature Secretary, an Organiser. The filling of these posts practically exhausts the active membership of many branches, and leaves precious few to take part in propaganda activity.
One obvious advantage in having larger branches is the reduction of official work, since correspondence, reports, circulars, etc., are no more for a branch of 60 members than for one of 30. Money is saved on the rent of branch rooms.
Another advantage is in the better attendances at branch meetings. A more representative selection of views may be heard at larger meetings; a greater sense of responsibility is felt, and it is less possible for branches to be " carried" by a determined individual or a minority. A much higher standard of discussion is obtained and more members are encouraged to attend when meetings are lively, than when they are merely minute-reading circles.
Tasks that a branch of 60 might undertake and make a success are beyond the capabilities of one of 30. In some cases, of several branches fairly close to each other, not one is now capable of running successful outdoor meetings —but one large branch would probably be able to do so. It is no solution to suggest that two or more branches should come together for certain purposes. A meeting or campaign must always be organised from one centre, and the helping branches will inevitably find that propaganda, like charity, begins at home.
Lastly, the question of getting non-members to attend branch meetings. The invitation is an open one, but few accept it, and few members feel happy about bringing along friends. When they do, they are careful to pick " discussion nights", when routine business and the atmosphere of the inner circle are at a minimum. What obstructs the further growth of the Party organisation may be summed up, not as the smallness of branches, but as the existence of small-branch ideas.
Leo.
3.4 EDITORIAL
WITH the publication of the third issue of FORUM, we confess to feelings akin to a hurdle runner, who, while having successfully deared the third hurdle, has not quite recovered his surprise at having cleared the first, and is a little less apprehensive about those still in front of him. The chances are that we ill quickly cease to think ef hurdles at all. As the purpose and scope of FORUM becomes sore apparent, there is no doubt that the demand on space will become heavy. To date, we have published views on several subjects. There are many questions in the Party about which there are decided and strong divergent Tiews, and which under scrutiny in these pages nould not fail to gain considerably in clarity. The writer in FORUM may represent himself, branch, a committee, the E.C, or a common organisation; the subject matter may include any aspect of theory, administration, policy and principles. Now that FORUM is going ahead, we hope that it will be taken for granted by all that there is no matter which is excluded from its pages.
January FORUM will include . . .
A reply to the critics of the article on 'censorship' which appeared in the July S.S.
A reply to the criticism of the article ' The Nature of The Socialist Revolution.
A criticism of the articles on The Ballot and Socialism'.
3.5 MORE ON PREMISES AND FINANCES
The articles in October FORUM by Frank Offord and A. P. about premises and Party finances, make depressing reading. , On the one hand, Offord implies that because of the expense of running No. 52, we must scheme to increase our income by social activity, cut speakers' expenses, and increase the price of S.S. On the other hand, A.P. makes the rejoinder that we should seek more modest premises and not engage in activities to raise money for premises we cannot afford. In both cases, there is an underlying assumption that the presnt financial difficulties are due to the expense of running Head Office. It is possible that both are wrong. It is possible that both are unnecessarily pessimistic.
When the Party raised funds to purchase premises, the amount of money raised by donations fell short of the purchase by £1,500. This deficiency was met by a loan from a member and by using £500 from the Party's General Fund. The Autumn Delegate Meeting report showed that £400 of the £1,000 loan had been repaid. It is the case, therefore, that had the Party been able to raise the whole of the money by donations it would now have in its General Fund (unless spent on other activities) the £500 absorbed in buying premises plus the £400 it has found to repay part of the loan. The fact that the Party has little balance in its funds is not necessarily due to the Party's income falling (though this could be true for other reasons) or because income has been sucked up by expenses on premises, but because the Party has invested its funds. If this is the case, it is not so depressing. The ability in the first year to repay a substantial part of the £1,000 loan indicates a healthy financial situation and could mean that within little more than a year the who!e of the loan might be paid off and the income become available for other Party activities. Having in mind the bad state of repair of No. 52 when we first took over, it is obvious that in the first year at the new premises considerable money must have been spent on decorations and structural alterations. If the money for this was found from income, there seems little cause for pessimism about the " financial state of the Party ". This sort of expenditure is likely to be heavy in the first year anyway.
Is No. 52 more than the Party can afford? If we could find something cheaper, would it give us the facilities that we needs?
It is said that our premises cost £10 weekly to run, and it might well be the case, The rather vague statement which was before the Autumn Delegate Meeting certainly indicated a cost something like this. Though, of course, against this, an income from social and other activities must be taken into account in any assessment of the cost of the premises. Is the cost high or, like so many other things these days, is it that it merely seems to be high? On reflection, it seems that the latter is the case. If the Party had its pre-war premises today at a rent which allowed for the post-war
increase in prices, there seems little doubt that the cost of running them would be as much, if not more than our present premises, and our pre-war accommodation was much less adequate than what we have to-day. Also, had we remained at Rugby Chambers on the revised terms dictated by the landlords, it is reasonably certain that the comparable costs there would have been no less than they are in our present circumstances. If we cannot afford our present premises, then obviously we cannot afford the modest sort of accommodation we had before the war and before we went to Clapham. It would take a lot to convince the Party that this is the case, in view of the larger membership (and full employment). Before A.P.'s suggestion that we should rent a basement as an office is acted upon, Party members would have a full and clear statement of the finances of the Party. The position at the moment is obscure, and whilst this is so, Party members cannot be blamed for the opinion (sincerely held by some) that donations to the Party which are given for Party work are sucked up by the expenses on premises we cannot afford. If opinions like this exist, then it must adversely affect contributions to funds, and something should be done to correct them if they are false. If they are not false, then the Party should know where it stands so that appropriate action be taken.
What seems certain is that the overwhelming majority of the membership like and want the sort of facilities offered by the present, (or similar) premises and would make efforts to retain them. When a clear statement of the financial position is before the Party it may reveal that our present difficulties are due to more than one cause. It may be that there is a combination of causes, perhaps S.W. London is right in its ease that whilst costs to the Party have increased, Party members get their membership on the cheap in relation to present-day prices.
Is it possible for those responsible to produce a detailed report for the next Conference in a form which does not assume that we are all professional accountants? Better still, perhaps a statement could appear in FORUM before the next Conference.
N.E.
3.6 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
2 Historical Materialism
(Continued)
THE core of Socialist theory is a unified concept of history, society and man, centred around the recognition that the spring of history is the peculiar dynamic character of human production, which begets needs in the course of satisfying needs—of the social labour which is not simply reproductive but cumulative, not simply self-perpetuating but self-changing.
When men learn to produce com they also produce the need for store-houses and vessels, the need also for sentinels against rodents and robbers, for wise men to tell the time of sowing and reaping, for tithe and tribute, for exchange and property and class, all held together with the thongs of mind called habit, necessity, right and wrong, and all—seed or sentinel or sentiment—active elements in the organisation of the labour process. Historical materialism is the recognition that history is the evolution, and society the organisation of human labour, and that mind and society are not separate things related, but inner and outer sides of the same reality: social labour.
3.6.1 A False Separation
Because a philosophy of history is the core of Socialist theory, differences between us are rroted in different interpretations of historical materialism, and these differences are actually invited by our having taken over, ready-made an inadequate statement of it from Marx and Engels. I refer to the Manifesto (" In every historical epoch the mode of economic production and exchange form the base . . '.") and to Engels' letters explaining what they meant by adding that ideas react upon the base), and I am here criticising the form of expression, while recognising the historical and practical factors which conditioned that form. Historical materialism is fully expressed by Marx, but nowhere is it fully expressed in a single comprehensive statement, and nowhere does he explicitly define " mode of production ". As a political party, popularising Socialist theory, we have naturally taken the Manifesto statement; and the analogies of base, superstructure and reflections, of action and reaction, have become second nature by familiarity, with the result that the metaphorical tends to become literal truth, and any amplification suspected of revisionism".
What we still have to bear in mind is that Marx did not demolish the dualism of Hegel by inverting it, he only perpetuated it right side up. And it is dualism, the false separation (of ideas and action, mind and matter etc.) which underwrites idealism. The fallacy of idealism is not its order of precedence, but its false separation of things distinguished. The answer to the "supremacy of mind over matter " is not its inversion to the supremacy matter over mind, which merely perpetuates the separation, but the mental reintegration of the things mentally separated, the recognition that the separation is merely classificatory.
3.6.2 Progressive Man
Of necessity we distinguish between men and society, production and administration, institutions and outlook, thought and action, subject and object-—mental (verbal) separations valid for their purposes, but all finally deceiving unless finally integrated in the single phenomenon of human social labour. Within its limits it is commonsense enough to say that man's being determines his consciousness and then to add that consciousness reacts on being. but because, in form, this still implies the separation, upright or inverted, it still permits idealism to creep back with its " Ah, but it is this reaction which constitutes the dynamic, it is ideas, purposes, which make the activity what it is ". And there you have the irresolvable shuttlecock argument: "Yes, but the ideas are determined by the activities which give rise to them "—" Ah, but those activities were themselves purposive "—" Yes, but those purposes were activity-created ". This is indeed the true dialectic!
Thinking accompanies the effort, is part of the effort, to achieve the purpose, the need, already given by a given situation, and the achievement of the aim (or the failure—in any case the activity) creates a new situation, that is, new needs, new activity, new needs . . . Cut this -much man shares with animals: it does not account for history. The cycle of need, activity, changed need, changed activity is common to the world of living things. Nor does purposiveness, consciousness, begin with man—it is shared by other animals in varying degrees. The history-creating character of the human mode of existence lies in the fact that men create and accumulate means of production. With other animals, the cycle of need, activity, changed need, changed activity, is circular; the cire'es may be big or small, but in the'end—repetitive. With man the process is not circular but progressive, for the continuous accumulation of means continuously creates unprecedented situations, containing unprecedented needs and purposes.
3.6.3 Organic Unity
"Ah, but it is the peculiarly sharp focus of human consciousness, the special conceptual quality of human thinking, which makes possible the creation of means. Capacity to think is still the history-creating dynamic". Good enough. But don't let us confuse capacity to think with ideas! Ideas are not created by capacity to think, they are compelled by needs commanded by situations created by activities determined by situations. It is because men's mode of existence creates means of production that production produces history, and that men's conduct and men's ideas are the product of their products. The analogy we take over from Marx, which, in inverting Hegel, still opposes base and superstructure (production and institutions), does not err in the mere fact of distinguishing between them, but it conspires at error. For in distinguishing between things intimately connected (labour activity and social relations) we are led into describing the intimacy of the connection as a causal relationship, thus converting distinction into separation and obscuring the organic unity of production, institutions and outlook.
3.6.4 Continuity of History
Under Capitalism, a tractor crawling over a field is obviously different from a religious tract or the law of contract. Yet the wheels of capitalist machinery could not turn without the sanctions and certainties provided by the law, nor without the prevailing sentiments of men, the general and predictable patterns of men's minds which, because they organise behaviour into regular and self-regulating forms, ensure the continuity of the productive processes, and are thus themselves a productive force.
Under Feudalism, the institutions of Church and State are distinguishable both from the productive operations of peasants and gildsmea and from the ideals carried in their heads. Yet Pope and peasant are only terminal points in a series of social productive relationships between serf and baron, revolving round fief and tribute, and requiring for their daily perpetuation a continuum of sentiments—chivalry, submissive-ness, ordained status.
In primitive communities, labour is permeated by ritual, and ritual is embodied belief. Their religion is magic, and magic is the art science of production. With a digging , a dozen tribesmen stand in a circle, a circles in a row; they raise their sticks, pluge, turn the soil between them, prance forward, raise, plunge; they sing and whoop, with chant and tom-tom to guide the economical rhythm of their actions, they lift up their knees as they prance, to make the crops grow tall. What is this song and dance but art, science, magic, religion—and production? Countless ages pass by before the productive operations, the social institutions and the sentiments of men appear to have separate locus and separable existence, yet however far the differentiation is carried in the course of history they retain their organic integrity—in social labour—as the spokes of a wheel, however long, are only extensions of the hub. The unity of history is contained in the fact that its substance is labour. The continuity of history is contained in the fact that the mode of projection contains within itself the necessity of its own development, by accumulation of means.
3.6.5 Labour Produces Needs
When Marx says ("German Ideology") that "the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy human needs " (my italics) and that " this historical act is the fundamental condition of all history ", he clearly does not mean by " first" any such nonsense as that production precedes social organisation or that i en must eat before they can think. " First " here is not a chronological category, but is used to announce the essential and paramount quality of history—labour. For he goes on to show that labour produces not merely products, but new needs. " And it is this production of new needs which is the first historical act".
It is because human labour processively generates new means that it progressively modifies the labour process, produces new needs, new purposes, new habits, new men. History runs because human labour is continually trying to catch up with its own feet. Human labour creates history because the wheel of production is eccentric, its centre of gravity continuously shifting between the " factors " distinguished by Marx (as a necessity of analysis)—continuously shifting from "means" to " process ", from " relations between men and nature" (biological) to " relations between men" (social), from "means provided by nature " (geographical) to " instruments produced by men" (technical). The biological " factor" dominates primordial labour; geography dominates savage labour; the social relations of kinship and custom dominate barbarian labour, and occupational siatus dominates feudal labour (" Undermining ", as Engels says, in The Family, " the communism of production and consumpion") ; the instruments of production dominate capitalist labour.
3.6.6 Evolution and Production
This concept of history is a product of capitalist production; in the flesh and blood we salute Marx and Engels. The salute is a little formal if we put Marx before Marxism. Marx was compelled more than once to do less than justice to himself, and Engels did less than justice to both of them when he tried to rescue Marxism from the awkward analogy of " base and superstructure " by means of " action and reaction " in which " cause and effect perpetually change place".
The deficiencies of form were historically conditioned, by the need to grapple with Feudal idealism and by the mechanical idiom of water-clocks and puffing-billies. In an age of biology our only plea for perpetuating them is laziriess. Analogies must be recognised for what they are: devices for explaining the less concrete or familiar in terms of the more concrete of familiar: stepping stones, not shrines —and language for what it is: a good servant and a bad master. Whether we use buildings or biology to explain it, it remains that society is organisation of men's labour. It remains that the " parts " and " factors ", means and process and institutions and sentiments, are active and operative elements in the associated labour which is men's mode of existence. It remains that nowhere does Marx explicitly define " mode of prodution " because with him it is implicitly society itself.
Society " begins " in proportion as men organise their labour force, and emerges imperceptibly from the primordial condition of mere association, consanguine and instinctive. History " begins " with the act of production, because human production produces means. Society evolves, has momentum, because accretion of means shifts the centre of gravity, In our time, capital is the centre of gravity, the growing point of history, supercharged with the dynamic of accumulation. And the Labour Theory of Value is only a special case of the Labour Theory of History, for with Marx surplus value is not simply the tally ©f exploitation but the spring of capital's continual transformations (from "quantity into quality") by which it is compelled to generate the socialist mode of production. (To be continued.)
F. Evans.
3.7 YOU CAN'T BUY SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA
IT is well known that the capitalist class buy propaganda. They pay journalists to write, they own the means of distribution, and pay speakers and lecturers. The hiring of a hall for a meeting and large-scale advertising are also easily done by a political party with good financial resources.
No Socialist Party can hope to be in this position; a larger membership would not necessarily ease matters, as there would be lore meetings required to cover the wider irea of an increased number of branches.
Some members tend to judge our activity by the amount of money the Party spends each year. They assume that the more the Party spends on propaganda the more actual propaganda is done. This is not necessarily the case.
When the Party is in financial difficulties, as at the present time, if anyone suggests cuts in expenditure, many members immediately assume that we will have to make cuts in our propaganda, To avoid this, there is a constant beggin by the Treasurer and the E.C. for nore funds.
It is time the Party recognised the fact that you can't buy socialist propaganda. What is needed is more work put in by the membership. Donating money is all very well, but it can easily be spent on all kinds of schemes which, but for members' lack of activity, would not be required.
There are good forms of socialist propaganda which do not cost a penny—but they do require work, and it is the desire to work for Socialism that is lacking in the Party. It is well known that the membership of the S.P.G.B. is to a considerable extent a paper membership. How to end this and how to put an end to the idea that more money will increase our propaganda is something the Party should consider.
THE SALE OF THE S.S. is a useful form of socialist propaganda. The sales of the official journal of the Party are deplorable. I doubt whether any political organisation in this country has such a low circulation of its official journal relative to its membership.
Why not try a method to increase sales used by some other organisations?
(1)Each branch should be set a target to aim at in its monthly sales of the S.S.
(2)Monthly sales by each branch should be published in FORUM.
(3)Branches who greatly exceed their target should receive special praise, and the branch with the lowest sales in relation to its membership should be named.
I feel certain that this would increase the sales of the S.S No branch would wish to be in the unenviable position of being bottom of the table. A competition between branches would result and more members be brought into activity.
Comrades, get rid of this idea that you can buy socialist propaganda—you have to work for it. Let us try cheaper methods of propaganda and put an end to these begging letters for money.
D. W. Lock
(Lewisham Branch)

3.8 WHAT CAUSES SOCIETY TO DEVELOP?
An abridged report of the discussion at the Head Office Forum on November 8th Panel: W. Read, J. Trotman, A. Turner, E. Wilmott
Turner: Why wasn't Socialism possible 500 years ago ? Some argue that it was because there were not the means of production present to make it possible.
I am concerned with Marx's statement: " a social system never perishes before all the productive forces have developed for which it is wide enough." What was in Marx's mind is not so clear in others—there has come to be a separation between the mode of production and ideas. These are one and the same; ideas are made objective in the means of production. Machines in themselves contain no spur to further development.
The concrete expression of what makes man develop is that he is a tool-making animal— he has to think first. Organic evolution reached its peak with the development of the human brain and conceptual thinking. The dynamic is not in the tools of production, but in rational thinking, that is, being faithful to a correct idea. There are two ways of breaking down barriers to this: contact with ideas, and machines. The object is to bring man into harmony with his environment. "' The 'phrase : means of production are the key to development ' implies a mechanical attitude.
Trotman: According to Turner, then, men's ideas are the social prime mover.
Read: But other animals besides man are capable of using tools. If so, we can imagine some form of organisation and use of implements for accomplishment of ends. Turner infers a rational faculty in man which other animals don't have.
In fact, man often made mistakes—he found the end in view never came out the way he thought; The act, experience, is part of thought, as shown by the ability to memorise past events. The fact is that different group organisations have different ideologies and thought processes. The general ideas of primitive communism would have been incongruous in any other form of society.
How does transition take place? The socialist argues that the techniques of production develop until the social relations can no longer contain them. Then the idea of change arises —and some section of society acts to change the social relations.
The basis of Marxism is that in different epochs different laws are at work. The laws of Capitalism are the accumulation of capital in fewer hands, competition, and individual property.
3.8.1 Economic Basis
Turner: When does the technique of Capitalism develop to the point when Socialism is possible?
Read: So long as there is the possibility of further accumulation of capital and demand for labour, then Socialism is not a practical possibility. It only becomes so when the accumulation of capital cannot be satisfied by any further development of Capitalism—when crises become perpetual and concentration on means of destruction becomes general.
Wilmott:. What is meant by the material conditions of history? We are seeking a universal key and Turner's simplified statement is not satisfactory. Does he accept the economic basis of society and what does he mean by it?
Turner: It is the relation that people stand to other, people about the means of production. Wilmott: I don't agree. That tells us nothing about the means of production. Do you include ideas in the economic basis, and do you distinguish between the two?
Turner: The economic basis is more than just the mode of prodution—it includes the productive relations.
Wilmott: The economic basis, then, is that which something else rests upon. I say this basis does not equal the productive relations.
Turner: Read says it is the techniques of production and certain adverse conditions. But what makes these techniques develop?
Read: Certain sections of society find themselves in adverse conditions, which they try to improve, whilst others try to reverse the course of history. Since different epochs have different laws, the answer depends on the sort of society.
Wilmott: Does Turner consider that the techniques of production are part of the social factors at work?
Turner: Yes. When you speak of the techniques, you postulate the existence of human society. Between techniques and ideas there is an obvious mental difference. Technique is the outcome of ideas, and ideas come out of conditions. In the process of classification you separate them, but unfortunately some see ideas as the reflection of the mode of production. But a reflection never changes. The techniques of production have never stopped changing, though the mode has remained the same.
3.8.2 Rationality
Wilmott: What does Turner mean by rationality? Surely, conditions largely determine the nature of ideas. Marx rejected the theory of pure interaction—he was out to find the underlying principle. Can Turner explain why the rationality of one age becomes the irrationality of another?
Society is not dependent on rationality as its driving force. Why do men act concretely? We are not concerned with some shadowy cause and effect. The wide term ' rationality' does not help us. To say (as Turner does) that all thinking is rational, presupposes irrationality.
The techniques of production played a powerful part in the 19th century until the conditions of the working class were insufficient basis for large-scale production. The techniques played a temporary part, but they changed the character of ideas.
Turner: Why is Wilmott concerned with saying that techniques determine ideas? Also, from what Read said earlier, I imagine he had collapse of Capitalism in mind. Your ideas are catacylismic.
Read: All the thinking of Aristotle could never have arrived at the idea of Value. What, then was the bar to his rationality? It was because free labour didn't exist, therefore the idea of value couldn't have arisen. If rationality is consequential, it would seem that all man's activities could be thought out beforehand.
You can't leave out of account the use of certain tools dependent on the form of society and which must have the sanction of custom. The tools are only modified when there are adverse conditions (which may be social, or some calamity like war). Then there is the necessity of reorganising. People don't think out of the ideas that prevail – it is not a question of rationality.
Turner: So is it a custom that holds ideas static? But there is a struggle between the ideas of custom and those that eschew custom. Both have come out of the conditions of both sections who hold them. One set sees a new re-shaping of ideas that the others haven't seen. It is ideas that precede action.
Wilmott: The motive power behind men's ideas is men's needs and material interests. Ideas don't come from the blue. What makes certain ideas accepted, and what are the other components of ideas?
3.8.3 What is the dynamic
Turner: The motive power can't be in men's needs, because the motive is true of all organisms. But only man has made an artificial world. If you want to trace the dynamic of man's evolution, you must remember that man hasn't anatomically changed. There is a real world, there are real factors-- but ideas brought in relations, conditions, and acts.
Men think rationally or logically from the knowledge they possess. It is a mistake to think that because people may come to wrong conclusions, they are irrational or illogical. The correct ideas are those that have changed the world – the others bring people at variance with it. The only object of thinking is to place men in correspondence with conditions.
Socialism wasn't possible 500 years ago because man could never have had the idea of universality. The whole development of ideas came out of conditions-- but there are still inadequate actions. The development of man in society is approaching universality.
Wilmott: The problem is not an intellectual one. It is: how are men going to live? That is the dynamic. Material conditions stamp ideas and give them their character. You cannot explain ideas in terms of other ideas.
Trotman: The materialist doesn't discount ideas, though to put them first is an over-simplification. Turner says the means of production are concretised ideas, but it is not merely that. All sorts of things are concretised in them.
He says the dynamic is the ability of man to form concepts. But equally if man had no head or hands, society would never have developed. Why pick out the ability to form concepts? The ability of society to expand and develop depends on all biological factors not on any one. It is not true that thinking is immediately prior to acting. To say so, doesn't tell us anything. Why do we think? The ability to form concepts doesn't explain this – it is a constant. You must explain social development in some other way. Society is, in fact, an organisation for production. The idea of universality is only half the picture. With a shrinking of the world, it makes Socialism a practical possiblity. But remember that the idea of a round world wasn't accepted until there was need for a new trade route.
Turner: True, but there could not have been the need until some people had the idea. It was the idea of a round world that gave rise to the need.
Read: But there was knowledge of a round world in the Ptolemaic system and by the ancient Greeks. The reason people went round the world was that there developed in Europe the need for spices, etc., only obtainable from the East. Only then was the necessary action taken—when the need had already developed Turner: It wasn't just the idea of a round world that led to development, but the concretising of other ideas coming out of conditions. If ideas and action are not in conformity they bring about a contradiction; it is not a question of ideas in themselves.
To Trotman—man has always had hands, but he hasn't always had the same society. As ideas came in, he changed his world; as he develops, he throws over prejudices. But still there is a margin or error, still his ideas are not in conformity with the real world. Wilmott: Why are these ideas not in conformity with the real world?
Turner: Because the actions based upon them come into conflict with the real world.
Wilmott: So the real world is distinct from ideas – what, then, is it?
Turner: In the totality of the world including man. Advancement has been where ideas were in line with the real world. One barrier was that some people thought others were biologically inferior.
Wilmott: In slave America is was thought that the Negro was inferior – that was the 'real world'. How did rationality affect that?
Turner: Nobody says that the world is rational. People are rational. The world exists whether people think rightly or wrongly about it. The reason for Socialism not being possible earlier wasn't that the means of production weren't in plenty – it was that people's ideas were not in conformity with it.
3.9 NEWSPOINTS
3.9.1 Prices 1% Ahead of Wages
Retail food prices went up 6 per cent, between January and September, non-food retail prices remained stationary, but wholesale prices for basic (non-food) materials went down 15 per cent. Taken to together retail prices went up 3 per cent.
Between January and August and wage rates went up 2 per cent.
Between September last year and September this year unemployment in the metal, engineering, and vehicles trades increased from 29,000 to 52,000; in textiles and clothing from 17,000 to 76,000, having stood at 158,000 in June; in other manufactures from 26,000 to 49,000, the June figure having been 54,000; and in all other industries and services from 145,000 to 213,000.
Times, 31/10/52.
3.9.2 But This Profit 100% Up
Sir John Reeves Eilerman the Second is Britain's richest man. He is also the shyest of millionaires.
Equally shy is the £36,000,000 Ellerman Lines from which all Sir John's riches stem. For Ellermans does not send its annual report generally to the Press. Yet it is a fabulous document, showing profits last year more than doubled at £5,113,000, a jump of £2,605,000. The cream of the Korea boom for the line's 90 ships.
Daily Express, 11/11/52.
3.9.3 Too Much
The surpluses of wheat, cattle, fruit, and dairy products have faced the Canadian Government with a rare problem in the post-war world—the problem of too much food.
Unexpectedly heavy harvests and increased cattle, milk and cheese production has left Canada with surplus food for which, at present, there are no buyers. So extensive is the over-production that nearly every agricultural area in Canada is affected.
In the past, such surpluses have been reduced sending food abroad as a free gift with Candian Government footing the bill, or by extensive foreign credits to enable would-be customers to buy Canadian food products. Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. St. Laurent, said recently, that he does not intend to resort to either methods to meet the present crisis.
Coventry Evening Telegraph, 2/10/52.
3.9.4 And Too Long
Britain's 35,000 cobblers are worried by a new rubberised plastic sole material, shown yesterday at the Earls Court Shoe and Leather Fair.
The new plastic, highly popular in the U.S., is likely to have a serious effect on the leather market for shoes. It is said to last twice as long as leather, but manufacturers have found it sometimes lasts ten times as long.
Daily Mail, 18/11/52.
3.9.5 American Visa Policy
Professor Einstein writes, in part: "The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. In my opinion there can be no doubt that the intervention of the political authorities in this country in the free exchange of knowledge between individuals has already had a significantly damaging effect. Interference with the freedom of the oral and written communication of scientific results, the widespread attitude of political distrust which is supported by an immense police organization, the timidity and anxiety of individuals to avoid everything which might cause suspicion and could threaten their economic positions—all these are symptoms, even though they reveal more clearly the threatening character of the illness.
3.9.6 "Japanese " Safety Force "
Japanese progress towards rearmament took another step forward when the 110,000 strong National Police Reserve became the " National Safety Force" under a recently enacted law and Mr. Yoshida, the Prime Minister, took the salute at a public parade of 3,500 troops who later marched through the streets of Tokyo.
The National Safety Force, which wears American-style uniforms and is trained by an American military mission, has more than 650 officers of field rank who were formerly officers in the Imperial Japanese Army, and many of its men—all volunteers—were formerly conscripts in the Japanese Army. The force has all infantry weapons, as well as field artillery and light tanks. The latter have been lent indefinitely by the American Army.
Mr. Yoshida, addressing the parade, said that the National Safety Force was not an army, but a force with the power to maintain peace and order in Japan. It would be used under public control to repel outside attack and to suppress civil strife.
Times, 16/10/52.
3.9.7 Output Cuts Urged
"To prevent a further drop in prices," the Federation of Cotton and Staple Fibre Dealers Association declares, " die Ministry of Trade should reduce the present output limit of 165,000 bales of cotton yarn a month to 145,000 bales in November and December."
Financial Times, 21/10/52.
3.9.8 Theory and Practice
" It is our great good fortune that our Party, our people, who are building communism, are being continuously enriched and equipped with the masterly theoretical works of great Stalin (tumultuous and prolonged applause).
"In Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Comrade Stalin has raised and solved the fundamental questions of the character of economic laws under socialism, of commodity production under socialism, of the law of value under socialism, of the measures for elevating collective farm property to the level of public property, of the basic economic laws of modern captialism and socialism, of the three basic preliminary conditions for the transition from socialism to communism, of the elimination of the essential distinctions between town and country, between mental labour and physical labour, of the disintegration of the single world market and the deepening of the crisis of the world capitalist system, of the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries." L. M. Kaganavich,
at the Communist Party Congress, 13/10/52. Soviet News, 15/11/52.
But starry-eyed comrades who think that Russia has abolished class distinctions had better not book on the passenger-cargo liner Tobolsk. She carries eighty passengers in the FIRST CLASS and 266 in the THIRD CLASS.
The same class distinction operates among the Tobolsk's crew. Like the first-class passengers the officers usually have two-berth cabins with private showers. All furnishings are in decorative hardwoods.
Third-class comrades and the crew are less comfortable. They have metal berths, and some third-class passengers travel twelve to a cabin.
Daily Mirror, 22/11/52.

3. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 3
DECEMBER 1952

3.1 WILL THERE BE MASS PRODUCTION
" It took both time and experience before the workers could learn to distinguish between machinery itself and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the particular social form in which these instruments are used."—Capital, Vol. I, p. 468.
WHEN I was at the stage of thinking that the D. of P. contained the potted wisdom of the ages, I remember speculating on the implications of some of its phrases. " Privilege to equality and slavery to freedom "—well, equality and freedom are not very precise words, but the ideas behind them have been thoroughly thrashed out and there is general agreement about what they imply. But can we say the same about the comfort that is to replace poverty?
I must confess that I have always supposed that, even if our material standard of comfort -would not, under Socialism, be very-much higher than now, at least it would not be appreciably lower. Our old No. 9 pamphlet confirms this impression by using the phrase p 13) "in order that plenty and leisure may be the portion of all . . ." But now an idea has developed in the Party that causes me to doubt whether this portion is still on the menu. It seems that some of us have been taking it for granted that some goods will continue to be mass-produced—and this apparently harmless assumption is challenged by the opposition of some comrades to mass production on principle.
3.1.1 What is Mass Production- ?
As is inevitable in discussing such questions, there is a certain amount of confusion over meanings attached to terms used. We are told what Ford says mass production is, and can read other statements about it by various authors. For the purpose of this article, however, I shall take the more recent usages given . Chambers's Encyclopaedia: — Standardisation of machine processes . . . with the aid of semi-skilled machine-minders in place of skilled craftsmen working in smaller groups. 1 Specialisation of factories to a narrow range of processes, or even to a single process, on a basis of intensive mechanisation. : Standardisation of products so as to ... . allow long runs of standard components to be produced and to be assembled by such methods as the ' assembly line '. What, then is the row all about ? Opponents of mass production hold that : it involves excessive division of labour, monotonous, repetitive work, and that its prime object is to save time—obviously these are cogent points. Further, however, it is argued that mass production necessarily involves pacemaking, is exclusive to Capitalism, and is inseparable from the existence of large towns. These are more controversial statements with which I, for one, beg to differ.
First, the question of division of labour. Marx had a lot to say about its harmful effects, and many of his criticisms are still valid, though more attention is now paid (for economic reasons) to the problem of wear and tear on the worker than a century ago. A more modern condemnation of excessive specialisation appeared in the Sunday Chronicle, 24.2.52. " A recent analysis of workers in a Sheffield factory revealed that in the course of their work, 91% of them used only a small part of their nervous system. To stave off the monotony, their off-duty hours were given solely to such feverish pleasures as speedway and jive-dancing, and their nervous systems were suffering accordingly." This is the sort of thing that the opponents of mass production are concerned about-—and I am 100% with them. Of course, society must devise some way of overcoming this problem, but let us be careful about what it is we are opposing. Division of labour is harmful when excessive, but it is not necessarily harmful in itself. Suppose we do make a principle of opposing specialisation on the grounds that it fragments labour. Where does fragmentation end and wholeness begin?
I know very little about farm machinery, but am to'd about a threshing machine that requires about a dozen workers each doing a certain job. After an hour or so on one part of the machine, they can change places and so avoid boredom. There seems no reason why it should not be possible, in a society in which people control their own conditions of work, for a machine to relieve arduous toil and yet not entail boredom.
3.1.2 Saving Time
Another point is that mass production is said to involve monotonous, repetitive work. So it does. But so does a great deal of non-mass production. I wouldn't like to argue that writing figures in a ledger all day is much less repetitive than operating an automatic machine. A ease can even be made out that it is more disconcerting to have a slight difference in the details of a job than to have a completely repetitive one, since in the first it is not possible to allow your mind to wander on to other topics while working. But, at any rate, it is obvious that mass production cannot be equated with monotonous work.
Now we come to the question of saving time. Opponents of mass production say its only object is to save time. I accept that. Time is worth saving on any job, under any system, because it enables us to undertake other jobs or to enjoy leisure. There is no greater condemnation of Capitalism than the preva'ence of (he feeling of not knowing what to do with leisure.
Those who repeat the jibe " so you save time on one job in order to save time on another " reveal a prejudice that most workers cannot conceivably know what to do with themselves when they are not working. It is often said that under Socialism the line between work and leisare will blur—but it won't vanish. People will still want to save time from productive work in order to have more time to enjoy as many as possible of the myriad experiences that this world has to offer.
3.1.3 Making More Work
It is curious that those who argue in favour of abandoning mass production imagine that this will result in people doing more things. Let us take an example (with arbitrary figures) to see how this would work out. Suppose one in every 100 now spends his working day baking bread or making machinery to bake bread. Smaller bread-baking units might mean that many as one in 5 (or 20 times more people) should have to put in a minimum of 2 hours it. But there are many other jobs that need to be done. At present there is, broadly speaking, one person to one daily job. If only half these jobs were done, but there were, on average, 10 times as many people doing each one, isn't it obvious that we should have to spend longer than now in achieving even to-day's s-working-class standard of comfort? Instead of spending several lots of 2 hours producing a small group, why should. not some of do one 2-hour shift producing for a large group ?
Then the opponents of mass production say its essence is pacemaking. That is certainly a feature under Capitalism, but remember it is not the machine that sets the pace, but the boss. Excessive speed is the enemy, cries the curse-of-civilisation school. Of course we shall be able to take things easier under Socialism, but that won't be because we shall objectivise speed. Those who say speed is bad in itself are in the foolish position of having, as their ideal, the concept of standing still. Mass production is exclusive to Capitalism, we are told. Preface this statement with ' capitalist' and I have no quarrel with it. There are many ways in which mass production will be different under socialist conditions, but we make it harder to get our ideas across to others if we persist in indescriminately negating features of Capitalism. We hear it stated that the motive of the airplane and ocean liner is commerce, yet the train and sailing-boat somehow escape similar condemnation.-Is it not conceivable that some airplanes would be useful in a society without commerce?
3.1.4 Needs and Plenty
To go fully into the question of mass production necessitating large towns would take us too far from our main subject, and deserves separate treatment.
We must, however, touch upon the satisfaction of needs, if only because we have been so accustomed to talking in terms of plenty and superabundance. What we mean, surely, is that we shall know what society is capable, of producing, and shall want to participate accordingly. I cannot imagine, the possibility of society knowing how to produce something in an efficient and unobjectionable way and yet deliberately choosing the roundabout method.
It seems likely that many more people will want to have products that are morefit for their purpose than are able to afford them to-day. Let us go one step further and suggest that society will virtually abandon mass production of individual things like suits and fruits pies. But why extend this to impersonal objects like pins and bricks ? The quality of mass-produced goods is not necessarily lower than that of others, and in some cases it is higher. Quite often a combination of mass production and handcraft produces the best results.
When I say that I find it difficult to see how society could meet all its need without some mass production, I get the feeble reply, " how did people manage before?" Any historian will tell you how they managed. In medieval times, household appliances were regarded as at luxury. A bed, table, couch, and possibly a chair satisfied the needs of people. I don't accuse the opponents of mass production of wanting to go back to those conditions. I merely suggest that their ideas are not so very far out of line with those conditions. If carpentry, is your hobby, by all means make your own chairs and tables—but don't expect society to abandon social production of most chairs and tables.
S.R.P.
3.2 THE FUTURE OF OUR PROPAGANDA
(Condensed from the letter originally sent sent by A. Turner to the E.C. 5.5.52, and subsequently circulated to branches.)
In its early days, the Party was largely concerned with hammering out an object and declaration of principles, and then proving them correct against rival theories. Our opponents no longer have theories to prove their abject—they can only apologise or try to justify tbeir actions when in power.
The S.P.G.B. alone has an object—Socialism —with theory and analysis to prove its validity. In the past, members were compelled to know and expound socialist theory and economic analysis in order to refute rival theories. These ere: Labour—Inevitability of gradualism ; Communist—Dictatorship of the proletariat, intellectual minority action, etc. ; Anarchist— The state and minority action and the futility of democracy.
These theories are now virtually finished. You seldom meet a Labour or Communist Party member with whom you can argue economic and political theory. In the 1920's and 30's our speakers had to know working class industrial history, Marxian economics and literature, about which they were constantly challenged by opponents.
Today these arguments have gone, and case against them has been proved.
3.2.1 New Motive for Analysis
But we are still challenging all comers to the
battlefield of theory. None are forthcoming, so our young members cannot improve their theory by meeting opposition. Some members, recognising this, see the need to take our proven theory into the wider fields of human society. The relative importance of these fields may be measured by their relevance to most people, e.g., marriage and the family.
Now the Party can turn its attention to what Socialism will be like, which historical conditions compelled it to deviate from. In this, the new motive for analysis and theory will be found. Immediately we describe Socialism in terms of human institutions and functions, we meet opposition. Also, the wider the description of Socialism, the greater the opportunity of making contact with people generally.
Most people are not interested in "Political politics". Repeated economic theory becomes dogma to them and merely irritates them. Most members feel safe when attacking, but scared when defending. When asked about the future, we are on the defensive and say we can't know or give a blueprint of the future.
But people will not be put off by evasions. The hesitancy and discomfiture of the speaker increases as such questions increase, and this may be why new speakers don't continue. Older speakers continue by habit, and unconsciously preclude questions of the future by creating the impression that conditions have grown worse and will continue to do so. This does not fit the facts of experience, so people are unimpressed.
3.2.2 Unexplored Fields
It is nonsense to say there is a general wave of apathy, reflected in the Party. Plenty of literature is being written on subjects closely allied with people's lives. Unfortunately the S.P.G.B. will not venture into them. Members say they are not interested in art, sex, morals, etc.—but this is politics without a purpose.
We tend to concentrate on attacking ideas that are on the way out. When a member does venture into hitherto almost unexplored fields, the hall is full, questions many and discussion lively. Such members are discouraged by talk of hobby horses, bees in bonnets, pretty pictures, etc.
Yet it is these things that make our propaganda listened to and questioned sympathetically. It breaks down prejudice whilst the old propaganda erects more.
Immediately our propaganda changes from just attacking Capitalism to describing Socialism, it will meet arguments and discussion about work, sex, morals, administration, etc. This means members will have to sharpen their knowledge of economic theory and also enter the field of social anthropology. Speakers will keep at it because their duty will become a pleasure, and the audience, from fearing you, will come to understand, admire and respect you.

3.3 A CASE FOR CONCENTRATION

With the publication of FORUM, the opportunity is afforded of re-examining some of the views that seem to nave become almost traditional in the Party, in this article I shall be particularly concerned with those that centre around its organisation in branches. It is my belief that just as the Party is always prepared to give reasons for its principles and policy to others, so it must be prepared to explain to itself why it holds the views it does on organisation and administration.
Whenever a branch has flourished in the past it always s»ms to have been taken for granted that it should try to split up, presumably with the object of forming two branches that would separately achieve more than the single one. But things seldom worked out that way. What usually happened was that some of the active members of one branch left it to form another i an adjoining area. For a time the total activity was increased, since a lot of work was put into building up the new branch. The paper membership was probably increased in -.his process, but there is no evidence that the mere act of splitting up increased the number of active members.
What we have to examine is whether, in the long run, the Party gains more benefit from aiming at concentration of members in branches, or at diffusing them in as many branches as possible. Of course no such question arises in the cases of isolated branches like Bradford and Brighton. Our main concern must be with the 16 branches in the London area, and even of these, several are so distant from their nearest neighbour that my remarks do not concern them.
3.3.1 Reasons for Splitting
First, why is it considered desirable that a branch containing more than about 50 members should try to form another one in an adjoining area? One argument is that some of its members live in that area and the new branch room rould be more convenient for them; the implication is that they would be able to put in more work. Another point is that sympathisers living in the area might be encouraged to become members by reason of the proximity of branch. These two I shall take to be the arguments, on the question of members living close to their branch meeting-places—is this really an important factor when only a couple of miles involved ? How many members can honestly that such a distance make a difference to amount of support they can give their branch? Active members certainly travel—so most be the not-so-active ones that are affected. But, at the risk of giving offence to some of these, I suggest that the causes of their --participation in branch activity are other than the distance of their branch meeting-place. The other argument is easy enough to explode-When we put a notice in the S.S. those who are interested in forming a branch in a certain area to write in, how many do we get from non-members? None—and the reason is simple. People don't join the Party because there is a branch in their area. The impact that the Party case has on them has nothing to do with the distance of its local branch. Of course, the conduct of this branch has an effect, but that is another matter.
3.3.2 Branch Progress
Having examined some of the arguments in favour of larger numbers of branches, we can now turn to those in favour of larger numbers of members in branches. There are two main considerations here—increasing the amount and effectiveness of members' work for the Party, and creating a more inviting atmosphere into which sympathisers can enter.
We must beware of comparing large branches as such with small branches as such. There is no question of the principle of the one being better than the other. What we must consider is whether the act of making one branch into two is necessarily progress, that is, making for the more efficient functioning of the Party. And, as a corollary, are we not justified, in some cases, in advocating the amalgamation of two or more branches ?
Taking a purely short-term view, it appears that members are more active in newly-formed branches. They get a kick out of building up the branch, but—most of the work is official. There has to be a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Literature Secretary, an Organiser. The filling of these posts practically exhausts the active membership of many branches, and leaves precious few to take part in propaganda activity.
One obvious advantage in having larger branches is the reduction of official work, since correspondence, reports, circulars, etc., are no more for a branch of 60 members than for one of 30. Money is saved on the rent of branch rooms.
Another advantage is in the better attendances at branch meetings. A more representative selection of views may be heard at larger meetings; a greater sense of responsibility is felt, and it is less possible for branches to be " carried" by a determined individual or a minority. A much higher standard of discussion is obtained and more members are encouraged to attend when meetings are lively, than when they are merely minute-reading circles.
Tasks that a branch of 60 might undertake and make a success are beyond the capabilities of one of 30. In some cases, of several branches fairly close to each other, not one is now capable of running successful outdoor meetings —but one large branch would probably be able to do so. It is no solution to suggest that two or more branches should come together for certain purposes. A meeting or campaign must always be organised from one centre, and the helping branches will inevitably find that propaganda, like charity, begins at home.
Lastly, the question of getting non-members to attend branch meetings. The invitation is an open one, but few accept it, and few members feel happy about bringing along friends. When they do, they are careful to pick " discussion nights", when routine business and the atmosphere of the inner circle are at a minimum. What obstructs the further growth of the Party organisation may be summed up, not as the smallness of branches, but as the existence of small-branch ideas.
Leo.
3.4 EDITORIAL
WITH the publication of the third issue of FORUM, we confess to feelings akin to a hurdle runner, who, while having successfully deared the third hurdle, has not quite recovered his surprise at having cleared the first, and is a little less apprehensive about those still in front of him. The chances are that we ill quickly cease to think ef hurdles at all. As the purpose and scope of FORUM becomes sore apparent, there is no doubt that the demand on space will become heavy. To date, we have published views on several subjects. There are many questions in the Party about which there are decided and strong divergent Tiews, and which under scrutiny in these pages nould not fail to gain considerably in clarity. The writer in FORUM may represent himself, branch, a committee, the E.C, or a common organisation; the subject matter may include any aspect of theory, administration, policy and principles. Now that FORUM is going ahead, we hope that it will be taken for granted by all that there is no matter which is excluded from its pages.
January FORUM will include . . .
A reply to the critics of the article on 'censorship' which appeared in the July S.S.
A reply to the criticism of the article ' The Nature of The Socialist Revolution.
A criticism of the articles on The Ballot and Socialism'.
3.5 MORE ON PREMISES AND FINANCES
The articles in October FORUM by Frank Offord and A. P. about premises and Party finances, make depressing reading. , On the one hand, Offord implies that because of the expense of running No. 52, we must scheme to increase our income by social activity, cut speakers' expenses, and increase the price of S.S. On the other hand, A.P. makes the rejoinder that we should seek more modest premises and not engage in activities to raise money for premises we cannot afford. In both cases, there is an underlying assumption that the presnt financial difficulties are due to the expense of running Head Office. It is possible that both are wrong. It is possible that both are unnecessarily pessimistic.
When the Party raised funds to purchase premises, the amount of money raised by donations fell short of the purchase by £1,500. This deficiency was met by a loan from a member and by using £500 from the Party's General Fund. The Autumn Delegate Meeting report showed that £400 of the £1,000 loan had been repaid. It is the case, therefore, that had the Party been able to raise the whole of the money by donations it would now have in its General Fund (unless spent on other activities) the £500 absorbed in buying premises plus the £400 it has found to repay part of the loan. The fact that the Party has little balance in its funds is not necessarily due to the Party's income falling (though this could be true for other reasons) or because income has been sucked up by expenses on premises, but because the Party has invested its funds. If this is the case, it is not so depressing. The ability in the first year to repay a substantial part of the £1,000 loan indicates a healthy financial situation and could mean that within little more than a year the who!e of the loan might be paid off and the income become available for other Party activities. Having in mind the bad state of repair of No. 52 when we first took over, it is obvious that in the first year at the new premises considerable money must have been spent on decorations and structural alterations. If the money for this was found from income, there seems little cause for pessimism about the " financial state of the Party ". This sort of expenditure is likely to be heavy in the first year anyway.
Is No. 52 more than the Party can afford? If we could find something cheaper, would it give us the facilities that we needs?
It is said that our premises cost £10 weekly to run, and it might well be the case, The rather vague statement which was before the Autumn Delegate Meeting certainly indicated a cost something like this. Though, of course, against this, an income from social and other activities must be taken into account in any assessment of the cost of the premises. Is the cost high or, like so many other things these days, is it that it merely seems to be high? On reflection, it seems that the latter is the case. If the Party had its pre-war premises today at a rent which allowed for the post-war
increase in prices, there seems little doubt that the cost of running them would be as much, if not more than our present premises, and our pre-war accommodation was much less adequate than what we have to-day. Also, had we remained at Rugby Chambers on the revised terms dictated by the landlords, it is reasonably certain that the comparable costs there would have been no less than they are in our present circumstances. If we cannot afford our present premises, then obviously we cannot afford the modest sort of accommodation we had before the war and before we went to Clapham. It would take a lot to convince the Party that this is the case, in view of the larger membership (and full employment). Before A.P.'s suggestion that we should rent a basement as an office is acted upon, Party members would have a full and clear statement of the finances of the Party. The position at the moment is obscure, and whilst this is so, Party members cannot be blamed for the opinion (sincerely held by some) that donations to the Party which are given for Party work are sucked up by the expenses on premises we cannot afford. If opinions like this exist, then it must adversely affect contributions to funds, and something should be done to correct them if they are false. If they are not false, then the Party should know where it stands so that appropriate action be taken.
What seems certain is that the overwhelming majority of the membership like and want the sort of facilities offered by the present, (or similar) premises and would make efforts to retain them. When a clear statement of the financial position is before the Party it may reveal that our present difficulties are due to more than one cause. It may be that there is a combination of causes, perhaps S.W. London is right in its ease that whilst costs to the Party have increased, Party members get their membership on the cheap in relation to present-day prices.
Is it possible for those responsible to produce a detailed report for the next Conference in a form which does not assume that we are all professional accountants? Better still, perhaps a statement could appear in FORUM before the next Conference.
N.E.
3.6 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
2 Historical Materialism
(Continued)
THE core of Socialist theory is a unified concept of history, society and man, centred around the recognition that the spring of history is the peculiar dynamic character of human production, which begets needs in the course of satisfying needs—of the social labour which is not simply reproductive but cumulative, not simply self-perpetuating but self-changing.
When men learn to produce com they also produce the need for store-houses and vessels, the need also for sentinels against rodents and robbers, for wise men to tell the time of sowing and reaping, for tithe and tribute, for exchange and property and class, all held together with the thongs of mind called habit, necessity, right and wrong, and all—seed or sentinel or sentiment—active elements in the organisation of the labour process. Historical materialism is the recognition that history is the evolution, and society the organisation of human labour, and that mind and society are not separate things related, but inner and outer sides of the same reality: social labour.
3.6.1 A False Separation
Because a philosophy of history is the core of Socialist theory, differences between us are rroted in different interpretations of historical materialism, and these differences are actually invited by our having taken over, ready-made an inadequate statement of it from Marx and Engels. I refer to the Manifesto (" In every historical epoch the mode of economic production and exchange form the base . . '.") and to Engels' letters explaining what they meant by adding that ideas react upon the base), and I am here criticising the form of expression, while recognising the historical and practical factors which conditioned that form. Historical materialism is fully expressed by Marx, but nowhere is it fully expressed in a single comprehensive statement, and nowhere does he explicitly define " mode of production ". As a political party, popularising Socialist theory, we have naturally taken the Manifesto statement; and the analogies of base, superstructure and reflections, of action and reaction, have become second nature by familiarity, with the result that the metaphorical tends to become literal truth, and any amplification suspected of revisionism".
What we still have to bear in mind is that Marx did not demolish the dualism of Hegel by inverting it, he only perpetuated it right side up. And it is dualism, the false separation (of ideas and action, mind and matter etc.) which underwrites idealism. The fallacy of idealism is not its order of precedence, but its false separation of things distinguished. The answer to the "supremacy of mind over matter " is not its inversion to the supremacy matter over mind, which merely perpetuates the separation, but the mental reintegration of the things mentally separated, the recognition that the separation is merely classificatory.
3.6.2 Progressive Man
Of necessity we distinguish between men and society, production and administration, institutions and outlook, thought and action, subject and object-—mental (verbal) separations valid for their purposes, but all finally deceiving unless finally integrated in the single phenomenon of human social labour. Within its limits it is commonsense enough to say that man's being determines his consciousness and then to add that consciousness reacts on being. but because, in form, this still implies the separation, upright or inverted, it still permits idealism to creep back with its " Ah, but it is this reaction which constitutes the dynamic, it is ideas, purposes, which make the activity what it is ". And there you have the irresolvable shuttlecock argument: "Yes, but the ideas are determined by the activities which give rise to them "—" Ah, but those activities were themselves purposive "—" Yes, but those purposes were activity-created ". This is indeed the true dialectic!
Thinking accompanies the effort, is part of the effort, to achieve the purpose, the need, already given by a given situation, and the achievement of the aim (or the failure—in any case the activity) creates a new situation, that is, new needs, new activity, new needs . . . Cut this -much man shares with animals: it does not account for history. The cycle of need, activity, changed need, changed activity is common to the world of living things. Nor does purposiveness, consciousness, begin with man—it is shared by other animals in varying degrees. The history-creating character of the human mode of existence lies in the fact that men create and accumulate means of production. With other animals, the cycle of need, activity, changed need, changed activity, is circular; the cire'es may be big or small, but in the'end—repetitive. With man the process is not circular but progressive, for the continuous accumulation of means continuously creates unprecedented situations, containing unprecedented needs and purposes.
3.6.3 Organic Unity
"Ah, but it is the peculiarly sharp focus of human consciousness, the special conceptual quality of human thinking, which makes possible the creation of means. Capacity to think is still the history-creating dynamic". Good enough. But don't let us confuse capacity to think with ideas! Ideas are not created by capacity to think, they are compelled by needs commanded by situations created by activities determined by situations. It is because men's mode of existence creates means of production that production produces history, and that men's conduct and men's ideas are the product of their products. The analogy we take over from Marx, which, in inverting Hegel, still opposes base and superstructure (production and institutions), does not err in the mere fact of distinguishing between them, but it conspires at error. For in distinguishing between things intimately connected (labour activity and social relations) we are led into describing the intimacy of the connection as a causal relationship, thus converting distinction into separation and obscuring the organic unity of production, institutions and outlook.
3.6.4 Continuity of History
Under Capitalism, a tractor crawling over a field is obviously different from a religious tract or the law of contract. Yet the wheels of capitalist machinery could not turn without the sanctions and certainties provided by the law, nor without the prevailing sentiments of men, the general and predictable patterns of men's minds which, because they organise behaviour into regular and self-regulating forms, ensure the continuity of the productive processes, and are thus themselves a productive force.
Under Feudalism, the institutions of Church and State are distinguishable both from the productive operations of peasants and gildsmea and from the ideals carried in their heads. Yet Pope and peasant are only terminal points in a series of social productive relationships between serf and baron, revolving round fief and tribute, and requiring for their daily perpetuation a continuum of sentiments—chivalry, submissive-ness, ordained status.
In primitive communities, labour is permeated by ritual, and ritual is embodied belief. Their religion is magic, and magic is the art science of production. With a digging , a dozen tribesmen stand in a circle, a circles in a row; they raise their sticks, pluge, turn the soil between them, prance forward, raise, plunge; they sing and whoop, with chant and tom-tom to guide the economical rhythm of their actions, they lift up their knees as they prance, to make the crops grow tall. What is this song and dance but art, science, magic, religion—and production? Countless ages pass by before the productive operations, the social institutions and the sentiments of men appear to have separate locus and separable existence, yet however far the differentiation is carried in the course of history they retain their organic integrity—in social labour—as the spokes of a wheel, however long, are only extensions of the hub. The unity of history is contained in the fact that its substance is labour. The continuity of history is contained in the fact that the mode of projection contains within itself the necessity of its own development, by accumulation of means.
3.6.5 Labour Produces Needs
When Marx says ("German Ideology") that "the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy human needs " (my italics) and that " this historical act is the fundamental condition of all history ", he clearly does not mean by " first" any such nonsense as that production precedes social organisation or that i en must eat before they can think. " First " here is not a chronological category, but is used to announce the essential and paramount quality of history—labour. For he goes on to show that labour produces not merely products, but new needs. " And it is this production of new needs which is the first historical act".
It is because human labour processively generates new means that it progressively modifies the labour process, produces new needs, new purposes, new habits, new men. History runs because human labour is continually trying to catch up with its own feet. Human labour creates history because the wheel of production is eccentric, its centre of gravity continuously shifting between the " factors " distinguished by Marx (as a necessity of analysis)—continuously shifting from "means" to " process ", from " relations between men and nature" (biological) to " relations between men" (social), from "means provided by nature " (geographical) to " instruments produced by men" (technical). The biological " factor" dominates primordial labour; geography dominates savage labour; the social relations of kinship and custom dominate barbarian labour, and occupational siatus dominates feudal labour (" Undermining ", as Engels says, in The Family, " the communism of production and consumpion") ; the instruments of production dominate capitalist labour.
3.6.6 Evolution and Production
This concept of history is a product of capitalist production; in the flesh and blood we salute Marx and Engels. The salute is a little formal if we put Marx before Marxism. Marx was compelled more than once to do less than justice to himself, and Engels did less than justice to both of them when he tried to rescue Marxism from the awkward analogy of " base and superstructure " by means of " action and reaction " in which " cause and effect perpetually change place".
The deficiencies of form were historically conditioned, by the need to grapple with Feudal idealism and by the mechanical idiom of water-clocks and puffing-billies. In an age of biology our only plea for perpetuating them is laziriess. Analogies must be recognised for what they are: devices for explaining the less concrete or familiar in terms of the more concrete of familiar: stepping stones, not shrines —and language for what it is: a good servant and a bad master. Whether we use buildings or biology to explain it, it remains that society is organisation of men's labour. It remains that the " parts " and " factors ", means and process and institutions and sentiments, are active and operative elements in the associated labour which is men's mode of existence. It remains that nowhere does Marx explicitly define " mode of prodution " because with him it is implicitly society itself.
Society " begins " in proportion as men organise their labour force, and emerges imperceptibly from the primordial condition of mere association, consanguine and instinctive. History " begins " with the act of production, because human production produces means. Society evolves, has momentum, because accretion of means shifts the centre of gravity, In our time, capital is the centre of gravity, the growing point of history, supercharged with the dynamic of accumulation. And the Labour Theory of Value is only a special case of the Labour Theory of History, for with Marx surplus value is not simply the tally ©f exploitation but the spring of capital's continual transformations (from "quantity into quality") by which it is compelled to generate the socialist mode of production. (To be continued.)
F. Evans.
3.7 YOU CAN'T BUY SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA
IT is well known that the capitalist class buy propaganda. They pay journalists to write, they own the means of distribution, and pay speakers and lecturers. The hiring of a hall for a meeting and large-scale advertising are also easily done by a political party with good financial resources.
No Socialist Party can hope to be in this position; a larger membership would not necessarily ease matters, as there would be lore meetings required to cover the wider irea of an increased number of branches.
Some members tend to judge our activity by the amount of money the Party spends each year. They assume that the more the Party spends on propaganda the more actual propaganda is done. This is not necessarily the case.
When the Party is in financial difficulties, as at the present time, if anyone suggests cuts in expenditure, many members immediately assume that we will have to make cuts in our propaganda, To avoid this, there is a constant beggin by the Treasurer and the E.C. for nore funds.
It is time the Party recognised the fact that you can't buy socialist propaganda. What is needed is more work put in by the membership. Donating money is all very well, but it can easily be spent on all kinds of schemes which, but for members' lack of activity, would not be required.
There are good forms of socialist propaganda which do not cost a penny—but they do require work, and it is the desire to work for Socialism that is lacking in the Party. It is well known that the membership of the S.P.G.B. is to a considerable extent a paper membership. How to end this and how to put an end to the idea that more money will increase our propaganda is something the Party should consider.
THE SALE OF THE S.S. is a useful form of socialist propaganda. The sales of the official journal of the Party are deplorable. I doubt whether any political organisation in this country has such a low circulation of its official journal relative to its membership.
Why not try a method to increase sales used by some other organisations?
(1)Each branch should be set a target to aim at in its monthly sales of the S.S.
(2)Monthly sales by each branch should be published in FORUM.
(3)Branches who greatly exceed their target should receive special praise, and the branch with the lowest sales in relation to its membership should be named.
I feel certain that this would increase the sales of the S.S No branch would wish to be in the unenviable position of being bottom of the table. A competition between branches would result and more members be brought into activity.
Comrades, get rid of this idea that you can buy socialist propaganda—you have to work for it. Let us try cheaper methods of propaganda and put an end to these begging letters for money.
D. W. Lock
(Lewisham Branch)

3.8 WHAT CAUSES SOCIETY TO DEVELOP?
An abridged report of the discussion at the Head Office Forum on November 8th Panel: W. Read, J. Trotman, A. Turner, E. Wilmott
Turner: Why wasn't Socialism possible 500 years ago ? Some argue that it was because there were not the means of production present to make it possible.
I am concerned with Marx's statement: " a social system never perishes before all the productive forces have developed for which it is wide enough." What was in Marx's mind is not so clear in others—there has come to be a separation between the mode of production and ideas. These are one and the same; ideas are made objective in the means of production. Machines in themselves contain no spur to further development.
The concrete expression of what makes man develop is that he is a tool-making animal— he has to think first. Organic evolution reached its peak with the development of the human brain and conceptual thinking. The dynamic is not in the tools of production, but in rational thinking, that is, being faithful to a correct idea. There are two ways of breaking down barriers to this: contact with ideas, and machines. The object is to bring man into harmony with his environment. "' The 'phrase : means of production are the key to development ' implies a mechanical attitude.
Trotman: According to Turner, then, men's ideas are the social prime mover.
Read: But other animals besides man are capable of using tools. If so, we can imagine some form of organisation and use of implements for accomplishment of ends. Turner infers a rational faculty in man which other animals don't have.
In fact, man often made mistakes—he found the end in view never came out the way he thought; The act, experience, is part of thought, as shown by the ability to memorise past events. The fact is that different group organisations have different ideologies and thought processes. The general ideas of primitive communism would have been incongruous in any other form of society.
How does transition take place? The socialist argues that the techniques of production develop until the social relations can no longer contain them. Then the idea of change arises —and some section of society acts to change the social relations.
The basis of Marxism is that in different epochs different laws are at work. The laws of Capitalism are the accumulation of capital in fewer hands, competition, and individual property.
3.8.1 Economic Basis
Turner: When does the technique of Capitalism develop to the point when Socialism is possible?
Read: So long as there is the possibility of further accumulation of capital and demand for labour, then Socialism is not a practical possibility. It only becomes so when the accumulation of capital cannot be satisfied by any further development of Capitalism—when crises become perpetual and concentration on means of destruction becomes general.
Wilmott:. What is meant by the material conditions of history? We are seeking a universal key and Turner's simplified statement is not satisfactory. Does he accept the economic basis of society and what does he mean by it?
Turner: It is the relation that people stand to other, people about the means of production. Wilmott: I don't agree. That tells us nothing about the means of production. Do you include ideas in the economic basis, and do you distinguish between the two?
Turner: The economic basis is more than just the mode of prodution—it includes the productive relations.
Wilmott: The economic basis, then, is that which something else rests upon. I say this basis does not equal the productive relations.
Turner: Read says it is the techniques of production and certain adverse conditions. But what makes these techniques develop?
Read: Certain sections of society find themselves in adverse conditions, which they try to improve, whilst others try to reverse the course of history. Since different epochs have different laws, the answer depends on the sort of society.
Wilmott: Does Turner consider that the techniques of production are part of the social factors at work?
Turner: Yes. When you speak of the techniques, you postulate the existence of human society. Between techniques and ideas there is an obvious mental difference. Technique is the outcome of ideas, and ideas come out of conditions. In the process of classification you separate them, but unfortunately some see ideas as the reflection of the mode of production. But a reflection never changes. The techniques of production have never stopped changing, though the mode has remained the same.
3.8.2 Rationality
Wilmott: What does Turner mean by rationality? Surely, conditions largely determine the nature of ideas. Marx rejected the theory of pure interaction—he was out to find the underlying principle. Can Turner explain why the rationality of one age becomes the irrationality of another?
Society is not dependent on rationality as its driving force. Why do men act concretely? We are not concerned with some shadowy cause and effect. The wide term ' rationality' does not help us. To say (as Turner does) that all thinking is rational, presupposes irrationality.
The techniques of production played a powerful part in the 19th century until the conditions of the working class were insufficient basis for large-scale production. The techniques played a temporary part, but they changed the character of ideas.
Turner: Why is Wilmott concerned with saying that techniques determine ideas? Also, from what Read said earlier, I imagine he had collapse of Capitalism in mind. Your ideas are catacylismic.
Read: All the thinking of Aristotle could never have arrived at the idea of Value. What, then was the bar to his rationality? It was because free labour didn't exist, therefore the idea of value couldn't have arisen. If rationality is consequential, it would seem that all man's activities could be thought out beforehand.
You can't leave out of account the use of certain tools dependent on the form of society and which must have the sanction of custom. The tools are only modified when there are adverse conditions (which may be social, or some calamity like war). Then there is the necessity of reorganising. People don't think out of the ideas that prevail – it is not a question of rationality.
Turner: So is it a custom that holds ideas static? But there is a struggle between the ideas of custom and those that eschew custom. Both have come out of the conditions of both sections who hold them. One set sees a new re-shaping of ideas that the others haven't seen. It is ideas that precede action.
Wilmott: The motive power behind men's ideas is men's needs and material interests. Ideas don't come from the blue. What makes certain ideas accepted, and what are the other components of ideas?
3.8.3 What is the dynamic
Turner: The motive power can't be in men's needs, because the motive is true of all organisms. But only man has made an artificial world. If you want to trace the dynamic of man's evolution, you must remember that man hasn't anatomically changed. There is a real world, there are real factors-- but ideas brought in relations, conditions, and acts.
Men think rationally or logically from the knowledge they possess. It is a mistake to think that because people may come to wrong conclusions, they are irrational or illogical. The correct ideas are those that have changed the world – the others bring people at variance with it. The only object of thinking is to place men in correspondence with conditions.
Socialism wasn't possible 500 years ago because man could never have had the idea of universality. The whole development of ideas came out of conditions-- but there are still inadequate actions. The development of man in society is approaching universality.
Wilmott: The problem is not an intellectual one. It is: how are men going to live? That is the dynamic. Material conditions stamp ideas and give them their character. You cannot explain ideas in terms of other ideas.
Trotman: The materialist doesn't discount ideas, though to put them first is an over-simplification. Turner says the means of production are concretised ideas, but it is not merely that. All sorts of things are concretised in them.
He says the dynamic is the ability of man to form concepts. But equally if man had no head or hands, society would never have developed. Why pick out the ability to form concepts? The ability of society to expand and develop depends on all biological factors not on any one. It is not true that thinking is immediately prior to acting. To say so, doesn't tell us anything. Why do we think? The ability to form concepts doesn't explain this – it is a constant. You must explain social development in some other way. Society is, in fact, an organisation for production. The idea of universality is only half the picture. With a shrinking of the world, it makes Socialism a practical possiblity. But remember that the idea of a round world wasn't accepted until there was need for a new trade route.
Turner: True, but there could not have been the need until some people had the idea. It was the idea of a round world that gave rise to the need.
Read: But there was knowledge of a round world in the Ptolemaic system and by the ancient Greeks. The reason people went round the world was that there developed in Europe the need for spices, etc., only obtainable from the East. Only then was the necessary action taken—when the need had already developed Turner: It wasn't just the idea of a round world that led to development, but the concretising of other ideas coming out of conditions. If ideas and action are not in conformity they bring about a contradiction; it is not a question of ideas in themselves.
To Trotman—man has always had hands, but he hasn't always had the same society. As ideas came in, he changed his world; as he develops, he throws over prejudices. But still there is a margin or error, still his ideas are not in conformity with the real world. Wilmott: Why are these ideas not in conformity with the real world?
Turner: Because the actions based upon them come into conflict with the real world.
Wilmott: So the real world is distinct from ideas – what, then, is it?
Turner: In the totality of the world including man. Advancement has been where ideas were in line with the real world. One barrier was that some people thought others were biologically inferior.
Wilmott: In slave America is was thought that the Negro was inferior – that was the 'real world'. How did rationality affect that?
Turner: Nobody says that the world is rational. People are rational. The world exists whether people think rightly or wrongly about it. The reason for Socialism not being possible earlier wasn't that the means of production weren't in plenty – it was that people's ideas were not in conformity with it.
3.9 NEWSPOINTS
3.9.1 Prices 1% Ahead of Wages
Retail food prices went up 6 per cent, between January and September, non-food retail prices remained stationary, but wholesale prices for basic (non-food) materials went down 15 per cent. Taken to together retail prices went up 3 per cent.
Between January and August and wage rates went up 2 per cent.
Between September last year and September this year unemployment in the metal, engineering, and vehicles trades increased from 29,000 to 52,000; in textiles and clothing from 17,000 to 76,000, having stood at 158,000 in June; in other manufactures from 26,000 to 49,000, the June figure having been 54,000; and in all other industries and services from 145,000 to 213,000.
Times, 31/10/52.
3.9.2 But This Profit 100% Up
Sir John Reeves Eilerman the Second is Britain's richest man. He is also the shyest of millionaires.
Equally shy is the £36,000,000 Ellerman Lines from which all Sir John's riches stem. For Ellermans does not send its annual report generally to the Press. Yet it is a fabulous document, showing profits last year more than doubled at £5,113,000, a jump of £2,605,000. The cream of the Korea boom for the line's 90 ships.
Daily Express, 11/11/52.
3.9.3 Too Much
The surpluses of wheat, cattle, fruit, and dairy products have faced the Canadian Government with a rare problem in the post-war world—the problem of too much food.
Unexpectedly heavy harvests and increased cattle, milk and cheese production has left Canada with surplus food for which, at present, there are no buyers. So extensive is the over-production that nearly every agricultural area in Canada is affected.
In the past, such surpluses have been reduced sending food abroad as a free gift with Candian Government footing the bill, or by extensive foreign credits to enable would-be customers to buy Canadian food products. Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. St. Laurent, said recently, that he does not intend to resort to either methods to meet the present crisis.
Coventry Evening Telegraph, 2/10/52.
3.9.4 And Too Long
Britain's 35,000 cobblers are worried by a new rubberised plastic sole material, shown yesterday at the Earls Court Shoe and Leather Fair.
The new plastic, highly popular in the U.S., is likely to have a serious effect on the leather market for shoes. It is said to last twice as long as leather, but manufacturers have found it sometimes lasts ten times as long.
Daily Mail, 18/11/52.
3.9.5 American Visa Policy
Professor Einstein writes, in part: "The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. In my opinion there can be no doubt that the intervention of the political authorities in this country in the free exchange of knowledge between individuals has already had a significantly damaging effect. Interference with the freedom of the oral and written communication of scientific results, the widespread attitude of political distrust which is supported by an immense police organization, the timidity and anxiety of individuals to avoid everything which might cause suspicion and could threaten their economic positions—all these are symptoms, even though they reveal more clearly the threatening character of the illness.
3.9.6 "Japanese " Safety Force "
Japanese progress towards rearmament took another step forward when the 110,000 strong National Police Reserve became the " National Safety Force" under a recently enacted law and Mr. Yoshida, the Prime Minister, took the salute at a public parade of 3,500 troops who later marched through the streets of Tokyo.
The National Safety Force, which wears American-style uniforms and is trained by an American military mission, has more than 650 officers of field rank who were formerly officers in the Imperial Japanese Army, and many of its men—all volunteers—were formerly conscripts in the Japanese Army. The force has all infantry weapons, as well as field artillery and light tanks. The latter have been lent indefinitely by the American Army.
Mr. Yoshida, addressing the parade, said that the National Safety Force was not an army, but a force with the power to maintain peace and order in Japan. It would be used under public control to repel outside attack and to suppress civil strife.
Times, 16/10/52.
3.9.7 Output Cuts Urged
"To prevent a further drop in prices," the Federation of Cotton and Staple Fibre Dealers Association declares, " die Ministry of Trade should reduce the present output limit of 165,000 bales of cotton yarn a month to 145,000 bales in November and December."
Financial Times, 21/10/52.
3.9.8 Theory and Practice
" It is our great good fortune that our Party, our people, who are building communism, are being continuously enriched and equipped with the masterly theoretical works of great Stalin (tumultuous and prolonged applause).
"In Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Comrade Stalin has raised and solved the fundamental questions of the character of economic laws under socialism, of commodity production under socialism, of the law of value under socialism, of the measures for elevating collective farm property to the level of public property, of the basic economic laws of modern captialism and socialism, of the three basic preliminary conditions for the transition from socialism to communism, of the elimination of the essential distinctions between town and country, between mental labour and physical labour, of the disintegration of the single world market and the deepening of the crisis of the world capitalist system, of the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries." L. M. Kaganavich,
at the Communist Party Congress, 13/10/52. Soviet News, 15/11/52.
But starry-eyed comrades who think that Russia has abolished class distinctions had better not book on the passenger-cargo liner Tobolsk. She carries eighty passengers in the FIRST CLASS and 266 in the THIRD CLASS.
The same class distinction operates among the Tobolsk's crew. Like the first-class passengers the officers usually have two-berth cabins with private showers. All furnishings are in decorative hardwoods.
Third-class comrades and the crew are less comfortable. They have metal berths, and some third-class passengers travel twelve to a cabin.
Daily Mirror, 22/11/52.

5. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
FEBRUARY 1953

5.1 From America
THE BALLOT v. COMRADE CANTER
In a lengthy letter , published in FORUM, October and November, 1952, Comrade Cantor presents his thesis, an answer (as he calls it) to a " group of Boston comrades " who have elevated to a principle question whether or not socialism will come about through the ballot” As a member of the " group of the Boston comrades " in question, I have news for Comrade Cantor. The position on the Ballot as set forth in the original Open Letter was not discovered nor "elevated to a principle question" by a group in Boston. What Comrade Canter refuses to recognise, despite all our literature on the subject is the fact that this is and has been the position of the Companion Parties since the S.P.G.B. was first organised. Despite length of the comrade's " reply ", he did not find occasion to mention even once the fact that the position of the 1951 Conference, which helped to draw up and which he defended so nobly in his treatise, was defeated in the subsequent Party Referendum, even if by a fairly close margin. True it is that due to past laxity in membership requirements and/or laxity in a study of Party literature, there is a minority in the W.S.P. who do not accept the Party position on the socialist revolution. This is bad enough,and in the opinion of this writer should not be toleratedBut when a member who rejects our position on such a vital principle, attempts to square his unsound views with those of the Party— attempts to make his views those of the party and brush off the original Party stand as the views of a small " group of Boston Comrades”—that is still worse. The arguments of Comrade Canter have, of course all been presented to us before by representatives of most of the radical organisations in this country and they have all been answered by our speakers and writers. It seems though that we must go into it once again and so we request space in FORUM necessary to cover the subject. We shall try to be brief and to the point.
5.1.1 Premises upon which we base our case.
Is the “line of demarcation between socialists and non-socialists . . . the belief or non-belief in the ultimate efficacy of the ballot?" In a sense, yes. although this is putting it rather crudely. The only reason the socialist must take the position that socialism will be brought about by the ballot and by no other way is that the only other conceivable alternatives that have been offered involve means which, when analysed, fall too short of fulfilling the objective. Let us begin from the following premises:
(1)the revolution requires a majority of class-conscious socialists in society ;
(2)this majority must take organised steps to achieve its aim ;
(3) the first of such steps must be to wrest control of the capitalist state from the capitalist class.
Flowing from these simple premises we have some equally simple reasoning:
(3)the most logical way that a majority can make sure it is a majority and know just what it agrees upon is through elections.
(4)We cannot conceive of any organised manner in which a majority can act in its own interests other than through a political party which places its candidates in the field in open opposition to all other parties.
(5)If the object is the wresting of control of the State from the capitalists, then obviously this can only be accomplished by gaining a majority in the organ or organs of State power such as will exist at the time, not by creating " its own " bodies or conventions and attempting to arrange " its own " elections.
Simple as this reasoning is, however, it seems to be incomprehensible to Comrade Canter and those who agree with him.
5.1.2 The " reasoning " of Comrade Canter
Running through the comrade's statement' we find the following main arguments:
1. The advocacy of the ballot is all very fine, we all advocate it, but we must leave loopholes for other means because the ballot may be taken away from us;
2. the capitalists will never allow us to become a ballot majority;
3. history has taught us that the capitalists will use violent means to keep us from becoming a majority ; and
4. anyway, the whole idea is worthless because the American political system (unlike the British!) prevents the overthrow of the American capitalist class because of its involved systems of "checks and balances" and because the socialists, even if elected would not be permitted to take their seats.
All this, mind you, from a man who, with tongue in cheek, claims to advocate the Ballot, even if not as the only way.
5.1.3 Similarity between Canter and S.W.P. (Trotzkyite) position
Be this as it may, we should like to point out that Comrade Canter's arguments re the desirability but improbability of revolution at the polls and his analysis of the American political system are not original. He may or may not be aware of the fact that Mr. Albert Goldman, a Trotzkyite defendant at the Socialist Workers Party " treason" trial in Minneapolis in 1941, used the same arguments. Comrade Cantor states:
" There is no specific virtue in the use of violence, nothing to commend it as a way to socialism. But history has taught that the violence always arises from the other side, from the side in power, and that the workers are forced to defend themselves physically." (Forum, Oct./52.) Comrade Goldman states:
" The question, however, is not whether it is desirable, but whether it is possible . . . History knows no example of the peaceful surrender of an exploiting minority to an oppressed majority. The actual conduct of the capitalist class at the present time, the violence which it uses against the workers when they strike for an improvement in their conditions, confirm the historical lesson, and justify the prediction that they, who will lose their wealth and power will utilise all forms of violence against the overwhelming majority." (In Defence of Socialism, Pioneer Publishers, p.41, 42.)
Again in FORUM for November, 1952, Comrade Canter points out the difficulties of overcoming the U.S. Constitution. He shows us that it " takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to offer an amendment and under the system of proportion described above, this might mean a representation of 75 or 80% of the population ", etc.
Mr. Goldman points out:
" The form of government in the United States practically guarantees the ruling class its domination against the will of the majority of the people. To introduce socialism by law would require an amendment to the Constitution and for that, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and a majority in three-fourths of the State legislatures are required, etc." (In Defence of Socialism, p.42.)
So far, there is not much difference, if any, in the presentations. But it turns out that there is a difference, and in Mr. Goldman's favour at that. He goes on to say:
" If there is any one thing that will prevent the capitalists from using violence, it will be the strong organisations of the working class. The greater the strength of the working class organisations, the less violence will there be. ibid, p.42.)
Were Mr. Goldman to have emphasised that these working-class organisations must be socialist to be really effective in preventing the use of violence, he would just about have the
W.S.P. position.
5.1.4 Revolutionary Majority Will Not Be Constitutionalists
The reasoning by Comrade Canter and Mr. Goldman, however, re the obstacles that the US. system of government places in the path of a revolutionary working class is, of course, baseless. Let us point out that the capitalist class have never allowed constitutional bottlenecks nor respect for their hoary document to stymie them when quick decisions were necessary. The U.S., for example, entered the war in Korea without so much as a consultation of Congress, but if such a step were taken, the comrade can rest assured that the troops would have been despatched with as little loss of time.
Does Comrade Canter actually believe that we think a revolutionary working class will have any more respect for the capitalist's Constitution than they have themselves? No, a victorious working class is not going to wait four years or two years or even two days to take over. This will be a revolution brought about by workers who have voted for socialism —not by abstaining from the vote or by picketing the capitalist class, as Comrade Canter would have it, or by voting with their feet, as the Leninists delight in putting it. Socialists use their heads, not their feet, when it comes to a serious thing like the franchise. They will never permit such a thing as a Constitution,
a Senate, or a Supreme Court to stand in their way. These " checks" will simply not be recognised.
Will elected socialists be denied their seats by the capitalist politicians ? We think this may very well happen in the early stages. Like true love, the course of socialist revolution does not run smooth. With such an obstacle confronting it, the issue could very well be forced in the same manner in which the Victor Berger case was forced. The fact that Berger was not a socialist is beside the point. He was still openly in opposition to their war and was seated despite their opposition. Unfortunately, such trials will have to be met with as they arise. Were Comrade Canter to offer any new and constructive method of speeding up the process, we should be very happy to consider it.
5.1.5 Do We Dictate to History ?
According to our critic, we, the authors of the Open Letter, are attempting to dictate to history. Even if, as he puts it, the revolution were to take place in some other way than the ballot, we would declare that it was not according to Hoyle and would have to be made all over again by the ballot. This sort of argument is pure poppy-cock. Were we to point out to the comrade that he would reject a revolution as non-socialist unless the gutters were to run with blood and thousands, nay millions, of erstwhile capitalists were to hang by their unmentionables from lamp-posts he would become indignant, or would he? We deny that we are dictating to history when we say that socialism will come about through the ballot and through no other means that our mid-twentieth century skulls can envisage. For it is incomparably easier for a majority of socialists in society to gain control of the State by means of elections than it would be to use any other conceivable means. Can we expect workers to pit their strength, unarmed, and win, against the armed might of the modern state ?
Can we expect even a vast majority to gain control of the capitalist state by means of a general strike? Even though the majority of the strikers might be socialists, they would starve just as fast as the non-socialist strikers and a whole lot faster than the capitalists. Does it make sense in a highly industrialised countn like the U.S.A. to expect workers to organise Soviets or workers' councils, to ignore the centralised political machine and build one nl their own? Only to the Canter type of reasoning would such a thing be easier or ever. possible. But this is not reasoning, this is madness. In short, we say that a class-conscious majority must use the ballot simply because there is no other possible means they can use.
5.1.6 Could Ballot Rights Be Suddenly Withdrawn ?
Can it be conceivable to socialists that the capitalists can suddenly take away the ballot or otherwise make it impossible for the socialists to win an election; that they can do all this or that they would attempt to do all this against a mass of public opinion? Is it not more likely that they will attempt to fight a growth of socialist opinion by selling their system even more vigorously than they are to-day ? The crushing of working class movements has always been made simple, because the majority of the workers could be propagandised into the " proper " frame of mind.
Regardless of this point, however, just what does Comrade Canter think a socialist minority or even a socialist majority could do about it if such a miracle could transpire? If a minority were powerful enough to prevent even a majority from voting, doesn't it seem likely that they would be powerful enough to prevent the majority from getting rid of them in any other way? And conversely, if he thinks the socialist majority in such a case could force the capitalists out through some other means than by the ballot, then why would they be so powerless that they could not do the same tiling by the ballot?
The point is that a socialist majority cannot be deprived of the ballot. Nor can a majority of non-socialists who insist on having the ballot. The case in a nutshell is simply this: Comrade Canter represents a type of thinking that is in direct contradiction to that of the Party. That this is so is bad enough; what is worse, however, is that he refuses to recognise this fact.
H. Morrison.
5.2 PRODUCTION FOR USE—or Mass Production?
What is Mass Production? It is that method of production where society is split up into more or less exclusive occupational groups and the work each group performs is broken down into its simplest process and each person becomes a detail worker.
To give an example—where most families made their own bread, there was still division of labour. But this simple division of labour is not mass production. Mass production methods are bread-making are only possible when the vast majority of families, including the mothers and daughters no longer bake bread.
Prior to mass production, thousands of mothers and daughters were making tens of thousands of loaves of bread, in fact plenty of bread—but it was not mass production of bread. Once the mothers and daughters were taken into factories, offices, etc., other methods were required to produce the tens of thousands of loaves. A relatively few professional bakers and assistants were necessary.
In order that these relatively few people can turn out the bread formerly made by thousands of people, vast masses of machinery have to be made, machinery enabling the process of bread-making to be split up into its simplest operations and the labourers divided, classified and grouped according to these functions. These methods demand the centralising of the activity, such as is to be seen at Lyons' Cadby Hall, ' Hovis ", and " Wonderloaf " model bakeries.
Mass production methods demand a hierarchy of labour, from the labourer at the working-tool to the organising manager. It must be remembered that this splitting of the functions demands speed and authority in production and transportation.
5.2.1 Division of Labour
Comrade Parker, in his article " Will there be Mass Production?", writes, "division of labour is only harmful when excessive ". When he says this, he has granted me my whole case.
What are mass production methods but excessive division of labour?
Parker then says: " Further, however, it is argued that mass production necessarily involves pace-making, is exclusive to capitalism, and is inseparable from large towns. These are more controversial statements with which I for one, disagree."
Seeing that Marx has been quoted, may I be permitted some references?
" The foundation of every division of labour that is well-developed, and brought about by the exchange of commodities, is the separation between town and country." (K. Marx, Capital Vol. 1, p.345, Sonnenschein Edition.)
In case members doubt the wisdom of stating that the future will be regarding the manner and methods of production within Socialist society—that it is not "scientific" but merely utopian:
" The abolition of the separation between town and country is no Utopia, it is an essential condition of the proportionate distribution of the greater industry throughout the country. Civilisation has left us a number of large cities, as an inheritance, which it will take much time and trouble to abolish. But they must and will be done away with, however much time, and trouble it may take." (F. Engels, " Landmarks of Scientific Socialism, p.244, Kerr Edition.)
" In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labour and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour has vanished, after labour has become not merely a means to live but has become itself the primary necessity of life, after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flows more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banner from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." (" Critique of the Gotha Programme." K. Marx Selected Works, p.566, Vol. II.)
Whilst quoting Marx and Engels, I am prepared to agree that supporters of mass production may find other quotations that might appear to bear a different interpretation. This shows the futility of relying on any one person m expecting to find the 100% correct position in any one book. But what it does show is the childishness of the accusation that it is Utopian if one states that under socialism the excessive fivision of labour will not exist, and that town and country will be abolished.
I sincerely hope that, now it is shown that the "masters" of scientific socialism advocated all these things, members will not dismiss the arguments by merely labelling them utopian. Of course, I am fully aware that "because Marx and Engels advocated these propositions” it does not make them correct.
5.2.2 Production for Use
In his article, Parker says: " There seems no reason why it should not be possible in a society in which people control their own conditions of work, for a machine to relieve arduous toil and yet not entail boredom." It would appear from this, that he thinks that machinery and mass production are the same thing and, consequently, thinks that members who state that there will be no mass production methods under socialism are saying that all machinery will be abolished. This, of course, is nonsense.
In closing, he says, " but don't expect society to abandon social production of most chairs and tables." Here, again, it would appear that he equates social production with mass production—presumably there was no " social production" until mass production methods were employed!
I agree with Comrade Parker when he says he sees no reason why it should not be possible in a society in which people control their own conditions of work, for machines to relieye arduous toil and yet not entail boredom. But mass production methods preclude the operative from control of their work, compelling them to:
(1)Standardise the machine processes.
(2)Operate a single process.
(3)Standardise the products.
All three points of Parker's description of mass production, as contained in the encyclopedia to which he refers us, demand that people must submit absolutely to a central directing authority. To standardise the machine processes must produce the excessive division, of labour which Parker himself agrees is harmful.
To operate a single process produces boredom, and I certainly question whether it relieves arduous toil. Parker certainly gives us no evidence of this.
To standardise the product must mean dictation to the consumers as to what they must have. This is in opposition to a basic socialist principle—Production for Use. Production for use does not mean merely the absence of exchange; it also means that the needs of people will determine production.
Again, all these descriptions of mass production methods demand the development of mono-culture and the division of society into large towns and rural communities, which must prevent the all-round development of the individual.
Parker again shows that he does not know mass production methods when he sees them. When dealing with monotonous and repetitive work, he says, " Mass production is said to involve monotonous and repetitive work. So it docs. But so does a great deal of non-mass production. I wouldn't like to argue that writing figures In a ledger all day is much less repetitive than operating an automatic machine."
Surely the clerk who is writing figures in a ledger all day is just as much engaged in mass production methods as the operator of an automatic machine.
5.2.3 Time Saving
Parker says, " Time is worth saving on any job under any system, because it enables us to undertake other jobs or to enjoy leisure."
Time saving does not mean the opposite of wasting time—it means doing everything in the shortest possible time. In fact, the people concerned with saving time are usually found trying to kill time. - Why does everybody want to do things in the shortest possible time? Because of the dictates of market production. It would be interesting to hear what Parker has in mind when he writes of leisure. Also, why should people within socialism want to " Save time from productive work in order to enjoy other experiences "?
The terms "productive work" and "leisure" can only exist when people are engaged in " getting of living ", i.e. productive work, and when a person is doing something for his own pleasure, hobby or recreation, called leisure. The terms have no reference to what is being done, but why it is being done.
Under socialism there will not be the condition* nor the idea of "getting a living". Socialism means to me a way of life in which people will have recognised that " the primary necessity of life is WORK." (Marx).
Then Parker tries his hand at speed. He says " Pace-making is certainly a feature under capitalism, but remember it is not the machine that sets the pace, it is the boss." Of course, it is the machine that sets the pace. Certainly it is the employer who agrees to the installation of the belt system, but once installed, the pace is set.
Mass production machinery and methods are a product of property society in which things and services are produced for a market. In society where there is no property, there can be no place for the whip as used in past society, nor its modern counterpart —• whipping-up machinery, and methods. People will work because they want to and will need no whips, no threats, no promises, no punishment, ho reward.
It is easy to write " There are many ways in which mass-production will be different: under socialist conditions," but nowhere in the article, or in discussions, have I been told anything about these differences which will make mass- production methods attractive within socialism. I do hope we shall hear from members about these differences.
From my point of view, mass production methods are even less attractive than the cartoon illustrating Parker's article. Some of us, however, can find solace in the fact that neither of these abominations will exist within society where ALL work is useful.
A. Turner.

5.3 SUPER-OPTIMISTS
The members of S.W. London Branch must be super-optimists if they reallv seriously think that by raising the dues to 6d. per week the Party will have an income of £1,300 p.a.
During the last ten years, including 1952, the income dues has averaged just over £300 per annum, and during that time (or most of it) the Party has had 1,000 members, so I fail to see how the income from dues is going to be quadrupled by doubling them.
Let us be realists and face the facts,
W.T.A.
5.4 Reply to H. G. Hayden (below) ALL CAN ASSIMILATE ANY IDEAS

Hayden's criticism consists of five paragraphs which I will discuss in the order in which they appear.
(1) He quotes two phrases of mine and then adds that I am treading "the very shaky soil of utopism ". I am not sure what he means by this, but it is possible that there is a misunderstanding. When I used the phrase socialist ideas" I meant ideas about Socialism —a world in which people would live in communal association free of all the barriers that split them apart to-day, and have split them apart in the past. As I pointed out in proposition this idea, or these ideas, had emerged as a result of past development, and once ing emerged can be passed on to all human beings regardless of their present culture. In similar way, capitalist ideas are at present being passed on to people in different phases of culture, Even the people of Australia, the so-called aborigines, are absorbing capitalist culture without passing through the cultural stages that people of the West have passed through.
(2) When Hayden refers to " modern socialist theory' he evidently has in mind the Marxian analysis of Capitalism and theory of history. It is only necessary for people soaked in Capitalism to grasp these theories in order to understand the system under which they are living and to be able to refute the claim that Capitalism is the best of all possible social systems-the final fruition of social development. Further it is not necessary to have a literary education to know that you are poor, insecure, suffering the horrors of war, and that Socialism is a system in which these things will have no place. It cannot be true that the problems of Capitalism and their solution arise because capitalist society needs a literate working class: both the problems and the solution were there before there was a literate working class—in the middle of the last century when the Communist Manifesto was written. In fact, Marx himself pointed out that the problems only arise when the solution is present:
" The problem and the means of solution arise simultaneously." (Capital, p.60.)
" Therefore, mankind always takes up only such problems as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation." (Critique of Political Economy, p.13.)
(3) I have covered the point in this paragraph. People in all forms of society are already grasping capitalist ideas. This is a fact that must be apparent to everybody and is evidence of the fundamental mental similarity of all mankind. Capitalist ideas are more complicated than socialist ideas. If people all over the earth can understand these, then it is reasonable to assume that they will have no greater difficulty in grasping socialist ideas. What does complicate the question now is that people are becoming bemused by capitalist ideas before socialist ideas come their way free from adulteration.
When using the expression " higher culture of Capitalism " it is necessary, for the present discussion, to define the standard of judgment. If the standard is the variety of directions in which human effort can be applied in comparison with other cultures, then Capitalism stands high; if the standard is the security, comfort and freedom from fear for those living under it, then Capitalism stands low in relation. to other cultures.
To explain Socialism to people who have absorbed Capitalist ideas, it is necessary to do so in relation to the Capitalist ideas they hold. To explain Socialism to people who have not yet absorbed capitalist ideas, or only partly absorbed them, it is necessary to do so in relation to the tribal or other ideas they hold. Of course it would be absurd to talk of surplus value, crises, etc., to a Central
Australian native, but that does not mean that he is incapable of understanding the culture that we put under the heading of socialist society—working together in harmonious cooperation to produce the things we need, in profusion and for our mutual satisfaction. The first reaction of the Australian native would probably be the same as that of people living under Capitalism—" impossible you will have to change human nature!" It has already been demonstrated that there is no group of people incapable, for example, of learning to handle the most complicated modern machinery. On the fringes of civilised territory, native people are now doing the work connected with servicing aeroplanes on the different world routes. When given the opportunity to learn to read and write, they show themselves to be as competent students as are to be found anywhere in the West.
The following quotations indicate that the views expressed above on the mental similarity of all groups of people are also held by anthropologists and allied investigators:
" We have the same brain, perpetuated by reproduction, which worked in the skulls of barbarians and savages in by-gone ages."
(p.61 Morgan Ancient Society, 1877)
" Over and above the sheer intellectual fun of surveying humanity at large, there is unlimited moral gain to be got in the enlarged consciousness of the fact that man is of one kind—that as a species we are near enough to each other in our type of mind to share all the thoughts and feelings most worth having." (R. R. Marett, Head, Heart and Hands in Human Evolution, 1935).
"As far as is known, all peoples are able to share creatively in all known cultures and to transmit them through education to their offspring." (p.65, Jacobs and Stern, Outline of Anthropology, 1948).
" That all populations to-day have the same complexity of structure of brain and central nervous system is decisive evidence in favour of the judgment that all races are potentially equal and that there are no genetically superior or inferior races." (p.39, Jacobs and Stern Outline)
" Babies have the same central nervous systems in all populations, but what they do, think and become, seems to depend entirely on custom and on familial or social environment."
(p.60, Jacobs and Stern Outline.)
" According to present knowledge, there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics, whether in respect of intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is much the same."
"All normal human beings are capable of learning to share in a common life, to understand the nature of mutual service and reciprocity, and to respect social obligations and contracts. Such biological differences as exist between members of different ethnic groups have no relevance to problems of social and political organisation, moral life and communication between human beinsrs." (p.9, The Race Question, U.N.E.S.C.O. Publication 791.)
The above statement is backed by, among others, Ashlev-Montague, Hadley Cantril, E. G. Conklin, Gunnar Dahlberg, J. S. Huxley, Otto Klineberg, H. J. Muller, Joseph Needham, Morris Ginsberg, L. C. Dunn, Levi Strauss, Franklin Frazer and Costa Pintot.
" The powers of observation and reasoning of the aborigines are identical with our own."
"After all, Professor Franz Boas would be the last to disagree with me in the contention that any racial theory which would make the human mind different as from one type of humanity to another, is not scientific." (p.xxxiii, Malinowski, Foreword to Coming into Being Among the Australian Aborigines, by Ashley-Montague.
'" This is not to say that the Australian Aboriginal is a being mentally inferior to ourselves that he is incapable of our particular kind of reasoning, or that he has a pre-logical mentality, ot what not. The facts point clearly in the opposite direction, namely, that the Australian aboriginal native endowment is quite as good as my European's if not better. In support of the latter statement, there exists a certain amount of evidence of the weightiest kind, such, for example, as the opinions of observers who have lived among
them for many years and who are not by any means inclined to be prejudiced in their favour. Then there is the more direct evidence . of the effects of schooling, the rapidity with which the native learns, and, what is more important, the consistency with which he generally maintains thai learning, as is abundantly borne out by such a fact as the recent achievement of a school whose : scholars were composed entirely of aborigines, and which for three successive years was ranked as the highest standing school, from the point of view of scholarship, in Australia. The ease with wiich natives acquire good English when it is ;spoken to them as compared with the difficulty wish which the white man acquires the native language has often been remarked upon by white observers.' (p.11, Ashley-Montague, Coming into Being Among the Australian Aborigines, 1937.
(4) It is not helpful just to state that people must become solely dependent upon wages before they can understand Socialism. It is necessary to explain what there is about this dependency without which mankind is incapable of assimilating ideas about mutual co- co-operation, Capitalism grew out of Feudalism and Feudalism out of a chattel slave-based system in the order of Western development. Are we, therefore, to assume that all cultures go through these three forms? If not, _ why is Capitalism the elected system? then it is necessary to experience Capitalism because it precedes Socialism, then surely it is equally necessary to experience Feudalism because it preceded Capitalism. In fact, groups that have never known either chattel slavery or Feudalism are jumping straight into Capitalism — system that has emerged as a result of past development and the ideas of which are being explained to, and assimilated by, people of different kinds of culture. What Hayden overlooks is that once an idea has emerged, it can be passed on. People are not born into Capitalism with capitalist brains. They are born without ideas and are taught them—in tribal society, tribal ideas; in feudal society, feudal ideas; in capitalist society, capitalist ideas. All children can be taught any ideas, and all grown-ups can assimiliate any ideas, ver advanced, if sufficient effort is put into the process, because humanity at large is fundamentally curious and reasonable.
(5) In the last paragraph, Hayden is unwittigly committing himself to a view that he does not hold. If all people have to be rooted in the culture of Capitalism before they can understand the meaning of Socialism, then all our efforts should be directed towards spreading capitalist culture as widely and as rapidly as possible in order to prepare the way for socialism.
G. McClatchie.

5.5 ON BACKWARD NATIONS (?)
When McClatchie states " there are no groups of people anywhere on earth, regardless of their present culture, who are incapable of assimilating socialist ideas " and " so-called backwardness . . . has nothing to do with mental capacity " he treads the very shaky soil of utopism. Modern socialist theory was born of the problems of capitalist society, viz., the poverty associated with wage-labour, economic crises (trade slumps) and international war. As these problems can only be understood by people who have received some literary education, and as capitalist society needs a working class that is literate, then therein are born both problems and the conditions for their solution—a working class capable of understanding them. People who live in a social environment in which peasant proprietorship or the tribal still survives and all or nearly all are can have no conception of, let alone in, socialist ideas. The problems that them are only those of peasants and tribesmen. To talk of explaining Socialism in language appropriate to their culture " is the fact that, language and culture being interrelated, then Socialism, which belongs to the higher culture of Capitalism, be " explained " to those in a lower culture. This is because (a) it is a theory that is not associated with the problems of primitive and feudal societies, and (b) of the illiteracy of the people in question. Man only takes up such problems as he meets. The spread of capitalist economy over the face of the earth and its permeation into lives of the backward peoples will prepare the ground for their reception of socialist ideas "only to the extent that the mass of them become literate and solely dependent upon wages.
In short, they will have to be rooted in the culture of capitalism before they can understand the meaning of Socialism.
H. G. Hayden.
5.6 A BLIND EYE TO ELECTORIAL SNAGS
The Errors of Horatio
"... this bankrupt party, impoverished by reckless election spendthrifts ..."
"A great deal of useful criticism can be levelled against the party's first election battles."
"... rash expenditure on leaflets' and meetings ..."
—Horatio. DID Horatio say that? He most certainly did—and the quotes (unlike some of his own) are word perfect. A few well-chosen quotes ripped from their context and suitably juxtaposed and you can make anyone say almost anything. Then it may be necessary to fill in some of the carefully omitted parts in your own words before you have a crack at an answer.
Such was the technique used by Horatio in his reply to my article in the first issue of FORUM. It can be highly successful if the reader is unable to refer back to the original article or if, wanting Horatio to be right, he does not bother to check.
5.6.1 Strained Misinterpretation
For example, from my statement that activity is a short term method, whereas propaganda is essentially a long term policy, he draws the illogical conclusion that " therefore socialist propaganda and contesting elections are opposed "—and attributes it to me. The actual inference was, of course, merely that electioneering was therefore an inferior method of propaganda.
Again, my assertion that the most sensational methods which are useful to other organisations are not necessarily the best for ours is for some unknown reason taken to indicate an opposition to elections as such.
This applies also to his third point, in which his misinterpretation is so strained that he takes three sentences to alter " figureheads" to " leaders " and to infer from this that I think the Party is undemocratic. He does not, however, tell us what other function a candidate has from a propaganda standpoint. It must be remembered that these three statements referred specifically to candidates considered as a propaganda venture, and have nothing to do with their value as delegates to the House of Commons, which Horatio cleverly assumes in order to charge me with denying the Party's principles.
5.6.2 Clutching at Straws
After mentioning the main purpose for contesting election, i.e., political representation, I go on to examine secondary considerations to see whether " the Party gains some benefit from contesting an election which is not directly related to this main purpose." This prompts Horatio to ask ," what other purpose the Party has, which is not even related to its main one." 'Nuff said.
In trying to make an objective analysis of the propaganda value of elections I point to the extra indoor meetings which are possible in the constituencies and say that "apart from
this it is difficult to see what can be done with a candidate which cannot be done without one." Here that bias, which I warned should be guarded against, so blinds Horatio that he reads "these meetings could be held without a candidate."
My critic further tries to make a mountain out of the molehill of the extra £49 worth of literature sales at election time—2,000 pamphlets, he says! It sounds a lot until we remember that this increase over a period of six months does not even cover the extra copies of the S.S. printed during the election month itself.
He then begins to clutch at straws. In answer to my comparison of the inability to trace any enquiries about the Party to electioneering with the numerous replies obtained from adverts in esperanto journals, he boldly asserts that these " were made only because we ran candidates"—forgetting that this work was carried on around the time of the last election, in which NO candidates were put up.
5.6.3 Horatio's Positive Case
The next paragraph is a classic. After taking a number of quotes and semi-quotes from all over the article and juxtaposing them to put me in a false position, he then makes me arrive at an equally false conclusion by taking part of a subsidiary clause from five paragraphs before the last quote, misquoting it and sticking it on with a conjuction of his own to suit his own purposes. Then, realising it doesn't make sense, he re-states the whole thing " in other words "—his own, of course. It must be a weak case indeed which drives one as able as Horatio to such contemptible methods.
Next comes an appeal to our principles and policy. He turns a masterly summary of our general theoretical position and its application into a rigid dogma. As if eight short paragraphs can answer all the questions in the world and settle every practical issue that arises. Even Horatio himself realises the falsity of this argument in his more sober moments.
As he says of the Party earlier in his article: " if practical considerations (lack of support) deter it, it should say so plainly, telling the worker the difficulties, but making its object and method clear." Admirably put. I endeavoured in my article to assess the practical considerations, and I am convinced that it is time we stopped trying to fool the workers (and ourselves) that we are something we are not. We should endeavour to bring home to them our difficulties and the urgent need for their support and work, so that we may the sooner be able to seriously challenge the control of the state machine.
J. Trotman.
5.7 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
4-SOCIAL MAN
The evolution of multicellular organisms, wiiich involves the differentiation of parts organs), involves also the development of integrative mechanisms (the hormonic and nervous systems) to co-ordinate the organs as a team, co-ordinators developing in step with the increasing complexity of organisms. What :5 true of organisms which consist of colonies of cells is true also of herds, which consist of colonies of individuals. Gregarious animals have mechanisms for quickening the responses and the unity of the herd, so that, for instance, cue individual comes to the alert when his neighbour does, or so that the signs of sentinel oc leader may be unanimously acted upon.
Among many of the higher animals, not strictly " gregarious ", sex division involves the continuous association of male and female and their young, and they therefore possess the mechanisms for this continuous association— pnssessiveness, protectiveness, sympathy, dominance, submission, etc. They communicate their needs or intentions, by purring, barking, cooing, by song and dance. The parents teach by example, rebuke or reward, the young learn in play the arts of defence and attack.
In the gregarious animals, the social instinct is not merely one among others,but paramount. It conditions the expression of the other instincts-—even the so-called first law of nature, self-preserva-tion for the group is the means by which the individual survives.
5.7.1 Apparatus of Sociality
The physical apparatus of sociality are the sympathetic mechanism, the' imitative faculty and suggestibility—heightened in man by his refinement, particularly, of vision and voice as* the receivers and transmitters of communica-' tion. Men have an extraordinary subtlety of, vocal inflexion and facial expression, and, as' its counterpart, an extraordinary ability to grasp at a glance a thousand permutations of voice and face (of which words are the slow and laboured accessory)—receivers and trans-, mitters which respect the need for social reference. The measured artificial word is a' precision tool of labour: as flesh and blood we link by song and dance—the voice sings and the face dances. By the interplay of frontal, orbital and naso-labial muscles we express not merely lust but affection, tenderness,' devotion; not merely fear, but horror or : anxiety; not merely anger or pleasure, but disgust, admiration, suspicion, irritation, grief, approbation, resignation. A smile may vary from a ghost to a grin, a laugh may be full or empty, the lips are compressed differently for determination or disapproval, differently pursed for doubt or disappointment.
Refinement of the organs of communication proclaims the natural need for kinship, antecedent to the social development which locks us in the bonds of labour and elaborates the linguistic conventions. The development of language itself depends on the sympathetic and imitative faculties which are mechanisms of the herd instinct. We show disgust, for instance, by wrinkling the nose as in retreat from a smell; the " faugh " of contempt spits out the offending notion or blows it away as a thing of no account; the head is raised in defiance, while in the shrug of resignation it is tucked into the shoulders to ride the blow which cannot, be avoided; the eyes creep sidelong in suspicion, in disdain they look down half-closed upon the low person hardly worth noticing. The voice in turn mimics the face—in doubt or question, for instance, the rising inflexion imitates the raised eyebrows (raised to widen the field of vision, to place in perspective the thing in doubt).
5.7.2 Imitative and Suggestible
The imitative tendency enables us to learn without being taught, as a baby learns to smile or a child to talk, or as we adopt the ways and accents of those we live among. Grimaces and gesticulations evoke incipient movements of the same kind in the auditor (although sometimes too slight to be detected without apparatus). This ostensive, unconscious learning facilitates
the identification and assimiliation of self with others it quickens the responses and the unity of the herd.
The same tendency, when it is applied to the' field of sentiments, attitudes, feelings, is called " suggestibility ". Although we notice our suggestibility mostly in the more violent (so-called pathological) forms, in panic and pogrom in hysteria and hypnosis, it is a necessary structure for social behaviour, an organ of social creatures. It is the mental counterpart, for the animal who thinks, of the sympathetic and imitative apparatus. It constitutes a permanent gravitational pull towards accepting the standards and attitudes of our associates (particularly in matters charged with moral judgment) in order to be accepted by them. In such matters, to have to convince by reason would be slow and uncertain, as teaching infants to talk by grammar would be impotent, and would therefore retard social cohesion. Suggestibility dispenses with the need for cumbrous reasoning: it is reason enough that a certain attitude prevails. It does not eliminate the critical self, but it ensures that the self is subjected to the unifying pressure of group sentiment. It quickens the responses and the unity of the herd.
In the crowd (the match or the meeting or the stupid hoky-koky), we forget ourselves, our inhibitions inhibited by the pressure, in the tight mass, of the sympathetic mechanisms. With gregarious creatures, attitudes are irre-sistible in proportion as they are unanimous, and it is this which underwrites the power of propaganda and leadership and advertisement and hypnotism. It is the knowledge that the great leader has a great following that gives weight to his words, in proportion as he personifies, represents, a mass of men. Advertisement achieves the same result by evoking mass sentiments (" a man's drink ", a " British product") and by repetition, for repetition is only a crowd by instalments. In the hypnotic state, the voice of the hypnotist is the subject's whole sensual world, represents the voice of all mankind, and it is this which gives his suggestion its irresistible force—provided it does not conflict with the moral code of the subject, that is, with his moral world.
5.7.3 Never Asocial
What we call the " herd instinct" in other gregarious animals becomes in thinking men the high susceptibility to approval or disapproval, which is the core of his psyche and magnetic north of his behaviour. It is not an accident that the word " like " has two meanings : to be like is to be liked. Of all creatures, only man blushes—approval or disapproval will so disturb his nervous system as to effect the somatic functions. He signals his social distress to a social world, which will respond to the confession and mitigate its judgment. In men, the most individuated and anarchist of gregarious creature;. the impulse to accept others accept, in order to be accepted by is the all-powerful mechanism of social . the centre of gravity of human mind. Our actions may be called "social" or "asocial", but they are never asocial; all the modes of men—protective, dominating, sub-missive:-. ambitious, competitive, virtuous naughty—reflect the thirst for approval. The difference in the behaviour of the good child and the bad is one of method, not motive. The unwanted, the neglected, the illegitimate, the bewildered, the unsure delinquent, will somewhere and somehow the modicum approval and acceptance his sociality requires. or kick you to pieces in desperation. Aggressiveness tries to conquer by force the submerged, fear of social unacceptibility, Bombast, and inflated behaviour generally, reveal anxious fear of inadequacy. Servility hopes secure the small change of compassion, and snobbery to preserve a status felt to be insecure. is not the form but the fact of flattery that arts, for it is that that flatters. Hypocrisy is the homage of egotism pays to sociality, and rationalisation ", the finding of good reasons
for doubtful ends, does not derogate from the social impulse: on the contrary, the need to rationalise proclaims it.
5.7.4 Morality Inheres
When Koestler contrasts the energy of thought with the " inertia of social behaviour ", he merely paraphrases the " power of social tradition " without observing that it testifies to the social psyche of men. The power of social tradition is inexplicable, unless it bespeaks a social instinct. We may defy the mass, repudiate the orthodox, violate convention, but only while we have some moral support. Who dares to be alone is already mad. Only the idiot dispenses with social sanction. His id is absolute because it is defective, lacking the mechanism for its social determination. With a normal person, the approval of others is meat and drink, and disapproval, in proportion as it is general, is painful, worrying and intolerable. To be scorned is to wilt, to be spurned is to wither, and, on the other hand, nothing succeeds like success, for there is no greater stimulus nor more satisfying reward than acclamation, and advocates of the " profit incentive" merely insist that to him that hath shall be given, thus describing, not the nature of man, but the nature of capital—surplus value.
Here in the social impulse is the physical basis of morality, which has no other relevance and no other meaning than sociality.
Conscience and the feeling of guilt (in thinking man, the sentiment of duty) are the peculiar property of the gregarious animal, for to be gregarious is to be susceptible to the mandates of the herd, and " virtue " is nothing but the satisfaction of this instinct. Shaw expresses this in his sentimental way when he describes virtue as the self-indulgence of the the good man. So does Shakespeare, with whom it is " twice bless'd ". There is no need to be confused by the false separation of "" egotism " from altruism. We are neither selfish nor unselfish, nor even good or bad: we are social. And morality is niether revealed nor taught, it inheres, as the integrative mechanism for group survival.
At a later stage we shall discuss its bearing on Socialist theory and propaganda.
F. Evans.
5.8 WHAT SOCIALISM WILL BE LIKE
The following are a personal idea of the future, after a new generation has grown up a free social conditions.
5.8.1 Communities
People will live in large communal communities of various forms, which will be scattered over the country amid surroundings that are pleasant and healthy. Each community will be self-supporting as far as is practicable. Each will include the factories that are essential as well as schools, laboratories, playing-fields, theatres, and the like. Also included will be fields for domestic animals and arable land for grain. vegetables and fruit. The communities will be connected with each other by transport systems and other means of communication. They will have storehouses to ensure and adequate and regular supply of 'what is needed. There will be hosts of chalets and the like scattered about the country in suitable surroundings, where couples and groups can temporarily play-act and dream away time together, All buildings. whether for habitation, for work or for entertainment will be fitting for their purposes; harmonious, rhythmical and pleasing There will be no huge factory areas, nor there be great expanses given over to grain, cotton, fruit and the like. Gigantic buildings; huge liners and other monstrous products of man's ingenuity will also be absent. But at suitable centres there will be large theatres, concert halls, museums and special schools and laboritories for the enlargement of knowledge.
5.8.2 Travel
The number of the population as a whole will tend to remain stationary, or slightly decline rather than grow. The tendency will, be for the majority of people to remain settled in their early environments, but they will travel to other parts for temporary periods.
People will travel extensively in their youth, but the " rolling stone " kind will be the exception. Travel will be easy, because where-. ever people go they will " fit in ".
The use of cars and aircraft, other than for the transport of goods, will not be as prevalent as it is to-day. The horse and the sailing boat will become popular, both for amusement and travel. The need for speed will have vanished; time will no longer be at a premium and everyone will be able to satisfy the desire to see different places without the need for haste.
Work will be done by machine and by hand and craftsmanship will be revived. Mere repetition work will be limited to what cannot be avoided.
I have referred to how things will be arranged in a " country " but I am really referring to the world as a whole, because the world will have become a unit —one country.
5.8.3 Production
Let us look in more detail at some of the aspects I have mentioned.
Although I have said that the communities will be self-supporting, as far as possible, I do not mean by this that they would only produce for themselves. What I mean is that there will not be tue localisation of production that there is to-day; there will not be grain areas, timber areas, machine producing areas, cotton spinning
areas, pottery areas, and so forth. Some raw materials can only be obtained from particular parts of the earth; these areas will supply the rest of the world. In like manner, grain, stock, on so on, will pass freely from one community to another as and when required.
Again, ships will, of course, be built by communities bordering the sea, rolling stock wherever suitable for the transport system, and reservoirs where they are most convenient.
Now about hand work and machine work. A camera handled by a craftsman can produce pictures of groups, of objects and of scenery that are delightful to look at. This applies particularly to colour photography. But this does not take away the joy of looking at a picture painted by a competent artist. We want both! So it is with machine work and hand work. A smoothly-running machine produces a pleasure of its own, and so do the intricacies that combine to produce its action in shaping things. But again this does not deprive us of the pleasures of hand production. On the other hand, the very roughness and contrast of an object produced by hand has a charm of its own and is a relief from the deadly monotony of the machine-produced object.
So in the future we will have both machine production and hand production and we will see that we achieve a balance and become the slaves of neither.
5.8.4 Factories
What will the factories be like? First of all they will " make no sordid litter, befoul no water nor poison the air with smoke ". They will produce no shoddy things; the hours of work and the distribution of work will depend upon the nature of the work and the pleasure or discomfort it gives.
The buildings that comprise the factory will be spacious, airy, well lighted and harmonious. The internal decorations will be such as con-ince to pleasure, including perhaps fountains, pools, flowers, statuary and pictures, where appropriate, as well as the provision of music.
Those who work in the factories will consist of groups of men, women and children of all ages working together in harmonious co-operation for useful ends. They will not be places of toil but places of interesting and pleasurable occupation. There will not be overseers to watch that no time is wasted, nor will there be any need for speed-ups. Children will work in these factories as part of their general education. When a child knows it is taking part in some work that is useful and real, it is far more interested and anxious to learn than when it is doing something that is just make-believe. Also factories will not be just machine shops; they will be the communal workshops where everything can be made and each can have the satisfaction of accomplishing something new and original when seized by the desire to do so. Jobs that are purely repetitive will be performed by some agreeable system of rotation. The same method will be adopted if it happens that there is a branch of work to be done which is unavoidably unpleasant.
5.8.5 Education
As education and experience will be many-sided and practical, there will not be the
comparatively isolated specialisation that i« common to-day, which requires single-minded concentration for years. Outstanding performances by people who dedicate their lives to one pursuit only is unlikely. On the other hand, it is probable that most people will eventually settle into occupations they prefer, but will have other interests as well.
When people will be free from commercial considerations, have a full and many-sided education, take joy in what they do and in the approbation of their fellows, it is conceivable that these conditions themselves will act as a spur to superlative achievement.
G. McClatchie.
5.9 PAROCHIAL ORGANISATION AND THINKING
I MUST congratulate Gilmac on having the courage to " stick his neck out" in such a fashion as above. The interest taken by those both inside and outside the Party in this subject is out of all proportion to the meagre amount written on it. It is much to be regretted that some members still cling to the view that propagating Socialism consists only of analysing Capitalism. Those who are reluctant to talk of the future should remember that present disagreements about it are always likely to be resolved by fuller discussion of the issues involved.
Yet I must confess that I nearly always find descriptions of the future a disappointment— perhaps because their authors cannot help being influenced by the past and the present. I know that whatever Gilmac or I or any other socialist thinks the future will be like (and it would be very unimaginative of us if we had no mental picture of it) our visions, must necessarily be crude and somehow smaller than life. " To anyone who has at all adequately realised the significance of the past evolution of mankind, all our halting millennial dreams are by comparison puny and impotent; the retrospective vision of accomplished fact is the most fantastic of all Utopias."
5.9.1 Communities
Although he refers to communities as "large", everything he subsequently writes about them seems to show he really means " small'.
Chalets scattered about the country, self-supporting as far as possible, the horse and die sailing boat—I get the impression that these are the things Gilmac really likes, the motifs that he wishes to predominate. The addition of transport systems and machinery, denying that the communities would produce only for themselves—all these seem to be superimposed on the main picture as afterthoughts or concessions in a attempt to disarm criticism.
5.9.2 Travel
What particularly concerns me is the application of a principle, mentioned by Gilmac in ±e words "the world will have become a unit".
This concept of unity, wholeness, oneness,
(Comments on "What Socialism will be Like')
universality—call it what you will—is surely the essence of Socialism. It is inconceivable to me that people will be in any way parochial in their social organisation or in their thinking. Gilmac obviously has this in mind when he suggests that people will travel to other parts for temporary periods and extensively in their youth. But " in their youth " suggests to me that the norm will be little or no travel, and this impression is backed up by the methods of travel that he forecasts will be prevalent.
Gilmac sees horses and sailing boats ousting cars and aircraft for popularity. Let us leave aside the question of amusement and concentrate on the practical aspect. Any change in the means of transport—any change that is going to be more than a temporary phase or an isolated instance—is bound to be progress, that is, more efficient, more fit for its purpose and not less.
This question of travel is not in itself important, but is, I think, symptomatic of other features of society. In this connexion it should be noted that, whether or not we think it desirable to preserve the techniques of production that Capitalism has brought into being, there remains the element of necessity that may override other considerations. Marx did not underestimate this practical aspect:
" Men never relinquish what they have won, but this does not mean that they never relinquish the social form in which they have aquired certain productive forces. On the contrary, in order that they may not be deprived of the result attained and forfeit the fruits of civilisation, they are obliged, from the moment when the form of their intercourse no longer corresponds to the productive forces acquired, to change all their traditional social forms." Letter to Annenkov, Selected Correspondence, p.8
5.9.3 Universality
Any picture that I attempted to paint of the future would be coloured by a much greater degree of contact, awareness and knowledge than exists now or is suggested in Gilmac's notes. Universality is no mere idea in men's heads—it is rooted in material conditions. It will become an actuality when the idea of it is " in the air", and the form of society that will result will bear a direct relation to the
universal means used to bring it about.
As an example, let us take thsr dissemination of news. It is reasonable to suppose that, after elimination of " politics", society gossip, murders, etc., there will still be a demand for information about what is going on in the world—a demand that will probably be enhanced in other directions. In social organisation prior to Capitalism, "the world" consisted cf a tribe, a village, or at most a city. To-day, our news is largely national and, to a certain extent, international. With Socialism it will become world-wide, which does not necessarily mean the absence of more localised news. It is impossible to foretell what the means of mass communication will be, but it seems likely that there will be an increase rather than a diminution in the points of social contact.
5.9.4 Organic Unity
Perhaps a better word to describe the world than " unit " would be " organism ". This complex organism, which has grown from the single cell, is at present diseased, but the trouble is not to be remedied by removing some of the nerve fibres. When the treatment (social revolution) is given, the patient (humanity) won't become simpler—he will just be made to " work " better.
So "gigantic buildings, huge liners and other monstrous products of man's ingenuity " might conceivably be adapted to the needs of the new society. For it is not so much the size of the buildings that is monstrous, but the uses to which they are at present put. I am prepared to envisage some gigantic buildings under Socialism only because they might be more convenient in which to administer certain affairs than another type of building.
The world won't be a unity because lots of people in communities will think it is a unity. It will be so because material developments will have taken place (far more extensive than any of us can now forecast) that will knit people together in society as indissolubly as the separate cells in their bodies are knit together.
S.R.P.

6. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
MARCH 1953

6.1 WHICH WORKERS SHALL THE PARTY SUPPORT?
The Wrong Approach of Selectivity
During A recent forum at Head Office on “Is our approach to propaganda outdated?" several members argued that we should be more selective in our propaganda. They stated that just as in our ordinary social acquaintanceships we recognise that some people are preferable to others, so it should be with our propaganda.
Some argued that outdoor propaganda was almost useless, on the grounds that to direct our propaganda to everybody was, in fact, to interest nobody.
It was stated by one member that advertisers recognised the need for selectivity. For example. patent medicine firms couched their advertisements in language and pictures that would appeal to the older generation, because they would be more likely to have the complaints that the advertised products claimed to cure. It was suggested that we should learn from this and direct our propaganda to people who are more likely to be interested in our case. One thing I noticed was the vagueness as to who were the people most likely to be interested.
Are these people to be recognised politically —are they Labour or Communist Party supporters ? Perhaps we could recognise them occupationally: are dockers, for example, more likely adherents to the S.P.G.B. than, say, clerical workers ? Or perhaps Trade Unionists are better material than non-Trade Unionists?
To put it another way: can we say that Roman- Catholics, Jews, capitalists, managers, small-shopkeepers, prostitutes, farmers, professionals. women, homosexuals, people of so-called backward countries, fascists, are groupings which will be least likely to be attracted to our case ?
During my speaking experience for the party I have heard all these and other groups described as " the least likely ", " the most backward"- "outside the pale", "wrong type. "not worth arguing with", I must
add that I have in the past been as guilty of this as anyone.
Were I to add up all the groups that have been so described, it would leave us only with ourselves - no. not even us, because every Party member has belonged to one or more of these groupings. I think that we can dismiss this “selective argument" as mere prejudice.
6.1.1 Will Capitalists Benefit ?
Of course, there is one form of selection which the Party has always employed; namely, that our propaganda has to be directed to the " working-class alone", that capitalists have Httle or nothing to gain from socialism and consequently will always oppose it.
It is my contention that all this talk of selectivity, including the selection of the ' working-class alone' as the saviours of humanity, springs from the fact that the nature of socialism has been forgotten, disregarded, or not known.
There are no groups of people, past, or present, who, living under a property, regime, have not been antagonistic to each other. Socialism is a way of living; living harmoniously with all people. It is untrue that there are people who have little or nothing to gain by the establishment of socialism.
If our propaganda is based upon an appeal to the " working-class alone" and openly or irnplicitiy excludes all others, then the picture wc create in the minds of our listeners or readers, and in OUR OWN, is not that of socialism but of a universal, idealized capitalism. It conjures up the picture that all people will live as the rich people live. What else can be drawn from the statement that "the capitalists have nothing to gain but all to lose by the establishment of socialism " ? To any reasonable person it must mean that, if capitalists have nothing to gain, they must already have what the workers.will gain.
It is this kind of argument that leads some to think that mass-production must continue, for if we are all to possess what rich people have to-day. then obviously we will need vast plant and machinery along with excessive sub-" division of labour in order to turn out' the palaces, cars, luxury liners and gadgets that clutter up the lives of people today.
Of course, there are those who state that it is true that all people will benefit by the establishment of socialism but that we will never be able to convince the capitalists of this.
If it is true that all will gain, then it is possible to explain this to all, including the wealthy.
6.1.2 Exclude None
What then is there that makes it impossible for capitalists or any other group to under-
stand and accept socialism ? The enly answer I can see is that the capitalists' position is act solely due to particular conditions, but is sack that they have fceen affected biologieaflj capitalists are somehow prevented from grasping and accepting ideas that others can. This would also be true of all the groupings, such as fascists, women, and Use people in "backward countries " whom, it is said, we will never get to understand and accept socialist ideas.
Another damaging aspect of this point of view is that if we take the attitude that there are groups that cannot understand and accept our ideas then our propaganda must be framed to exclude them. This they will understand— that we have excluded and rejected them, which must produce hostility.
The customary title of debate indicates what I mean "Which Party Should the WORKING-CLASS Support, Socialist or Conservative ?"
The implication contained in the title is that, if workers support the Tories they are misguided, but for the capitalist it is correct that they should support the conservatives and the title is so framed to exclude rich people from thinking that they should support socialism.
It is this approach in our propaganda which prevents people from discarding violence as a means to the establishment of socialism.

Further, once we commence excluding this or that group, we will attract people who will fare their own particular prejudices and the Party will find that some members will rule out capitalists, others all non-trade unionists, yet others all clerical workers. The logic of this will be that soon the formula for debates will be changed to " Which workers should the Party support?"
The answer to all this, as I see it, is that our propaganda should convey our ideas of socialism to ALL people; presenting our case to them as HUMAN BEINGS. It is true that they will oppose our point of view from whichever prejudice or group of prejudices they hold, and we can only answer them to the
extent that we have rid ourselves of prejudices.
This we must do if we are true to our socialist outlook—
A WORLD OF HUMAN BEINGS, WORKING FREELY AND IN HARMONY WITH EACH OTHER FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF ALL.
A. TURNER.
6.2 From America
CANTER CONFUTED
"A socialist party must be supple. Never swaying from its main objectives, it must nevertheless be prepared to alter its attitudes with each new change of material conditions. This is our approach, and on this ground we take our stand."
The above is the concluding paragraph of Canter's reply to the Open Letter written by a group of Boston comrades dealing with " The Ballot and Socialism ". As Canter's concluding thought, it conveys, more than all the preceding. arguments, just what Canter is really driving at To wit: a party supple enough to attract into its ranks others who are supple-minded.
The Socialist movement, however, does not find its basis in suppleness or the supple-minded, but rather in the rigidity of principles drawn from unsupple but established facts. On the other hand, the various organizations, now and in the past, that have made up the so-called working-class movement, have all shown great elasticity and supple-mindedness, with the result that their checkered history has not outrun their checkered thinking. To be sure, a socialist and his organization must be prepared to alter their attitudes with each change of material conditions—and this socialists do and have always done. By far more than inference, Canter accuses the socialists who sponsored the Open Letter of not doing this, i.e., changing with the changes of new material conditions. He states:
“But the Open Letter position does not
permit the growth of a movement of any sort, because it immediately excludes socialists. This is the importance of this ballot issue, that it stands in the way—as similar dogmatic positions have stood in the way on other occasion—of' the uniting of the socialists into one organization.”
6.2.1 Bone of Contention
Since when have socialists been interested in the growth of a " movement of any sort"? They are only interested in an organization composed of socialists. By which means united by socialist principles and a goal of socialism. If anything has “stood in the way " of others joining the ranks of organized socialism, it has not taken long for us to discover what the obstacle was. It was always some principle that became the bone of contention.
The question to which Canter, himself devotes so much time and space is such a principle and also the bone of contention. It is a basic principle of socialism; stated and restated from the " Communist Manifesto of 1848 " down to the most recent writings in the socialist press. If this principle has "stood in the way" of workers joining the ranks of socialism, so much stronger has been the socialist movement. In any case, an examination of such individuals has generally proven that this is not their only disagreement with the principles of socialism. Canter, of course, knows this too well. For he opens his reply with:
" The Open Letter issued by a group of Boston comrades has succeeded in doing one thing: it has elevated to a principle question whether or not socialism will come about through the ballot. The Open Letter categorically states that socialism will come about in one way only, through the ballot. If this position is adopted, then the line of demarcation between socialists and non-socialists will be the beliel! or non-belief in the ultimate efficacy of the ballot, and those who believe it may result from some other action by the conscious majority are repudiators of majority action, advocates of violence—in short, hold principles a socialist should not hold ..."
To which we can add that the above is not " the " line of demarcation, but " a" line of demarcation. Just as important, however, in sorting out the ewes from the lambs. Immediately following the above, Canter throws in the following, for extra weight.
"... Another reason for the untenability of the Open Letter position is that it violates the materialistic approach to history. Before even the material conditions—those of a conscious majority—are at hand the Open Letter advocates knew them in advance."
If the existence of " a conscious majority " was the only " material condition " necessary for the socialist revolution, then Canter would be correct in his accusation. However, such is not the case. Decidedly important, as a material condition, is the modus operandi by which the socialist consciousness can be applied to other material conditions of capitalist society and turned into the reality of a socialist society.
6.2.2 Violation of the M.C. of H.?
It has long been our contention that in the advanced capitalist countries all of the material conditions, excepting the one of working class socialist consciousness, exist. It has also been our claim, and still is, that the method by which they can emancipate themselves (whenever they so desire) exists also, and has developed within the womb of the society which will produce the new society. By this we mean the ballot. How the recognition of an established fact, its usage in the future, is a violation of the Materialist Conception of History, we do not understand. The same method of deductive science is being used every day in different spheres of science without making the scientists unscientific. If anyone violates the Materialist Conception of History, it would be, to quote Canter, "... those who are of the opinion that history may dictate other methods to the conscious majority ..."
History does not include ' ifs' and ' maybe '. It is composed of the facts of what was and what is. Conjecture does not make for history. Deduction from facts does. Even Canter departs from conjecture id the following:
"... We recognise the necessity of majority action, that the political state must be over-conic, that the change must be a revolutionary one without any transition periods. Beyond this at this particular stage we cannot go . . . "
He is speaking of the future just as much as the writers of the Open Letter. Just what is it that makes him so certain about what the workers must do in the future, which he claims makes others unscientific and violators of the Materialist Conception of History? It is precisely this point, the overcoming of the political state that puts the writers of the Open Letter on solid ground. It is their claim, based upon the reality of fact, that the necessary machinery for overcoming the political state is at hand, i.e., the Ballot. Canter, for all his claims, agrees with this, for he himself states: " What else is there to advocate to-day but the ballot?" (Italics mine).
But, having asked the question, Canter is dissatisfied with the answer given by the writers of the Open Letter, and proceeds to show the difficulties that confront the working class in the U.S.A. Not one of these or all of them could prevent a socialist-minded working class from reaching its goal. What has been produced by legal enactment can be abolished by legal enactment, the time element notwithstanding. In anv case. Canter provides his own reply when he says:
" When tho conscious majority comes. about does one think for a moment that it will permit itself to be thwarted by such measures as required by the constitution ?"
S.F. & G.G.

6.3 TOWN AND COUNTRY
Agreement on the Future

"BEFORE tackling the main subject, I must briefly answer two direct questions in Comrade Turner's article opposing mass production. Readers will be able to assess the merits of the other points without further debate here.
First, he questions whether a single, standardised process can relieve arduous toil. Remember, all I maintain is that some mass production is preferable to achieving a similar result by other methods. For example, except for special purposes, I cannot imagine society abandoning the use of screw-making machines —i.e,, mass-producing screws—and laboriously ~making each one separately. My case is that socialist society is not going to stop using such machines (assuming the end-product is still required) just because some people might prefer to make things like screws individually rather than use the hated standardised machine processes.
Turner wants to hear from members about the " differences" which will make mass-production. methods attractive within socialism. The answer is they won't be particularly attractive or repulsive for that matter. They may simply be preferable to the alternatives. I agree there is no question of socialism giving us repetitive jobs that require the use of only a small part of our nervous system and brain capacity. Machines will be used as a substitute for slave labour, performing monotonous tasks and leaving people free to do essentially human work.
6.3.1 Abolishing the Cities
The masters of scientific socialism advocated the abolition of town and country, asserts Comrade Turner. But the actual quotations from Capital and Landmarks only include the phrase " the separation between town and country"'. To abolish the separation is not necessarily to abolish every distinction between the two. When we say that socialism will abolish the separation between men and women in the sphere of work, we do not mean that men and women will be abolished. In order to get Engels' quotation in perspective , one should read the preceding paragraphs. The large cities which " will take much time and trouble to abolish " are the factory towns. Engels doesn't refer to socialism, but writes of “the proportionate distribution of the greater -industry throughout the country ". Earlier, in a letter to Lange, he had written: “ We start from the premise that the same forces which have created modern bourgeois society also suffice to raise the productive power of each individual, so much that he can produce enough for the consumption of 2, 3, 4, or 5 individuals. Then town industry, as it is today,, will be able to spare people enough to give agriculture quite other forces than it has had up to now: science will then at last be applied in agriculture on a large scale and with the same consistency as in industry.
Selected Correspondence p.199
And this process has, in fact, already begun. The town has spread into the country—satellite towns are being developed and farms mechanised. True, the increase in productivity is to some extent offset by the more " roundabout " mass-production methods. On the other hand, the growth of universality, being brought about by the world-wide nature of capitalism, means that the gap between the city slicker and the country yokel is narrowing, despite the excessive localisation of production for a market. With socialism, it may still be convenient to localise certain production (e.g., of minerals), and to gather together populations in towns—but nothing like the kind Engels wanted to abolish.
6.3.2 Towns of the Future
Whether or not. William Morris and Belfort Bax are numbered among the ' masters' of scientific socialism, their ideas of the future are more reasonable than many, and do, I think, provide a sound basis for discussion: _
" As to the manufacturing towns . . . they would be superfluous, while on the other hand there would be no great centres of government or finance to attract huge populations or to keep them together. In the future, therefore, towns and cities will be built and inhabited simply as convenient and pleasurable systems of dwelling-houses, which would include, of course, all desirable public buildings."— —" Socialism—Its Growth and Outcome ", p. 314.
But whatever our particular concept of the towns or communities of the future, we must always keep in mind the significance that such speculation has for our propaganda. For, regardless of our personal preferences, the way in which we answer the question " what will sodalism be like?" will largely determine whether our audiences are made to feel with us, apart from us, or even against us.
6.3.3 Significance for Propaganda
Our main object is to get the people we address to agree that the things we propose are practicable and desirable. We all have different ideas about what the future society will look like, which we can discuss endlessly and to which we can convert each other. But remember that all this is sterile unless something emerges that will convince others, that will heb them to understand the principles upon which socialist society must be built.
We are accustomed to saying that we know the past, and indeed much undoubtedly accurate information about it is available. But the n:cture we piece together is not of what really took place—it is our picture of the past, coloured by our present experiences. Much more so is the future, of which we have no concrete data, necessarily our picture of the future.
The use of the scientific method demands that we ascend from the particular to the general. But with the future this is not possible—there is no ' particular' to ascend from. We are accordingly obliged to describe the future by agreeing upon generalities; seeing, as through a fog, the vague outlines of the new society, which become clearer as our audiences approach it in ideas and we all approach it in time.
What do most people want from life? Take away all the products of capitalist influence (difficult though this may be) and you have a residue of human hopes, desires and fears that is remarkably universal. Each of us, in becoming a socialist, integrates these feelings with the formal socialist case—though sometimes this process is painfully slow. Perhaps our propaganda has not been as helpful as it could be. There is so much common ground that we and our audiences share, so many ways to express and appreciate our similarities, that it seems a pity to accentuate the trifling differences.
6.3.4 Points of Agreement ?
Any summary of the ground covered in dealing with the whole question of future production must be inadequate, since its ramifications are so all-embracing. The articles on mass-production may be taken in conjunction with the extracts from "The New Vision" (Jan. Forum) and with the article on Wealth Production in this issue. From these I tentatively suggest that the following points will be acceptable to members:
1.There will be no belt-systems under Socialism. Machines will be used to perform tedious and irksome tasks, but not at the expense of making people into appendages of machines.
2.The division of labour will be such as to encourage the maximum all-round development of human potentialities. (How this will be achieved is a more contentious matter.)
:3. The separation between town and country will be abolished—there will be no vast cities like London to-day. Production will be to satisfy the requirements of individuals and society in a mutually complementary way.
4. There will no longer be a separation between work and leisure. Work will become the expression of living.
There is vast scope here for making contact with people. Let our speakers and writers go at it—and put some flesh and blood on that skeleton of production for use.
S.R.P.
6.4 THE BURDEN OF HEAD OFFICE
THE Party is going through a bad period. Ostensibly, through lack of money, it is deferring tasks and cutting down on propagamda activities that are crying out to be undertaken. There is the new edition of Questions of the Day to be published, other pamphlets have been written; provincial propaganda, the hiring of halls, publicity and election campaigns are all held up, awaiting funds. When somebody asks (as more and more are doing) why one of these activities can't be lannched or expanded, the inevitable answer is. “we can't afford it".
But let's take a look at what we can afford. We are the proud owners of nine rooms at Clapham. The Party, whose only justification for existence is the spreading of socialist propaganda, kids itself that these shackles on its limbs are both necessary and desirable.
Do you remember a circular sent out by the New Premises Fund Organisers just before we bought 52 Clapham High Street? It said: , “ In more suitable rooms, the large amount of work needed to be done in our organization can be done more quickly and more efficiently." And just after we moved in, the Premises Committee joyously wrote (S.S., Nov. 1951), “ In the past, the S.P.G.B. has been handicapped in its organization by unsuitable premises . . . We were fortunate to find more suitable premises . . . The premises,
we believe, will serve a long-felt want as a centre of social life for members and friends." Such was the enthusiasm for No. 52 that not even seven months of living with her could damp the ardour of her supporters, though her extravagant tastes were becoming obvious.
More recently, a writer in Forum (Dec.) thought that " the overwhelming majority of the membership like and want the sort of facilities offered by the present (or similar) premises." Yes, to some it still feels good to be married to old Jezebel; but now the honeymoon period is over, let us make a few comparisons with our irresponsible bachelor days at Rugby Chambers.
6.4.1 Crowning Irony
First, it is said that Party work can now be done more quickly and effieciently. More quickly?—presumably because there is room for more helpers. But there aren't more helpers! The fact is, more members used to crowd into the 1,200 sq. ft. of Rugby Chambers on, a Tuesday than do into the 3,000 sq. ft. of No. 52. More efficiently? Maybe the subcommittees find it easier to work in? On the whole, the reverse is true—and the crowning irony is the Premises Committee's admission that their work was made difficult because some of them live on the other side of London!
Then, Rugby Chambers was "unsuitable". You couldn't hold public meeting there. Nor can you at No. 52—where it's not the landlord
that stops you but the public. But, at least, we acknowledged the fact at Rugby Chambers, and held good indoor meetings at the T.U. Club, Leicester Square. Now what happens in that big room at H.O.? There are the E.C. meetings, a class or two and a forum—hardly ever is the audience bigger than the old E.C. room at Rugby Chambers could have held.
A centre of social life? A.P. summed it up as a club in Clapham. However welcome the socialist cup of tea and game of darts, such considerations should not be ranked as activities of the Party for which premises are required.
6.4.2 There Are Other Premises
The chief defence of No. 52 is that " it was the lesser of two evils". But it can hardly be maintained that there was no other property to be found. If we could buy a place for £4,000 and £10 a week running expenses (yes, that's what it costs) then smaller premises would have cost proportionately less. And, in fact, while No. 52 was being bought, I submited details of seven rooms in good repair at Chalk Farm for £3,000 and about £6 a week —but unfortunately they were sold in the interim.
In the last year or so, more property has come on to the market, and it is cheaper. Though it might be hard to sell No. 52, we could assuredly buy a smaller place that would be perhaps £4 a week cheaper to run. Or it is now quite possible that we could rent some rooms at less than £10 a week, thus freeing our whole purchase price.
What sort of place should we look for? I suggest it should be reasonably central (which Clapham is not); about half the floor space of No. 52, i.e. a bit bigger than Rugby Chambers; and in good repair. The only work for the Party in which a socialist builder or decorator can take a pride is helping to propagate socialist ideas.
As I see it, we need lose none of the facilities at No. 52, except possibly the canteen and the rare full-to-capacity meetings in the hall. True, we should probably be overcrowded on a Tuesday evening. However, we could survive that. And there wouldn't be a spare room for whoever fancies he needs one—but this is a luxury the Party can well do without.
6.4.3 Party Finances
Many members hold the mistaken view that wc can increase Party income by the amount that we increase prices of literature, dues stamps, etc. They fail to see the problem of finance as a whole. Thus the raising of H.O. dues from 2d. to 4d. means on paper increasing receipts from £450to £900 p.a. In fact, however, dues receipts at 2d. have been just over £300—and the Party will be very lucky to get an extra £300. But this will affect donations, so the net gain may be less than £200. It is not that members have a fixed amount to give the Party, but that paying Peter often robs Paul.
To make the S.S. 66.., for example, would increase income only at the cost of losing readers. But a reduction in expenditure has no such drawback. If we save £200 a year on HO, it is a real economy, not a false one. If on the other hand, we close the gap at no 52 by increased dues, it will only be at the expense of other funds.
Only by reducing H.O. expenditure will we gain real benefit from increased dues, some of which can be earmarked for propaganda. Of course, some say we should raise money – by a mortgage or other loan. But this is no solution since there is still the liability to repay. Even a substantial donation would only ease matters temporarily.
Until we can widen the circle of our contributors, we are faced with the necessity of cutting expenditure where it will do least harm to our propaganda. It is not the shabby offices that are a disgrace to the Party, but the shabby propaganda. We must cut our losses at No. 52.
S.R.P.
6.5 USES FOR H.O,
Now that we have had the Clapham premises for two years, it is obvious that we are not getting a quarter out of them that we should. It my opinion we should be using them every night for some activity the whole year round. Naturally attendance at the beginning of such activity would be small. The oak was once an acorn.
In brief, this is what should be done.
1. A lecture every Sunday night the whole year round, with a programme in the S.S. two months ahead.
2. The E.C. to meet one night.
3. A regular evening for Inter Party Discussions.
4. One for discussing current events and problems of the day.
5. One for study classes, especially the
study of public speaking and debating.
6. One for social activities and games.
7. On the remaining evening S.W. London branch meets, and various committee meetings.
8. This is most important. All meetings
should start at 7 pm. weekdays, and 6 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. Croydon Branch members and those coming from Caterham, Coulsdon find that they have to leave in the middle of most discussions to get home, and this applies to many who come long distances. There is nothing to prevent Saturday and Sunday meetings starting at 6 p.m.; then when over cups of tea, darts or arguments are desired these won't then interfere with the business of the evening. But to put them first means that a lot of comrades are not going to waste their time by attending half a meeting and having to go because of poor transport. Naturally I know the objections to all these, and I've got the answers. But unless we do something about it we shall fail to take advantage of the Party's best opportunity of expanding that we have ever had. Let's act now or it will go through our fingers.
H. JARVIS
6.6 WHAT IS MASS PRODUCTION?
FIVE main techniques, or methods, of production have been used in Britain in the last 500 years. They are as follows:
6.6.1 1. Handicraft
This is the simplest method of wealth production, in which a man works on materials with a tool, and produces whole articles, such as tables and chairs. Finger skill is essential in this method, and proficiency is termed craftsmanship. William Morris is the best known student and advocate of this method in recent years.
6.6.2 2. Manufacture
In this method, a number of workers are concentrated in a single workshop, and though each works on material with a tool, he does only a limited number of operations; he specialises and becomes a cog in a manufacturing process, for the manufacturing method consists essentially of a process of which all the working parts are human being. This is the type of mass production described and criticised by Adam Smith and his teacher, Ferguson.
6.6.3 3. Power-driven Machinery
This is the method of the Mechanical Era which started with the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century. Here man is a machine-minder, looking after a machine which consists of a power unit, a transmission mechanism and a working tool. The physical exertions of the man are replaced by a power unit, while the transmission mechanism controls the tool in place of his fingers. There has been some controversy in the past as to whether the transmission mechanism, which eliminates finger skill, is more basic than the power unit, which replaces human energy. But the development of each went hand in hand with the other in capitalist society, because the existence of a crude engine made the need of a transmission mechanism clear and vice versa.
In the mechanical era, handicraftsmanship is replaced as much as possible by machinery, and the craftsman of this era is the mechanic or engineer. This work can be just as interesting as handicraft work, though now a large proportion of the workers are relegated to monotonous machine operating.
This is the method of production analysed, and vividly laid bare by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
6.6.4 4. The Belt System
This is essentially the manufacturing method streamlined by using power to drive a conveyor belt, which carries the object under construction from worker to worker, each of whom merely repeats a few simple actions on each object as it passes him. The Chicago stockvards of the late 19th century, in which a pig was carried along on an overhead convevor. is a rudimentary example of this rnethod, but it came of age in 1913, when Ford introduced it into motor car production. The belt can easilv be speeded up, and to keep the workers active. thugs have been employed, of which the Pinkerton Agency of Chicago is an
example. Some of Upton Sinclair's novels, for example "The Flivver King", describes this method of wealth production.
The conveyor belt system may be regarded as a special case of the general analysis called Time and Motion Study, which is the science of treating man as a cog in an industrial machine. Such refinements increase man's slavery to machinery, in contrast to the introduction of machinery to eliminate toil.
6.6.5 5. Automatically Controlled Machinery
Once this type of machine has been set up, it will continue to perform certain operations as long as power and raw materials are supplied to it, testing the products, and if necessary readjusting itself, to continue producing products within the desired tolerance. An example of a very rudimentary control system is the thermostat on a home refrigerator, which switches the motor of the cooling mechanism on or off to regulate the temperature as desired.
This method of production is based on an understanding of the science of electricity, just as the power-driven machinery is based on mechanical science. Crude autocontrols can be hydromechanical, but only with the simplicity of electrical devices does it come into its own. We already understand enough of electronics to use thermionic (radio) valves and photocells to make most of the present-day productive processes automatic, though as yet such devices have only been applied to a few industrial processes. But guided missiles are being provided with these electronic controls, and there is no fundamental difference in controlling a homing anti-aircraft rocket and an industrial process.
Still the best non-technical exposition of the science and social implications of automatic controls is The Human Use of Human Beings, by Norbert Wiener, a leading research worker
in this field, which he terms Cybernetics.
* * *
From this classification the following points of interest emerge:
3.The term Mass Production could be applied to all but one (handicraft) of these methods.
4.All five methods are in use in the world to-day.
5.The Belt System is the Manufacturing Method of the Machine Age.
6.Productive processes have been simplified so that each man does merely a few simple manipulations, and then a device is constructed to perform these manipulations more systemically (because it is cheaper), needing man then only for maintenance and adjustment. The first half of this ' cycle' make man a servant to the "Iron Master", while the latter half tends to make him redundant to the productive processes, or in other words. liberates him from the necessity of toil.
7.It is necessary to understand current natural science to discuss such subjects as the relevance of mass production to a socialist society in a useful way, because production then will use the knowledge of nature available to make life a joy, not merely continue to use the methods that were suitable for capitalist society. We must use the past as a guide, not a master, because if life is to be a great adventure, it can hardly be a mere reflection of mankind's sordid past.
6.6.6 Socialism
Amongst other obstacles to describing socialist society, is the fact that we know only the potentialities of our present-day knowledge of nature at best. We are able to describe socialist productive methods as they could be to-morrow, but are largely ignorant of the techniques that may be available even in the near future. Here we break the vicious circle by considering a few aspects of socialism as it could be technically to-morrow. We need a set of reasons why socialism should have certain features, not a romantic description served on a golden platter of elegant literary style, as given so ably by William Morris in News from Nowhere.
The potentiality of productive techniques to-day is such that automatically-controlled machines could perform a number of necessary, but tedious or irksome tasks, and much of the apparatus could be drastically simplified. Already in the search for robust circuit components for aircraft, rockets and tanks, etc., a new crystal rectifier has been developed to
replace the complex vacuum thermionic valve for rectification. In fact, new technical devices need be neither ugly or crude—that is only the -imprint of capitalist society, which injects a mad rush into present-day research, producing merely cheap appartus to serve the needs of capital, not humanity. Scientists, like other people, will be much happier producing elegant, aesthetically satisfying devices.
As a specific example consider the question of illumination. The writer submits that electric lighting (supplied by filament bulbs, fluorescent strip-lights or some similar device) driven by a generator (which could be a housetop windmill or solar energy absorber, coupled with storage batteries) would be preferable to an oil lamp, and why not mass produce such devices, using automatically-controlled machinery?
In the field of materials, plastics have become notorious as cheap substitutes, and so possibly some people would suggest that socialist society will have no use for them, forgetting that they must be judged on their intrinsic properties and not on their usage in capitalist society.. In a socialist society, shoddy goods will not be produced, and tools will not be discarded when they wear out or break, but the material will be reprocessed and so " dirty work ", such as mining, will be minimised. In these conditions, the large group of plastics which arc readily remoulded on heating—the thermoplastics—are likely to be very useful.
6.6.7 Speed
Although speed does not strictly fall within the scope of this article, the following points should be noted. Certain natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, necessitate prompt, swift actions if people are not to be maimed and lives lost. Possibly in the not so distant future, weather may be controlled by some leisurely automatic process. But at the moment the only experiments on controlling weather— cloud seeding with dry ice and other materials to produce rain—need all the speed of modern devices, such as aircraft, and have (if any) a very modest success. Therefore, the only defence to-day is provided by aircraft reconnaissance, coupled with radio warning services, and the introduction of socialism will not alter that. Similarly, while accidents will be less frequent in a socialist society, medical emergency services will still need prompt, rapid transport. To summarise, in a socialist society speed will be used to save life, not to destroy it.
In conclusion, I must add that I know that many discoveries to-day merely make more toil, but I suggest that is a characteristic of capitalist society, not the intrinsic nature of the discoveries. Once scientists are given the chance to build machines for a happy world, they will not fail; in fact, I submit that only then will craftsmanship escape from the bondage of handicraftsmanship,
ROBERTUS.
6.7 INHERITED OR ACQUIRED?
Reply to Comrade Bott
COMRADE P. BOTT {Forum, January) puts forward a number of statements about the inheritance of ability which are quite out of keeping with the scientific and objective view of the subject which socialists should hold. He gives a short account of Behaviourism (a doctrine which in its pure form is practically -untenable, and which is repudiated by almost all present-day psychologists) not admitting either to agreement or disagreement with it; the ideas of William James, Jung MacDougall and Spearman are summed up in a short paragraph; and he quotes the performance of six athletes, which can prove nothing whatever. But most important is the statement that " not the single piece of objective evidence exists in support of the genetic theory of the inheritance of special abilities ".
This is simply untrue. How, in principle, could we decide whether an ability was inherited or not? We must obviously consider this very seriously, because either there is no possible way of settling the matter to everyone's satisfaction (in which case there is no point in investigating the matter: we can go on hugging our prejudices) or else there does exist a method for deciding the matter.
6.7.1 A Matter of Degree
There is no sense in the question: " Is this particular ability completely inherited, or is it
completely made by the environment?" Any reputable book on the subject will tell you that there is no sense in talking about "either heredity or environment ". All human abilities are formed by both. Even in processes which are far more automatic than practically any of man's, such as the nest-building of birds, environmental factors (such as the shape of the place where the nest is built) can alter the performance considerably. And equally obviously, even the lowly chameleon, whose appearance is almost exclusively determined by the environment, could not be so determined unless his hereditary constitution enabled him. How much more in man, who is far more complex, must the two sides mingle and interweave ?
The question at issue in any particular case, then, reduces itself to: "Is this particular ability more inherited than acquired, and if so, how. much more?"—and vice versa. This will not please those victims of the " either-or-", who still love their answers to be all black or all white, but it must be recognised before any progress can be made in the practical solution of the problem.
6.7.2 How To Investigate It
Let us take an actual example—preferably a rather frivolous one, so that our emotions will not cloud judgment too much. Let us
ask the question: " Is the ability to stand on one's head for more than a minute mainly inherited, or mainly due to environment?" The method of settling this point will be the same method as that which we should use in settling any question of this type.
The first thing we shall do is to find a pair of identical twins who were separated at birth or soon after, and brought up by different people in different parts of the country. We shall then test them for this ability, and also ask questions both of them and of those responsible for them or friendly with them, to find out such things as when they first stood on their heads, whether they once could but now can no longer, owing to age, disease, accidents, etc., : collecting all strictly relevant material. We shall then compare the two: We find, say, that both can do it. They both first did it at school at about the same age. We go on, and find another pair of identical twins who have been brought up apart, and do the same thing . . . and so on, with as many pairs as we can find. We should recall that identical (one-egg) twins have an identical hereditary makeup. Fraternal (two-egg) twins are no more alike than any brothers or sisters.
We now have a set of observations from which we can already tell something. If, in each pair of twins examined, we find that either both or else neither can do it, we are well on the road to establishing that it's very largely hereditary: whereas if we find that in half the pairs, both twins perform the same, hi in the other half they perform differently, we shall be equally far towards showing that heredity plays only a very small part.
Our next job will be to do the same tests, etc., with the same number of pairs of fraternal twins who have been brought up together. Here the results will have a complementary meaning. If in every case either both can do it. or both cannot, we shall probably not be far wrong in assuming that environment plays the major role: whereas if in half the cases both perform similarly, and in the other half dissimilarly, it would seem unlikely that environiment could play a preponderant part.
But, to make sure, we shall test also identical twins who have been brought up together, and fraternal twins who have been brought up apart. By combining the results of the four groups in a suitable statistical formula, we can not only find out whether the ability we are testing is mainly hereditary or mainly environmental in its origin, but also how much is due to the one factor and how much to the other. Depending on the formula we adopt, this will be expressed in the form of " odds", a proportion, or percentage.
6.7.3 How Not To Do It
There is no other method which will give such accurate results, though any method which uses a similar principle will get results which have some pretensions to scientific respects.
But Comrade Bott's "method", of taking six athletes with (presumably) different parents, but with an environment in at least one respect (athletic training) similar, can prove precisely nothing—except that similar environments can, under favourable conditions, sometimes produce similar results, even when the hereditary constitutions are different. It did not need Comrade Bott to tell us that. We have all seen dead-heats. But we have also seen a Zatopek. Apparently, Comrade Bott has not.
Comrade Bott isolated these six, without comparing them with any other
six. This sort of metaphysical isolation of cases which one thinks to be favourable to one's argument is unscientific in the extreme, and does great harm to the claim of Socialism to be a scientific and reasoned case.
The method of science is not to find a lot of favourable instances, or indeed a lot of unfavourable instances, but to use a principle which will give a positive answer, accounting for both favourable and unfavourable instances.
6.7.4 The Principle Involved
What is the principle involved in the twin-method of working? It is this: (1) If two people have a very similar heredity and very different environments, very close similarities are more likely to be due to heredity than to environment, and very marked differences are more likely to be due to environment than to heredity ; and (2) Where two people have different heredity and similar environments, similarities will be mainly due to environment, and differences to heredity.
At once, we can see certain difficulties with these two assumptions, and more particularly with the second.- The difficulty with the first is that while it's easy enough to find people with a " very similar heredity"—identical twins have exactly similar heredity—it's not so easy to find a " very different" environment. Almost any environment would be dominated by the capitalist system, and would therefore be very largely similar. The ideal thing would be to swap one of a pair of British and one of a pair of Arapesh twins at birth, for example, and note all the difference and similarities that appeared as the four children grew up. But for science to interfere with people in this way would perhaps be unpardonable. Short of this, however, it is difficult to see how the two environments could be so very different. Still, they could be different enough for our purpose if the two children were brought up in different families, went to different schools, had different holiday, climatic conditions, food, accents and relations to town and country.
When we come to assumption (2), there are
two difficulties to face. The first is: How can two people have " different heredity " ? It is very difficult for two people to have no genetical similarity. We all know, for example, that two completely different people can both have blue eyes, and therefore at least one gene in common. There are many other characters which are largely determined genetically, and one could never guarantee that two people we selected would not have quite a few of them in common. This objection has even more weight when we reflect that the people actually used in these experiments were fraternal twins, who both had the same parents!
But the objection is not a fatal one. It is not necessary that the two people should be completely different. To ask that they should be is to exhibit the black-and-white mentality so characteristic of mechanistic thinkers. All that is necessary is that they should be very much more different than the identical twins. And this requirement is amply fulfilled.
The second objection is: How can two people have " similar environments " ? But this need not detain us long. The whole effect of capitalism is to make environments more and more similar. And again, it is not necessary that they shall be exactly similar—only very much more similar than those of the separated identical twins.
So that the objections, while performing the very useful function of outlining the limits of accuracy of the possible experiments, only confirm the fundamental truth of the method itself.
To sum up: (1) There is no sense in asking—" Is a specific ability only inherited or entirely learned?" (2) There is a method by which we can find out how much part is played by heredity and how much by environment in any given case, (3) This method involves the use of twins and statistical analysis. (4) Any method which ignores both twins and statistics should be regarded with great suspicion.
J. C. Rowan.
6.8 CAN WE THINK SCIENTIFICALLY?
Socialism is a proposal to apply an idea to a environment. Its efficacy depends upon validity of the idea. The test of the sound-of the idea is the accuracy of the analysis capitalism. An enquiry into the nature of rcacomena merits the term scientific when it is pursued irrespective of emotion, prejudice, ar fear of its consequences.
When sufficient knowledge is available to a social order, its laws may be formulated. These laws may be checked and by repeated reference to similar phenomena at various times and places. If check they eventually become established, that is. acquire acceptance and validity.
Examples: Marx's Law of the Concentration of
Capital. Ricardo's Labour Theory of Value.
The postulation of such laws is more than just analysis of the observed and verified facts. It has an aim, which must be a synthesis of the objective facts and the subjective mental process of the thinker. The aim is the solution of the problem.
When such a chain of reasoning is built up, it becomes a hypothesis—which is not a guess or wish, but a " reasonable assumption by which we explain the orderliness of facts." (Scientific Method, A. Wolf.)
"A hypothesis is a proposition suggested by the evidence available to establish the conclusion but insufficient to demonstrate the conclusion." (A Modern Elementary Logic, by Susan S tabbing, p. 179.) " It has sometimes been held that a hypothetical proposition expresses
doubt. This is a mistake." (Ibid p. 28.)'
Having established a certain fact as our major premiss, we then infer certain conclusions from this, according to the laws of sound and correct thinking. A premiss is a statement from which an inference is drawn.
The science of thinking is called logic—and that process of thought which is controlled by its rules, is called- logical. By definition, a sound hypothesis must have verifiable fact as its major premiss, or first proposition. Example, " ALL men are fallible." This defines or separates MEN, a category from other entities.
Most of the hypotheses of the founder of the science of logic (Aristotle) started off wrongly with an unsound major premiss. If we accept the major premiss of religion, the existence of gods, the rest is logical. Religious controversy will continue, therefore, so long is this unestablished premiss is acceptable.
From the general first clause we may proceed to the second or particular minor premiss—" The Pope is a Man ", that is one of the class MEN; and lastly draw the condition of our reasoning. Therefore, the Pope is fallible. He satisfies both the required conditions. He is a man, all of whom are fallible; therefore he is fallible.
The Socialist Party's claim that the road ro Socialism is through Parliament is such a valid hypothesis. It follows rigorously from trie major premiss that Socialism is democratic; minor premiss, democracy operates through Parliament; conclusion, therefore Socialism is Parliamentary.
6.8.1 A Specialised Art
It is evident that logical thinking is strewn with pitfalls, quite apart from cases where we cannot make hard and fast definitions, for example, in highly abstract conceptions like Truth, Right, Matter, Justice, where formal logic will not work.
Liberal speakers agree with Socialists that Tories merely imitate the Labour Government when elected. Their first premiss only seems like that of Socialists—their conclusion is " Vote Liberal". Their syllogism might read: Tories and Labour are bad ", " Liberals are mot Tory or Labour", "Therefore Vote Liberal; It is Good ". We see, therefore, that thinkers can draw opposing conclusions from the same accepted premisses.
These syllogisms can vary a great deal, both in subject and predicate; they may be positive cr negative, whole or partial. The so-called middle-term, MAN, may be entirely or partially distributed. These cases are the subject matter of logic.
From what has already been said, it should be clear that logical thinking is a specialised art which requires some form of application, or training. Babies are not born with logical brains. Logical thought is an artificial construction of Man to help solve his problems. We owe many great scientific achievements to its use by men like Galileo, Darwin, Pasteur and Faraday. Scientists are trained to use it in their own field, e.g., medicine, arid other workers use it to maintain and control machinery—but many abandon it in politics or religion.
6.8.2 Trial and Error
No human being is completely and utterly logical; precisely because he is a human being —examples: personal relations, sexual attractions. We are all compounds, paradoxical admixtures of Reason and Emotion, and, desirable though it may be that Socialists should be logical and control emotions by reason based on knowledge, there are times in every Socialist's life when feeling will influence action. This is the value of the Socialist Party to the individual member, which by critical discussion should sort out facts from wishes, and discipline Party actions by reason.
If our proposition that logical thought is a specialised study is correct, it is self-evident that the vast majority do not consciously think logically—they do not know how to. Yet it is equally evident that nearly all human beings think—it is essential to normal life. There are grounds for assuming that some animals have the beginnings of a thought process,: —though without the tool of thought (speech) they cannot develop it very far.
The fact is that most human beings are rational, not logical. They think by trial and error, or " hit and miss ", which is not scientific, but empirical
Interesting studies have been made of the way in which many long established dicta of empirical thinking have been confirmed by subsequent scientific investigations. Examples: " Rain before seven, fine before eleven"; "Friday wet, Sunday set"; "Practice makes perfect", etc. Some writers go so far as to claim that even pre-historic' man, chipping a flint, was employing scientific methods, and that the mere formulation of words like " Bear " or " Tree ", because of their abstraction from actual bears or trees, implies the existence of early science. This is one view of Professor Gordon Childe, in " Man Makes Himself ", which, despite profound respect for his great erudition, I cannot accept.
I submit that there is a deep difference between the work of the Egyptian rope-stretchers, as the early priest-engineers were called (who discovered a general law that a triangle of sides 3 4 5 invariably produces a right-angle, and used it to set out buildings in theory in the sand beforehand) and the pre-historics who chipped haphazardly until a certain flint came right. The first discoveries, Fire, Pottery, etc., were probably lucky accidents: the last almost made to order, the Atom bomb, Radar, etc.
6.8.3 Thinking Before Logic
What distinguishes the worst of architects from the best of bees is the ability to draw up a written plan beforehand, wrote Marx. I have heard it said that a baby formulates a scientific theory after burning his hands three or four times in a fire. If scientific investigation is the discovery of connections between phenomena previously thought discrete, then obviously babies cannot formulate, scientific theories by involuntary response to pain.
Some hold that because we cannot lay down a dead-line when primitive man stopped feeling and started thinking (either that man has always thought and thus science has always existed; or because men thought when they built a hut, or trapped an animal) there can be no such thins; as scientific thought to-day.
While it is trite, as T. H; Huxley pointed out. that we all think and act scientifically sometimes, that a chemist using a balance is merely performing the operation of weighing with finer accuracy, it does not' follow that every greengrocer's boy is therefore a scientist when ".grocing his greens".
" It is with logic as with other sciences," wrote old Joe Dietzgen. " They draw wisdom from the mysterious source of plain experience.
Agriculture, e.g., aims to teach the farmer how to cultivate the soil, but fields were tilled long before any agricultural college had begun its lectures. In the same way, human beings think without ever having heard of logic. But by practice they improve their innate faculty of thought, they make progress, they gradually learn to make better use of it. Finally, just as the farmer arrives at the science of agriculture, so the thinker arrives at logic, acquires a clear consciousness of his faculty of thought and a professional dexterity in applying it." (Joseph Dietzgen, Second Letter on Logic, Positive Outcome of Philosophy, p. 82.)
A remarkable example culled from many (the history of Science is the story of them) is that given by Sir Leonard Woolley in his broadcasts on the excavations at Ur, entitled " Digging Up The Past". He points out that Carnavon and Garter owed their discovery of King Tutankhamen's tomb " not to; a stroke of good luck ", but to " patient following out of a logical theory". They knew that the Valley of Thebes was the burial ground of the Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty. All except two kings' graves had been found. Two were therefore still to seek in the valley.'. They dug for three years and were ultimately successful.
6.8.4 Socialists Must Be Logical
The impressive achievements of logical thought prove its superiority over empirical thinking by actual results. " But," says Susan Stebbing, " unfortunately no one has the power to command us to think logically, even if it were so, we have not always the power to obey such a command.' Our thinking is in part determined by our emotional attitudes and our deep-seated prejudices."' (Modern Elementary Logic, p. 160.)
" Hence the first task of the scientist is to describe and classify . . . everyone engages in this type of scientific activity; we pass insensibly from common-sense knowledge through organised common-sense to knowledge that can be called ' strictly scientific' " (Ibid, p. 169.) .
In his thinking about Socialism, at least, whatever he may be in other fields, the active member of the Socialist movement can and should be logical,
" If I seek thus rationally to convince myself or others that a certain proposition is true I must be careful to ascertain whether the premisses are true and I must , aim at constructing a rigorously valid argument. An argument is valid if the conclusion is drawn in accordance with the logical rules, e.g., of the syllogism or the compound arguments. ... Formal logical rules cannot afford us a certain guarantee that our arguments are conclusive, but a keen awareness of them, combined. with a desire to reason correctly, undoubtedly helps us to detect fallacies." Modern Elementary Logic, p. 159.
People who apply these methods to the modern, social problems are scientific socialists, who try to think scientifically about humanity,
HORATIO.

7. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 7
APRIL 1953

7.1 SHOULD WE BE SELECTIVE?
Which Workers support the Party:
From one point of view the plea for selective propaganda requires little more than the extension into organised progaganda work of a principle which guides our individual efforts to persuade others to our way of thinking.
In our day-to-day personal propaganda for Socialism, we are all selective. We know from experience that, although few of any are completely and utterly " hopeless " prospects, some people have much more in common with our views, are " more sympathetic ", " better prospects ", or " nearer our position " than others. This is to be expected. Even assuming complete biological equality at birth among human beings (a not altogether unwise assumption for ihe sociologist) the differing environmental backgrounds make for differences of viewpoint among people, which render some more recep-iire to socialist propaganda than others.
In this way we explain why only the odd one or two at present respond favourably to our propaganda and ultimately join the Party, while the majority we meet react in a different fashion. When we further consider that people become socialists from many and varied walks of life, we are led to the conclusion that receptivity to socialist propaganda is an attitude or outlook upon life, not necessarily of an occupational character.
From this standpoint, those affinities of outlook with which we are concerned lie not in mere agreement about empirically observable fact, but rather in a similarity of more fundamental or basic ideas in terms of which the day-to-day empirical facts are interpreted and understood. Briefly then, those people whose basic ideas conform more and more closely to our own, whose pattern of generalisations into which the detailed facts of everyday life are assimilated, will be those to whom, other things equal, our propaganda could be more fruitfully directed.
7.1.1 Basic Question of Philosophy
"THE concept of basic or fundamental ideas is not a new one. In our own case we recognise certain of our ideas as derived from more fundamental notions. The D. of P. itself we recognise as a number of generalisations derived from the application of a more general principle (the M.C.H.) to a particular phase of historical development. The M.C.H. in turn we know has derived from the application to the sphere of society of an even more abstract body :f generalisations—materialsm in general, or
the materialist philosophy.
From the foregoing, it follows that similarity of outlook is greatest where the most fundamental (i.e. philosophical) views are most alike. Obversely, outlooks differ most where differences reach down to basic ideas (again philosophical ones). Materialism and idealism present two opposing answers to the basic question of all philosophy—the relation of mind to matter, thought to being, or consciousness to existence (see Engels). The answers materialism gives to this question lead us to the idea of man as a creature of circumstances largely determined by environment, and to the negation of the idea of free will. Idealism, on the other hand, is associated with free will, the " triumph of mind over matter ", concepts of soul and spirit, and vitalistic assumptions generally.
Little wonder that a political materialist and a political idealist, setting out to discuss a social problem, e.g. crime and punishment, become involved in an argument which leaves deep differences of opinion almost invariably unresolved. The former sees the criminal as a product of society, whereas the latter sees the problems of crime and punishment as products of human nature.
When the argument ranges over even wider issues (e.g. would socialism work?) we see the conflict of opinion at its greatest. The following are some of the most popular questions discussed.
1.Would people work without compulsion?
2.Who would do the " dirty " work?
3.What about the criminal?
4.Isn't war human nature?
5.Surely there must be leaders?
All these questions imply this basic problem of philosophy, the relation of man to his environment. This is made clear when we reply to questioners by pointing out that in one way or another they are projecting into the future, as immutable features of human nature, characteristics which we see as derived from and appropriate to certain specific material conditions of society. These questions are not unconnected posers. They arise from a more or less idealistic interpretation of specific social problems. In fact, the more idealistic the interpretation the less "social" and more individual and personal do the problems become. This is seen in that kind of solution that says "recovery begins within," because for that person the problem begins within.
7.1.2 Our Left-Wing Origin
We now come to the first major proposition with regard to propaganda. Those people
to whom propaganda efforts can be more fruitfully directed are those whose basic views are materialist or near materialist.
In the political field, the materialist and idealist attitudes to social problems find their expression in left wing and right wing groups respectively. The more " left " the political movement, the more its theoretical case conflicts with the assumptions of idealism—free will, spirit, soul, God. In the most developed form of left-wing thought—i.e. ourselves, the S.P.G.B.—the conflict is explicit and admits of no compromise. In less developed left-wing thought, the recognition of these conflicting assumptions is less clear. People who believe in God can and do join those organisations and work within them, although very often their conception of God, as actively participating in man's social life, is diluted and modified to a' " God help them as helps themselves" attitude. Be that as it may, however, the general proposition holds that in extreme left-wing politics philosophical thought is uncompromisingly materialist.
I have used the term " left-wing" in connection with the Party, although I realise we do not consider ourselves, and are not in fact, "left-wing" politicians in the "practical politics" and reformist sense of the term. Nevertheless, the name " left-wing" has obvious connections with ourselves the moment we consider the politcial group from which we emerged. We were born of "left-wing" circles. This fact alone is of enormous significance as a historical and evolutionary justification of the views put forward in this article.
Would anyone seriously contend that our Party could have emerged from Conservative or even near-right zving political circles ? Yet a similar assumption is made about supporters of " right-wing " political organisations to-day, i.e. that We are as likely to obtain the understanding support of those who support " right-wing " politics as those who who understand and support " left-wing " groups.
In the above passages I have used terms of which space precludes definition. Very often, however, the meaning of a phrase becomes apparent on scrutiny of its context, Should this not be the case, I will be happy to enter into fuller detail in a future contribution.
J. McGregor.
7.2 ELECTORAL ACTIVITY IN N. PADDINGTON
AT the time of writing, it is likely that W. Field, M.P., will resign. The resulting by-election in North Paddington would provide the opportunity for the Party to implement its Conference decision to contest suitable by-elections whenever possible.
On February 24th, Paddington Branch asked the E.C. to arrange to contest this by-election. The E.C. motion to do so was lost 4-7, on the grounds that the Party was thought to be unable to collect the necessary money without Jeopardising other projects such as the new edition of Questions of the Day. The " consid-ition " that was given to the proposal to contest North Paddington was the decision to make no move to try. No enthusiasm was shown by the majority of E.C. members, no expression however pious) of regret in turning it down —just capitulation, without a struggle to raise a penny for this purpose from the Party that says it wants to contest elections, and particularly by-elections.
We must now reiterate the case for contesting elections, or, rather, for at least trying to contest elections. The advantages of running a concentrated propaganda drive at a by-election are obvious. During the campaign, attention is focussed on the constituency and on the party politics put forward by the candidates. The publicity value is on a national scale and creates an interest and an effect that cannot be achieved by other means.
At present, it is true, the Party is desperately short of money. We urgently need funds to carry on the day-to-day work of the Party, aside from the expense of running an electoral
campaign (minimum £400). But we are confident that if members! and sympathisers know the facts—if they understand the necessity of not letting our propaganda suffer through lack of money—then they will rally round as they have in the past.
If there is a by-election in the offing, then there is no time to lose. A campaign, to be effective, must be planned well beforehand, and machinery set in motion that will slip into top gear as soon as dates are definitely known. The determination to contest elections whenever possible will itself act as a spur to members and sympathisers, who will cease to regard the S.P.G.B. — ai political party — as a mere debating society.
We in Paddington Branch do not believe that lack of money is the only reason for not contesting elections. It is only part of the vicious circle of reduced activity leading to reduced income which, in turn, is the excuse for still further reducing activity. The Party must turn this downward spiral into an upward one. More literature and more meetings require more opportunities for selling literature and for
gathering audiences, and an election campaign is one way of providing such opportunities.
We urged the E.C. to prepare for electoral activity because we believe that the Party can get the money to do whatever the membership is determined to do. It shoud not be a question of priorities. The decision to contest the next General Election, for example, can be made meaningless by adding " if we can afford it". The decision, to be meaningful, must assume the same sort of determination that was shown to purchase Head Office premises.
One final word to the doubters. Electoral •activity does not rob us of literature, meetings and other propaganda.—it gives them a fillip. With enthusiasm, we jump into the propaganda campaign and make it a success.: with doubts, we stand on the edge until we convince ourselves that we can't do it. Unfortunately, those who oppose a certain activity can devalue it simply by refusing to help, or helping halfheartedly. Need we add that Socialism is brought about by the whole-hearted efforts of socialists?
Paddington Branch.
7.3 THE PROPAGANDA OF OUR FUTURE
Reply to Comrade Turner
THE summary of A. Turner's letter ;" to the E.C., published in the December Forum, contains a number of dubious assertions which cannot be accepted without evidence.
The first is that " our opponents no longer have theories ". It is claimed that Gradualism (Labour), Dictatorship (Communist), and Minority Action (Anarchist) are now virtually finished. The " evidence " for this is the members YOU (meaning the reader) meet.
" You seldom meet a Labour or Communist Party member with whom won can argue economic and political theory," says Turner. - This, even if true, is so flimsy as to hardly merit serious consideration. Modern political ;controversy in a literate world is mainly a matter of writing, and documentary evidence is the least one needs before forming any conclusions.
A little thought will show Turner's claim to be a figment of the imagination. If the argument is reduced to the narrow level of personal experience, then I contend that precisely the converse is true. You seldom meet a Labour or Communist member with whom you cannot argue economic and political theory.
7.3.1 Opponents' Theories?
We frequently debate with opponents— Tory, Liberal, Labour, Fabian, etc. What do these opponents say in these discussions? Do they abandon or renounce the theories their parties have been founded on?
A debate recently took place with the Chairman of the London Fabian Society. Comrade Turner took part, attacking the Labour Party and Fabianism, its reformist basis and gradualist policy. If his letter is right, then his speech was wrong.
Every branch carrying on propaganda knows that Labourites and Communists still maintain
the same old theories week after week. They may make new applications, such as " the railways belong to us now " or " nationalisation of the Bank of England has lowered the cost of living", but at rock bottom they are the same old rubbish which the " S.S." was lambasting thirty years ago. The Hampstead Labour Party, for example, regularly open its meetings by claiming to propagate " practical Socialism", meaning the mixture as before.
If these parties no longer argue their theories, and" our case against them has been proved ", how is it that they get 15 million votes and we get 250?
The question obviously arises: " proved " to whom? Comrade Turner is perhaps judging by his own experience. This is a logical fallacy —erroneously attributing a special feature of a small part of the whole. It could even be that he, personally, frightens opponents into silence.
Our case is by no means proved to the working class' as a whole. If it is, then why are we foolishly wasting time trying to do something that is already done?
7.3.2 Irrefutable Evidence
"TAKE the documentary evidence. Does “Let Us Face The Future” defend Gradualism? If not, why does it state that " Socialism cannot come overnight" (p. 6)? Does the Communist Party programme still advocate Dictatorship? Where has it dropped it?
Having read Turner's rather startling information about the Labour and Communist Parties and the Anarchists, I wrote letters to the organisations in question, asking if they still advocated the old theories associated with the rames given by Turner, viz. Gradualism, Dictatorship and Minority Action. The replies are quite decisive. The answer is unmistakably YES.
The Labour Party sent a copy of “Labour and the New Society”, the policy and principles of Democratic Socialism, approved at our Conference at the end of 1950."
" In the Socialist view,' all people also have the right to the basic necessities of life, to good health and a decent home. We cannot achieve these things overnight. We shall steadily plan and work towards them as we have been doing during the last five years." (P.12)
If this is not Gradualism, words have no meaning any more!
The Communist Party sent (by hand) " The British Road to Socialism ", the Programme of the Communist Party issued by the Executive Committee, 1951, revised and adopted by the 22nd Annual Congress, April, 1952:
" The people cannot advance to Socialism, therefore without real political power, which must be taken from the hands of the acapitalist minority and firmly grasped by the majority of the people, led by the working class. Only by this means can democracy become a reality.
" The enemies of Communism accuse the Communist Party of aiming to introduce Soviet Power in Britain and abolish Parliament. This is a slanderous misrepresentation of our policy. Experience has shown that in present conditions the advance to Socialism can be made just as well by a different road; for example, through Peoples' Democracy without establishing Soviet Power, as in the Peoples' Democracy of E. Europe."
It is evident that those Communists whom
Turner has met have had him on!
The Anarchist Freedom Press, to their credit, were short, sharp and to the point:
" In answer to your letter, we cannot speak for anyone but ourselves. Our paper Freedom does advocate minority action, and does attack the State and the idea of political democracy."
Comrade Turner ignores all this irrefutable evidence because he " doesn't meet" Labourites, Communists or Anarchists who argue theory—" our case against them has been proved", he says.
If this view gains ground among Party members, then the effect may well be disastrous. There is no need for a political party to tell people what life will be like under socialism if the case is already " proved". If this is the main job, a good writer can do it.
Evidence shows that Gradualism is more widespread among workers than ever, and that only a Socialist Party can blast it out at the
hustings. This evidence is the huge Labour vote at elections. This does not deny the need for
explaining life under Socialism; nor does it underestimate the lively critical faculty which seeks to enrich dull propaganda.
7.3.3 A Serious Charge
""TURNER tells us that members are "scared", " new speakers don't continue", " old speakers preclude questions of the future " and " people are unimpressed ". All this is very curious for a Party whose opponents have all been demolished!
Turner wants it both ways. Thus he complains of Party speakers who don't deal with opponents who (he says) no longer exist. Who are these people who attack our speakers and " scare " them? They can only be opponents, and their questions cannot be other than opposing theories.
What is the meaning of the strange statement that " our speakers . . . unconsciously preclude questions of the future"? If this is so, they must be speaking in a dream or trance, and do not really know what they are saying or doing.
Where is the specific case or cases ? Why is this serious charge against older speakers not supported by definite written evidence ? Turner goes on to say that older speakers create the impression that " things have grown worse and will continue to do so". " This does not fit the facts of experience ", he writes.
The first thing about this is that our speakers cannot create any impression which does not fit the facts of experience. If things are worsening, no speaker will convince people they are better, and vice-versa.
I hold, as a Socialist, that the conditions have grown worse, and will continue to do so under Capitalism. Here again, Turner's view that things have improved, may well be the result of purely personal experience. If so, he overlooks the nature of Capitalism, in which the improvement of the one can only be at the cost of the many.
One may reasonably request evidence for the statement that things have grown better. If true, then obviously Socialism can best be shelved while we improve conditions further.
7.3.4 Repeated Contradiction
TURNER writes that when " our propaganda changes from just attacking Capitalism to describing Socialism, it will meet arguments and discussion . . . and the audience, from fearing you, will come to understand, admire and respect you."
This is merely a repetition of the contradiction already noted. In the first part of this letter, Turner says that the trouble is that our members are scared, i.e. we fear them: in the last part, they fear us. He thus neatly cancels himself out-—without remainder. Both statements cannot be right. The second is the sound one.
The simple fact is that the very conception of Capitalism impIiesSocialism. It is impossible to attack it without indicating the alternative. The only possible reason for attacking it is the desireto replace it by something better, springing from knowledge of the future based on analysis of the present.
Horatio.

7.4 THE FORGOTTEN LANGUAGE
" HUMAN beings are dependent on each other, they need each other. But human history up to now has been influenced by one fact: material production was not sufficient to satisfy the legitimate needs of all men. The table was set only for a few of the many who wanted to sit down and eat. Those who were stronger tried to secure places for themselves, which meant that they had to prevent others from getting seats. If they had loved their brothers as much as Buddha or Jesus postulated, they would have shared their bread rather than eat meat and drink wine without them.
" But. . . it is no slur on man that those who . could sit at the table and enjoy the good things of life did not want to share, and therefore were compelled to seek power over those who threatened their privileges. This power was often the power of the conqueror, the physical power that forced the majority to be satisfied with their lot. But physical power was not always available or sufficient.- One had to have power over the minds of people in order to make them refrain from using their fists.
" This control over mind and feeling was a necessary element in retaining the privileges of
the few. In this process, however, the minds of the few became as distorted as the minds of the many. The guard who watches a prisoner becomes almost as much a prisoner as the prisoner himself. The ' elite' who have to control those who are not ' chosen', become the prisoners of their own restrictive tendencies. Thus the human mind, of both rulers and ruled, becomes deflected from its essential human purposes, which is to feel and to think humanely, to use and to develop the powers of reason and love that are inherent in man and without the full development of which he . is crippled ..." Dr. Erich Fromn in The Forgotten Language.
7.5 PEOPLE OF THE WORLD - UNITE!
"Our propaganda should convey our ideas of socialism to ALL people, presenting our case to them as HUMAN BEINGS."
In writing that, Comrade Turner has indicated a significant development of thought within the Party. We are re-examining propositions which may have seemed self-evident and final in 1904, but which are now seen to be legacies from other organisations and past conditions.
OUR object is the introduction of classless society. This is possible when the majority cf people are class-conscious (with reference to Capitalism) and are socialists (for Socialism). "; Class-conscious " simply means seeing that there are two classes in society whose interests are opposed and that so long as Capitalism lasts there will be class struggle. It has nothing lio do with which class you belong to.
When a capitalist becomes class-conscious, that doesn't mean he says to himself, " Yes, I see that Capitalism makes us all money-grubbers, makes us distrust and try to get the better of each other, brings wars in which even capitalists get killed—but I belong to the class that is top dog, so I'm going to oppose a world in which all those things won't exist."
We always say that Socialism is in the interest of the working class. So it is—but it doesn't follow that it's against the interests of the capitalist class. The antagonism of interests ONLY HAS REFERENCE TO CAPITALISM.
The proposition, then, is that being class-conscious and a socialist cuts across being a member of either class. The point is not whether capitalists can be socilaists (we know they can)—nor is it that individual capitalists can "render good service to the workers' cause ". Captalists and workers alike can desire Socialism and feel it in their interest, because its basic attraction is not so much material gain as the ending of antagonisms.
7.5.1 Examine These Arguments
IF we accept the position outlined above, then we have to examine a number of points that are implicit or explicit in the Party's propaganda to date. They are:
1.That the S.P.G.B. is equivalent to the working class party. It follows that it is the working class who will establish Socialism, and that it will be in the teeth of minority opposition—capitalist class opposition. This argument depends on the assumption that the capitalist class are committed, come what may, to preserve " their " system.
2.That capitalists have nothing to gain
from Socialism. The inference is that they have something as good as, or better than, that which the workers stand to gain.
But those who say this, contradict themselves when they explain what Socialism is. If they fall back on the argument that some people have more to gain from Socialism than others, they are attempting to isolate one factor from many that make for socialist understanding. Ultimately they can arrive at the absurd principle that a person's socialist understanding is in inverse proportion to his wealth.
3. That the capitalist class are committed,
under all circumstances, to preserve
" their " system. How, we may ask, do we know it is theirs ? Because they support and vote for it. But so do workers! Capitalism continues, not against the will of the working class, but because it is just as much the workers' choice as the capitalists'.
4. That it is class struggle alone that can end class struggle. It follows that the abolition of classes will come about through the disappearance of the capitalist class or their " defeat ". We know they won't disappear apart from the disappearance of the working class, so it means that the.battle for Socialism will line up workers on one side and capitalists on the other.
In reality, it is knowledge that there is class struggle that ends it, not the actual prosecution of that struggle.
5. That the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. Captalists, it seems, are
"powerless to help—even if they have socialist understanding, they cannot act on it in the way that workers can. But if the emancipation of the working class is the emancipation of all mankind, why shouldn't all mankind help? It is not workers acting as the working class who achieve Socialism. Workers acting as socialists achieve it.
6. That the S.P..G.B. should address its propaganda to the ' working class alone ', as coming from the working class alone.
This is a serious discrimination, because it implies that capitalists cannot understand Socialism or, understanding it, cannot want it.
" Some individual capitalists, owing to a greater understanding of the laws of social evolution, can see that Socialism is . . . practicable" (S.S. Dec. 1942). Then either (a) workers have similar views on Socialism (in which case there is no need for selectivity) or (b) workers want Socialism for different (exclusively working class) reasons—if so, what are these reasons?
7. That the S.P.G.B. should admit that
individual capitalists can help the working class, but such capitalists should be regarded as exceptions. (This is the unsatisfactory position implicit in most S.P.G.B. literature). It assumes that Socialism is exclusively the workers' cause.
But talk of the working class and the capitalist class only has reference to Capitalism. If we attempt to apply such terminology to Socialism, then we have within our ranks either an elite of capitalist-socialists or a bunch of traitors to the enemy. Both are, of course, unthinkable.
8. " That we have not, and do not want, any rich benefactors, who might try to influence our policy." (1950 Election Manifesto). Surely we don't think that capitalists' money is tained? Or are we admitting that our policy and organisation are such that they can be inuflenced by money? How much can we give the Party without being accused of attempting to influence policy? We should avoid such questions by acknowledging that incomes under Capitalism are different and that therefore payments to the Party must vary.
7.5.2 Amend the D. of P.
IT may be noticed that what I am saying in this article conflicts with certain phrases in the Party's Declaration of Principles. In order that readers may be able to make comparisons, I suggest a number of amendments. If the present wording of the D. of P. is more in line with the facts than the suggested alternatives then there can be nothing to lose by reexamining it.
My arguments do not touch the analysis of society in the first four principles. The remaining principles may be amended along these lines :
5.That this emancipation must take the form of establishing classless society.
6.Delete the working class and insert those advocating classless society.
7.That as all political parties either support class society or advocate its abolition, the party having as its sole object the establishment of classless society must be in opposition to every other party.
8.Delete the members of the working class of this country' and insert all. Insert capitalist before system, and delete all after.
* * *
My main concern in advocating these "revolutionary" changes is that the nature of our object determines the nature of the methods we use to attain it. Socialism is classless, and our methods must ultimately be in harmony with it. Whether our present D. of P. adequately describes these methods is a question that members must answer, knowing that criticism destroys only a weak case, ,but strengthens a sound one.

7.6 REPLY TO COMRADE MCCLATCHIE ON BACKWARD PEOPLES
McCLATCHIE writes that he is not sure what I mean when I state that he " treads the very shaky soil of utopism ". He adds " it is possible that there is a misunderstanding." And there is!
He writes: "When I use the phrase 'socialist ideas' I meant ideas about Socialism—a world in which people would live communal association ..." In this statement he discloses the jtopian approach—the ideal society into which men can move, regardless of their present culture, if only they accept that ideal as a possibility.
When I use the phrase ' socialist ideas' I mean those ideas about capitalist society which conclude with advocating a new society, the embryo of which evolves within the old. This is Socialism—the ideas and the movement, the outcome of which is the Socialist Revolution.
Now, I do not deny that men of whatever race or ethnic group have as well developed a central nervous system as any other, this being the physical basis for the power of thought. But I do maintain that until the social environment reaches the stage where capitalist exploitation and working class poverty are the general conditions, any ideas about Socialism will not be accepted. The ideas would not fit the facts.
WHEN he refers to the Australian aborigines absorbing capitalist culture, the comparison is not the same. It is not just that they absorb ideas, but that their social environment, in evolving into capitalist society, makes them receptive of capitalist culture.
I must point out a very apt part of one of his own rather extensive quotes, viz.:
" Babies have the same central nervous systems in all populations, but what they do, think and become, seems to depend entirely custom and on familial or social environment."
I do not claim, neither do I imply, that it is necessary to have a literary education to know that one is poor, insecure and suffering the horrors of.war. But I do claim that it is necessary in order to understand why—and it is this understanding which marks off the socialist from the mere rebel.
McClatchie should not misquote Marx. The latter does not state anywhere " that the problems only arise when the solution is present", but that " the problem itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation."
Note, the conditions for the solution of the problem, not the solution itself. The conditions for the solution of poverty and war are:
1. The highly developed technique of
capitalist production and the extensive means of communication, which conflict with the social relations of production.
2. A working class which understands the need for the change in the social relationships and has organised for it.
The solution is effected through the Socialist Revolution.
McCLATCHIE want to know what there is about the dependency upon wages without which an understanding of Socialism is impossible. The answer is working class literacy, without which capitalist society cannot function and without which the workers can never understand present society and the need for a new one.
He asks: "Are we to assume that all cultures must go through these three forms? If not, then why is Capitalism the elected system?" Answer: No! But capitalist society is the 'elected system' because it alone evolves the material conditions for the solution of the problem.
The last piece of criticism is very poor. It is not incumbent upon us few socialists to direct our energies towards spreading capitalist culture—this goes on in spite of us. We have a stiff enough job to spread socialist thought.
—H. G. Hayden.
7.7 DO WE UNDERSTAND AND WANT SOCIALISM?
Recent issues of Forum have contained several articles on the nature of the Socialist revolution, and what Socialism will be like. The best of them have put forward the view that an adequate conception of the Socialist revolution must be associated with an adequate conception of life now under Capitalism, both in its economic and psychological phases.
But it has been pointed out that all this understanding of life under Capitalism is virtually meaningless, except in relation to some idea of Socialism. It is one's idea of Socialism which enables one to see in Capitalism to-day the direction in which the decisive change to Socialism must be made.
It is this which makes it important to consider what our idea of Socialism is.
7.7.1 Understanding by Definition
At a recent Saturday forum at Head Office, Comrade Turner said to Comrade Evans: "All through your articles I get the idea that there's an intellectual elite who can understand Socialism conceptually—in their heads—and a mass of others who can't understand it unless they see and handle it—somehow or other—in concretized form." This is, I think, the very axis of the question.
Our propaganda has always been full of the idea that we understand Socialism, and that if
we can, others can, too. Having understood it, they can, if sufficiently numerous, establish it. It is enough, we say, for them to have the idea in their heads. They do not need to have seen anything like Socialism working before—they will know how to work it when the time comes, because they have understood it without seeing it. They will have understood it JUST AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
Well, how do we understand it? What does our present understanding amount to?
SOCIALISM is a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by, and in the interest of, the whole community. It will be a world co-operative commonwealth, with no property, no money, no nationality and no privilege, and its leading ideas will be universality, co-operation and the brotherhood of man.
There, in sixty-three words, is our idea of Socialism.
Let us try two more ideas in the same way.
LOVE is an emotional experience deriving from a personal relationship between two people of opposite sexes. It involves the sexual factors of contrectation and tumescence, a gestalt factor of "attraction" and various forms of special behaviour, depending on the culture concerned.
TYING A SHOELACE is an operation depending on a somewhat complicated three-dimensional pattern executed with the two ends of a piece of narrow material protruding from the unclosed end of a special opening through
which an extremity is placed into an appropriately-shaped container. The other extremities are used for the process, and the result is to close the opening securely, leaving a loop at either side.
So now we know what love is, and we can go ahead and experience it fully, without all this nonsense of going to places where one might meet somebody, getting into conversation, making a date, being anxious that the other person won't turn up, learning how to keep the acquaintance going, and all this other business which is the usual way in which most people get to understand love. We can understand it conceptually.
And we know what tying a shoelace is, and so we can just go ahead and do it. None of this low-grade stuff about taking the laces in our hands, watching someone else do it, trying to follow them step by step, crying with frustration, giving it up, going back to it, succeeding fumbiingly, suceeding fluently, and finally doing it without thinking. That's only for the masses who can't understand in their heads.
Now what about Socialism?
7.7.2 Do We Understand Socialism?
It is the thesis of this article that what we understand of Socialism is the abstract idea of Socialism, we must live it; just as to have a concrete idea of love, it is essential to have been in love; and to have a concrete idea of tying a shoelace, it is essential to be able to tie a shoelace.
What we have now is the empty idea of Socialism, Oar task as Socialists is to fill out the empty idea, and for this purpose we need to see Socialism in concretized form as much as anyone else.
It is not some mythical " other people " who need to be shown how Capitalism evolves into Socialism—it is ourselves.
It is not some " inferior minds " who cannot understand Socialism until they see it taking •?ver here and now—it is we who cannot.
The definition of love is not sufficient, and seither is the definition of Socialism. Until one lias a concrete idea of tying a shoelace, one cannot tie a shoelace. Until one has a concrete idea of Socialism, one cannot introduce Socialism.
What we have now is an abstract idea, a definition. To achieve a concrete idea, we need the fuller development of Capitalism. It is not some others who need it, in order to catch up with us, the pacemakers; it is us, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, who need it for our own understanding.
7.7.3 The Concrete Idea
This, will be a doctrine unfamiliar enough to arouse.some misconceptions, and one may as well answer some of the more obvious ones at once, without waiting for them to be discovered.
(1) So you understand it all ? No, the difficulty applies just as much to me as to reryone else. Nobody is clever enough to understand Socialism, because not enough of it has appeared yet.
(2) This implies that we ought to support reforms, and the building of Capitalism in backward countries. No, we ought to do what we have always done—point out that these
things, while having their good points, can. never succeed in their obstensible aims while Capitalism rules. But we should take particular interest in noting two kinds of reforms: (a) the kind that encourage the sort of behaviour which must be the rule under Socialism-—namely, co-operative behaviour more or less independent of financial considerations, and depending rather on need; and (b) the kind which could actually be incorporated into Socialism itself. We should obviously show some interest in these, because they help to show us what Socialism will be like, but we shouldn't support them, because their beneficial aspects are so limited and confined by Capitalism that, while Capitalism lasts, they are nothing but a snare and a delusion.
(3) You talk about evolution, but this is a revolutionary party. Ever heard of the transformation of quantity in to quality? It means that any big change is very often (and typically in growth-precesses) the resultant of a number of seemingly insignificant small changes. It was the comprehension of this principle that enabled Marx to lead a revolutionary party while holding a doctrine of social evolution. But he saw, what some comrades to-day seem to have forgotten, that the small changes must take place not only in the ideas of the workers, but also in their working conditions, and in the way they carried on their daily lives. They must take place in the institutions of Capitalism, as well as in the heads of the workers. And their resultant, the big change, is Socialism. This is the revolution.
(4) All we've got to do is to sit back, then ?
No,, at the moment of the revolution is our business. If we can understand what is happening, if our idea of Socialism is adequate enough (that is, if it has evolved enough) we may be able to " shorten or lessen the birth pangs ". Capitalism is preparing people for Socialism— but they don't know that; they don't know until we tell them. And they easily may not see, when the time comes, that Socialism is practically there. It is our job to tell them. But we won't be believed until our idea of Socialism is concrete enough—until it has evolved enough itself. And the discussion of Socialism is the conscious scheme of this evolution. Our job at present, then, seems twofold: (1) to discuss Socialism ourselves with increasing accuracy and completeness; and (2) to make more Socialists. This does not seem a very frightening conclusion.
There are some ideas, however, which do seem incomptatible with the position outlined above—ideas still held by many comrades. Some of these are: — (a) That we should contest elections now; (b) That Socialism will depend mainly on handicraft production for its economic basis; (c) That the Socialist revolution will necessarily be homogeneously violent or non-violent; (d) That because we have got the formula for H2O, we therefore understand the whole of chemistry.
J. C. Rowan.
7.8 MARRIAGE UNDER SOCIALISM
At a recent Paddington Branch meeting, the subject, " Should Socialists Marry?" was discussed. I should have preferred the discussion to have been, " Will There Be Marriage Under 'Socialism?", because, in attempting to deal «ith our personal problems under Capitalism, we have to relate them to our whole surroundings and circumstances.
Many of us probably were married before we became Socialists. If our partners happen to be non-Socialists and we have a fairly comfortable life together, are we to say to our espoused: " Now that I am a Socialist, etc., I cannot live with you any longer"?
Then as to those not yet married—what is ohe alternative? The comrade who opened the discussion suggested " living together ". But if we take away the trapping of modern marriage the ring, the ceremony, and so on), what else is left but the act of "living together"?
It might be argued, from a legal point of view, that living together does not hold the rarmers, that it allows them to leave each other when they so desire, and that they are free in -the sense that they can avoid the unwelcome -publicity and expense of separation or divorce. But they have sought the exclusiveness of each other just as much as if they were legally married.
7.8.1 Visualise the Change
There are several aspects to consider in each individual's life in present-day society—the
family, the job, the residential area—and, like other aspects of our society, they are in-escapable.
The wife, the mother, the home, offer some temporary refuge from the outside jungle, and if we don't have these the alternatives are the pubs, pictures, etc.
History shows us that there have been various forms of association between men and women. Marriage, as we know it to-day, has developed from other forms and is a " mine-and-thine ", a property relationship. From its present form, how will it change under Socialism?
Engels pointed to what would disappear in a future society based on common ownership, and from this we can perhaps visualise what free association between men and women would be like. We can conceive of an association of mutual affection, free from economic and parental control; and of the bearing and rearing of children. Not "my child" or "your child", but society's children—the responsibility of all, and not the victims of a " best-dressed " competitive system nor subjects of one controller's dos and don'ts.
7.8.2 Free Association
To those addicted to the mysticism and sickly pious dope of modern marriage ties, the suggestion of free association immediately conjures up visions of unbridled sex-orgies (as if they didn't take place now!). Why this should be is a mystery, because where there is no
wealth, power or privilege to buy anything, free choice is the determining factor, and we would have to be very conceited to think that we are everyone's choice.
After all, marriage is supposed to be founded upon love and the freedom of choice of the parties concerned. A marriage without love is called immoral and one without the free choice of both parties is undesirable, Yet, although marriage is avowedly founded on love and freedom, free love is nevertheless accounted the opposite of marriage.
Then there is the question of the home. Home! What different visions this word conjures up. As we know it to-day, it is a self-contained little private lock-up where next-door neighbours are a nuisance because we are subjected to their garbage pails, blaring radios, hammering or squaling " brats ". The only time that reserves are broken down and neighbourliness shows itself is in times of disaster. But the neighbourliness- is there, and will develop where there is a community of interests.
The breaking-down of the barriers of sex-taboos and sex-segregation means an end of self-defensive mistrust and individual segregation. With this sharing of interest and work, a wider affection will be possible, eliminating the uhtil-death-do-us-part attitude of those " living together " as well as those married.
G. HlLBINGER.
7.9 HEREDITY & ABILITY - Reply to Comrade Bott.
IN January Forum, Comrade Bott set out to deal with my statement that " variation in tte individual abilities cannot be dismissed ^rthout dismissing the basis of biological Jtion ". (The word " abilities " is open to cism, as it might be taken to mean that rants are born with all sorts of tricks which on only come from the environmental con-iitioning of whatever responses are innate. This, of course, was not intended.) The pur-roses of the statement were : —
1.To re-affirm that hereditary variation is the basis of organic evolution, without which there could be no natural selection, because there would be no (transmissible) differences to select from.
2.To insist that hereditary variation in the human species, like any other is unquestionable.
3.To convert the fact of individual variation from an anti-socialist to a socialist argument, by showing it as enriching the total capacities of primordial societies, as facilities, the spontaneous division of labour, and therefore as a factor in precipitating a new form of evolution'— history.
4.At a later stage, to show how it reinforces the need for Socialism and how it affects the character of Socialist society.
The need for leaders and leadership does not follow from the fact of differences of ability between men, whether innate or acquired. The Party's case against leadership in relation to the establishment and the running of Socialism rests on the unsuitability of leadership for these purposes and the absence cf any need for it. The absence of any need for it rests on the irrelevance of differences of ability, innate or acquired, to the common capacity of ordinary people to understand and want what is anderstood and wanted by other ordinary people—Party members.
Differences of ability, whatever their origin, ire irrelevant to this understanding, as differences of gait are irrelevant to the common capacity to walk. The understanding of Socialism does not require identity or equality cf abilities among men, but only the possession in an ordinary degree of the sense common to ordinary men. Nor is the running of Socialism endangered in any way by differences of ability. It is the absence of privilege in relation to the means of production which precludes differences of ability from becoming differences of power to oppress or exploit in any way. The classical definition of Socialist society turns on the give and take between different needs and abilities without distinction of race or sex, and without distinction between abilities innate or acquired.
7.9.1 No Means of Testing
The difficulty of assessing the contribution made to our behaviour by heredity and environment respectively lies in the fact that while all behaviour is necessarily compounded of the two, there is no known means of testing what is purely innate. The innate endowment of the newly-born is already wrapped in congenital influences, and until we can know exactly what is in a sperm and an egg immediately before they unite, we cannot assess the influence of heredity on performance. But nor can we accept the alleged implication of " the behaviourist" that it counts for nothing. A child is not born nothing, and what it is enters into what it becomes. The " blank sheet" is only the measure of our knowledge.
Comrade Bott says it is pertinent to ask, in view of our ignorance, how we can know that differences of performance can depend on innate structure. What we catit do is to assess the influence on performance of the innate and the acquired. What we do know is that activity is compounded of the two, that each individual is innately unique, and that unlike causes produce unlike effects. It remains, of course, that in respect of various kinds of performance, differences of environment may compensate for differences of heredity. What we can't do, for lack of technique, is to examine the matter inductively, and what it is unless to do is to approach the matter empirically—" I knew a man . . .".
The inconclusiveness of Comrade Bott's empirical approach is to this extent a tribute to his caution. But his special pleading in a mistaken cause leads,.him into difficulties, and into what Huck Finn, in defence of Tom's truthfulness, called " just a few stretchers". He knows it isn't strictly good enough to argue from fairly uniform responses of infants that heredity counts for :notfung, is compelled to concede " slight variations in innate structure ", but reverts to ' nothing' in his final suggestion that " human beings are innately equal in potentiality ".
Here we meet a difficulty of another kind. Equality is meaningless without reference to the thing in which there is equality. Different qualities cannot be equated. Nor can you sensibly say " men are equal in potentiality " without specifying potentiality for what. If you do, you leave it open whether you mean that all men have equal potentiality in every way, or whether you mean that all have a wide range of potentialities differing in detail but adding up (as it were) to general " equality ". In the former case, there must be identity of innate structure: if there is any difference, the potentialities are different.
But if by equality, is meant that the sum of their different potentialities is the same for all, then my view is that there is such a general tendency which we/cannot establish inductively, and need not try to, because we can deduce it from facts and principles already established. This general tendency (the equality of potentiality as the " sum " of differences in detail), which for Comrade Bott remains a wishful suggestion, can be deduced by applying the Darwinian priciples to the fact, of hereditary
variation.
He uses a wrong method to arrive at a tentative conclusion with which to rebut a fact on which the firm deduction of this conclusion rests.
7.9.2 Seeing a Ghost
Comrade Botts example of six men of different shapes who ran equally fast, is an example of the futility of this method for his problem. He does not consider (and in any case cannot know) what differences in training may have compensated for what differences in potentiality, and this kind of example cannot tell us what differences in potentiality may be irrelevant to or decisive in what kinds of performance.
But why does he follow these fruitless paths to nowhere? Because he sees a ghost. " If innate structural variations produce special abilities . . . some individuals could be endowed with innately superior thought mechanisms ". So they could. But what I think Comrade Bott may have overlooked is that the more fundamental organs are the least subject to variation, this difference of variability being itself a product of organic evolution, a means of survival for the species. The shapes of noses vary beyond counting, but not the shapes of brains, for. close conformity with a standard nose has no survival value, while close conformity with the standard brain most certainly has. A gross disparity in either of the great integrative systems (the nervous or the glandular" produces monsters, and monsters (roughly speaking) do not mate. Those who conform least breed least, and this, with the tendency to reversion to the normal in the offspring of those who do breed, ensures the stability of species.
There is no ghost, and no need for a blank sheet to enshroud it. Some individuals could be endowed with innately superior, or inferior brain mechanisms. But if they are to be acceptably human, their variations must be sight, and they are rapidly lost in breeding. No sinister race of supermen can the loins of men produce, nor can they be overwhelmed by half-wits.
7.9.3 Improving the Classifications
No one need be " seriously disturbed " by the fact of hereditary variation. What might disturb is comrade Bott's belief that a case for leadership rests on differences of ability. For if it did, it would be secondary' how these differences were produced, and having shown that they were not innate, he would still have to show that differences of environment could not produce them either. On the " innate " side, Comrade Bott admits we know " almost nothing". But the Scottish verdict of "not proven" still leaves his position Irish. He accepts the Party's repudiation of the need for leaders, but believes that a case for leadership could rest on differences of ability, and by stressing the. relative unimportance of inheritance he merely reinforces the power of environment to produce them.
Comrade Bott is in the special difficulty of of dealing with, science whose classificatory system is very unstable. The growth of a science is marked by, and dependent on, the development of classifications conforming better with the real world, as in the case of Marxian economicsi. But it is not enough merely to jingle the counterfeit coins of a primitive
- science to hear how cracked they sound. It is the socialist—if he is a pioner still—who is in the best position to make sense of the social " sciences " by improving the classifications, and clearing the decks of the questions wrongly stated.
The fundamental sameness of men is as obvious as the fact that they differ, and there is no need to place ourselves in the vulnerable position of repudiating hereditary variation in reply to the false deductions of some geneticists. Better, surely, to use this fact in relation to the genesis of history and to the question what sort of an animal man is—which is one of the necessary terms of reference for a disciplined materialist discussion of what Socialism will be like. The need for this discussion as the mainspring of socialist propaganda is what these articles on the Socialist Revolution are about.
F. Evans.
7.10 NEWSPOINTS
7.10.1 British Exploiters Only
MR J. A. BOYD-CARPENTER, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, answered fears expressed in the Commons last night by Mr. Jack Jones, former steelworker and Socialist MP. for Rotherham, that after denationalisation, steel workers might find themselves work-ins under a foreign boss, perhaps one the Krupp type.
The Government had adequate powers to prevent the industry falling under foreign control, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter said.
—Daily Mail, 24.2.53.
7.10.2 Home Truth
IN Britain to-day, nearly 1,000,000 families are still without their own homes.
Most of them are living with in-laws. In addition, 1,2500,000 people are living in other people's homes as lodgers.
What price now the old cry that an English-nan's home is his castle?
Unfortunately, the circumstances are such dkat the desire to have your own home does not constitute housing need," the official explained.
Where do we go from here?" Nearly a million married couples, many living with their In-laws, echo that question to-day.
And how many of the younger generation 2ie beinning to wonder whether their hopes of -^Taking a home are mere dreams?
—News of the World, 1.3.53.
7.10.3 " Socialist" Speculation
SEMYON TERENTYOV was a modest and efficient Russian laboratory official by day. But by night he became " The Nose "—an underworld millionaire who led a band of speculators who bought winning State lottery bonds at a discount and invested the money in diamonds. He made millions of roubles, which he kept in milk cans buried in the basement of a country home. Now Terentyov has been sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for speculating in State bonds and diamonds,
The story was told to-day by " Komsomol-skaya Pravda " which described him as a combination of Silas Marner and an arch-swindler and as a "cave-man fossil millionaire."
—Manchester Guardian) 14.2.53.
* * *
7.10.4 The Challenge of Competition
""BIG Business' is just as subject to the challenge of competition, the rule for the rank-and-file of the 4,000,000 undertakings of the private enterprise system of the United States, as smaller concerns are, according to confidential and other data sonn to become available.
A bare majority—sixty-four-— of the 100 largest industrial corporations in 1909, ranked by size of of assets, lost their top position by 1948 to newcomers. Only thirty-one maintained their top position consistently. In the last four decades there never has been a single period in which the ranks of the biggest of big businesses have not been subject to change, with newcomers moving up and some of the biggest becoming relatively smaller.
—New York Times, 16.2.53.
* * *
7.10.5 Poverty Amidst Plenty
ONE of the major domestic problems confronting President Eisenhower's new Administration is the disposal of millions of tons of surplus butter after unexpectedly high winter production and a switch to margarine by the American public, objecting to high butter prices. Under the farm price-support
laws, all excess production must be bought by the Government to prevent a glut on the market from forcing prices below their guaranteed level. The Government is seeking a means of disposal without downright destruction or offending the farmers.
The Agriculture Department is now trying to give away some of the surplus, because there is little hope of ever selling much of it back to commecrial distributors, unless drought or other unusual circumstances cut down summer production.
Americans are at present eating annually only half the 16.7 pounds per head they used immediately bofore the war. Consumption of cheaper margarine has jumped from the prewar level of 2.9 pounds per head to about eight pounds.
—Manchester Guardian, 26.353.
* * *
7.10.6 What Price Sport?
MONEY is the bandit that holds up sport at pistol point. The old notion that " the game's the thing " is more dead than the onetime belief about the earth being flat.
Watch how pro. tennis promoters raid the ranks of amateur players. As soon as a prospect fights his way to the top, the professional circus men move in. It is easy to blind prey by throwing gold dust in their eyes.
Professional boxing has also long ceased to be a sport. World Championships have become monopolies of big business. Titleholders are carefully built up by a string of victories over nobodies. The " house-fighter " has become an institutition all over the world.
Big business doesn't care who is the best fighter, The important thing is, " Who will draw the most money at the gate?"
—Sunday Pictorial, 1.3.53.

8. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 8
MAY 1953

8.1 THE FUTURE OF WORK AND LEISURE
“One and Indistinguishable”

We have been treated to two discourses in recent issues of FORUM on the manner of life to be expected in the future Socialist world. This is an interesting and perhaps necessary form of activity for Socialists, as long as we do not over-indulge in the pastime of eating our goose before we have caught it.
The prophets have every right to prophecy— all we ask of them is that they continue to boild up their futuristic pictures by applying the scientific method to history and interpreting it accordingly. This, I think, they have done (in the main) and so we readers may absorb the futuristic pictures with no pricking of our conscience.
It is not my purpose to make further exploration along the road of the future, not being equipped with the imagination necessary for such a journey. I would, however, urge those who do venture forth to take stock, so that their reports will continue to be both entertaining and enlightening to those of us who are left at home with the realities of the present system. I therefore propose to discuss the things that point out the direction rather than to report on the end of the journey.
A most important pointer was the one made by S.R.P.: " There will no longer be a separation between work and leisure—work will become the expression of living." I should like to draw attention to this particular statement which, to my mind, far outweighs anything else.
Human society, under any social-economic set-up, will continue to be primarily interested in living—and living more abundantly. At the moment, most of us accept the fact that life consists of two things, work and leisure (play activity), and we assess our enjoyment of living according to the amount of satisfaction we derive from either or both.
The importance of this statement about the merging of work and leisure is magnified when we realise that Capitalism has brought us to the point where, for the vast majority, these two human experiences have become separated by a wide gulf. Work has become largely boredom and drudgery, and leisure largely a negative, reactionary activity to work — in other words, work has become the antithesis of play.
8.1.1 History of Activities
Let us recall, briefly, the historic cycle of man's activity. First, in Paleolithic and Neolithic times by far the greater portion of his time was spent in hunting and gathering to provide for his continued existence. There is no reason to believe that he was conscious (as the workers are today) that he was working at all. Then, with greater mastery over his natural environment and more and more emphasis on a settled community life (with later the idea of possessing land), he began to indulge in more aesthetic pursuits.
The barbaric ages probably produced a relatively better standard of art and craftsmanship than any time before or since. The utilitarian tool . and weapon became ornamental—the sword hilt was embellished and the chair legs were carved in pleasing patterns. With the introduction of slavery, for example in Greece and Rome, came the opportunity of the leisured classes—freed from having to earn their own living-—to indulge in the higher arts of life.
The peasant, too, tended to become, as time went on, a craftsman and an artist. He knew no leisure time unless it was time spent in improving his surroundings and his command over his fingers and tools. This outlook still prevails in remote parts of our own country. I well remember a farmer living in a remote part of Carmarthenshire saying " whenever you make a gate, do it well, even if only the sheep will ever see it,"
With the expansion of commodity production and its emphasis on cheapness of manufacture came the standardisation of assembly and specialisation of specific tasks. The form of work demanded of the majority of workers becomes relegated to drudgery tasks. This produces leisure activity of an escapist character,
such as a football crowd or cinema audience in the main typifies.
8.1.2 Work and Play Become One
With the breaking down of Capitalism must come a revulsion to the form of activities associated with it. Socialism, to many people, has been thought of as the Leviathan crushing all spontaneity and individualism. Socialists are, perhaps, somewhat to blame for understressing the individual's existence and over-stressing man's benefits. We are, after all, mentally and physically individual units, with individual desires and needs (once the basic needs are provided for).
The late Professor Nunn who, as far as we can gather, was no Socialist says "an agent thinks of his activity as play if he can take it up or lay it down, or vary at will the conditions of its exercise; he thinks of it as work if it is imposed on him by necessity or if held to it by a sense of duty, BUT WHERE SPONTANEITY IS ABLE TO TRIUMPH OVER THESE THE TWO BECOME, IN FACT, ONE AND INDISTINGUISHABLE." ("Education: Its Data and First Principles.")
The coming Socialist world will be created by men and women who will have desired it beforehand. Its inhabitants will be loftier bengs, perhaps, than we are—but their progenitors are around us now. They show themselves at work as craftsmen in school, workshops, and countless back rooms and garden sheds, finding delight in putting into their tasks something of their own individuality.
The flesh and blood on the skeleton of production for use will obviously be the revival in the varied forms of beauty and craftsmanship. It will be production for use and enjoyment in the art of production, with no thought of economy in time or materials and no shoddy goods. There is no such thing as, shoddy Socialism.
W. T. B.

8.2 EVOLUTION and REVOLUTION
At the H.O. forum on " The Nature of the Socialist Revolution " some members expressed toe view that Socialism will come about as a cataclysm, or in " one swoop." Others suggested that the closing stages of Capitalism will be integrated with the emergent stages of Socialism.
Here, as at the forum, I shall try to reconcile these two views by suggesting that the second does not oppose the first but, rather, makes it meaningful. Revolutions are evolved—which does not deny that the tremendous speeding-up of events at the height of the revolutionary period may approach cataclysmic proportions.
Let us deal first, in general terms, with some objections to the second, or " evolutionary" position. Among these are:
(1) That it implies that Capitalism and Socialism can co-exist, or that there can be bits of one system within the other (i.e. a transition period).
It implies no such thing. Capitalism, despite
the modifications that it undergoes as the idea
of Socialism grows within it, is still Capitalism
until it becomes Socialism. Now, water can be 0 or 211° and at 212° it undergoes a revolution—into steam. But it seems silly to say that the raising of the temperature of the water is not part of the boiling process. Similarly, there is Capitalism as we know it today and Capitalism as it will be on the eve of Socialism. To deny the difference, to deny that Capitalism will become attentuated, i.e. shot through with nascent Socialism, is not merely to believe in miracles but to hold a false view of the way in which human society has so far developed, and therefore of the possibilities of its future development.
2) That it implies that the S.P.G.B. has no function except of critical commentary.
But when we say society is evolving towards Socialism we are not saying it is doing so independently of men's ideas. The S P.G.B. says a its propaganda that people can have Socialism just as soon as they understand and want it. The weakness, from a purely propaganda
viewpoint lies in the "one swoop" theory, which greets the recruit by saying, in effect:
“Your becoming a socialist can make no difference to anything this side of Socialism. We
would like you to discuss it with other people but that won't make any difference either. You will notice the change when we get Socialism," Far better is the evolutionary approach: " In becoming a Socialist you are playing a part in the Socialist Revolution which is going on now. As your ideas spread, Capitalism will become prepared for the delivery of the new society which is in its womb."
Now the difficulties about accepting the "one swoop" theory. If we deny that Capitalism is becoming prepared for the advent of Socialism, then this denial influences our concept of what makes people Socialists. Instead of saying that people are not Socialists because they haven't (mentally) experienced enough Socialism, we have to give the reason that they haven't (physically) had enough Capitalism. Conditions, we say, will become so intolerable that people will reach breaking-point before most of them will become Socialists.
But, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that our Socialist understanding is not the result of Capitalism growing worse, but of our knowledge of society growing better. It is just the thoughts and activities of people that prepare the world for Socialism, and this preparation produces a greater approximation to the new society. Any argument that Capitalism is getting either better or worse is irrelevant— the point is that it becomes less acceptable in proportion as the rationality of the Socialist idea is perceived.
Then, those who think in terms of a cataclysmic rather than a cumulative revolution have a special way of regarding; Socialism. They deny that any development of Capitalism will modify our concept of the future society. " We get the same questions today as we got in 1904," they say. Well, yes, that is true to a certain extent. Yet can we doubt that the bundle of ideas that most of us today would agree to call Socialism is quite a modification of the bundle that was generally agreed upon in 1904?
There are, however, more serious drawbacks in failing to acknowledge the development of the Socialist idea. This failure implies that Socialists are " there "—that there is nothing more needed than that others shall learn what we have learned. Our critic puts this in a nutshell when he says we hold that Marx and Engels described Socialism once for all. They did not, of course. The body of ideas that we call Socialist is full of Capitalist fleas that we are (or, at any rate, should be) continually picking out. When we speak of the growth of Socialist ideas we mean not merely the numerical increase in Socialists but also the
greater approximation of people's ideas (our own included) to the future society.
Lastly, there is the absurdity of the " black-and-white " position. People do not jump from being " all-non-Socialist " to " all-Socialist," despite the fact that we find it convenient to label them. To emphasise the dividing line between social systems leads us to emphasise the dividing line between people. We equate S.P.G.B. members with Socialists, perhaps even to the point of holding the successful Form A to constitute the individual revolution.
Yet things don't really happen that way. If there is a point at which people may be said to become Socialists it is when their ideas " for" it outweigh their ideas " against" it. It is like a pair of scales—with 1 lb. on one side the addition on the other of separate ounces up to 16 does not alter the status quo. If Socialists have a pound or more of social consciousness, then the people who are not as yet Socialists are also adding to their ounces and preparing to tip the scales in favour of revolution.
When, a rabid opponent of Socialism says he agrees 'with us on a particular issue we jokingly say, " then we must be wrong"—but all we mean is that we recognise that changing your ideas takes longer than changing your coat. Cold water becomes hot and then boils: opponents .become sympathisers and then join: Capitalism today becomes Capitalism on the eve of Socialism and then Socialism. Oversimplified, of course, but it shows society as a climbing organism, and not just as a series of steps.
S. R. P.

8.3 OUR APPROACH TO THE WORKING CLASS
I agree with Turner that our propaganda bculd not be " selective " of a section or sections of the working class. It should be directed to the whole working class. Here Turner disagrees:
“ It is my contention that all this talk of selectivity, including the selection of the ' working-class alone' as the saviours of humanity, scrings from the fact that the nature of Social-Em has been forgotten, disregarded, or not
It is evident that he has forgotten, disregarded, or not known the nature of Socialism he says that it is a " way of living." It It is a way of thinking about the problems of society, especially poverty, and advocating as a solution the transformation of Capitalist society to a communal one.
The Party's " form of selection " in directing its propaganda to the working class and not the Capitalist class is correct, even though : is true that those who are now the employing class would gain something in the new society. (But they stand to lose something in the process, viz., luxury resulting from property and their exploiting the workers.) Since it is the working class who have to gain freedom from poverty and exploitation and the right to satisfy their desires by dispossessing the Capitalist dass of the means of production, it is of first
importance that Socialism should be directed to them.
Turner says that " if our propaganda is based upon an appeal to the " working-class alone," and openly or implicitly excludes all others, then the picture we create in the minds of our listeners or readers, and in OUR OWN, is not that of Socialism but of a universal, idealised Capitalism." This is an example of formal logic resulting from a mere antithetical attitude towards the Capitalist class. To complete the job the Socialist must put forward the synthesis of the proposed new social relations that must result from the dissolution of the old.
No Socialist visualises himself, nor anyone else, living in the future society as the Capitalists do now. While the workers would gain more leisure and greater freedom of self-expression, the excessive luxury of the Capitalist class would disappear, as it could only exist along with Capitalist exploitation of workers.
Turner criticises the implication in our debating title that if workers support the Tories they are misguided, but for Capitalists to do so it is correct. This, he says, is an approach in our propaganda which prevents people from discarding violence as a means to the establishment of Socialism. He seems to imply that its establishment must of necessity be without violence.
How would he know this ? The Party's attitude is that we would wish to attain our objective by peaceful means if we may, but by force if we must, the assumption being that the use of force would result only from the violence re-sistence of a Capitalist class in defeat.
Of course people have prejudices which prevent them from accepting Socialism — but, above all, the prejudices of the Capitalist class are founded upon their property and profit-making, while those of the working class result either from their unquestioned acceptance of ideologies of Capitalism, or their recognition of their economic interests, especially as Socialists. The social revolution is dependent upon the decision of the majority. The working class outnumber the Capitalists by ten to one, so why concern ourselves with them? They are welcome to listen to us, but we are not likely to get a majority of them, even at the eleventh hour.
From Turner's remarks one would think that we should make a special effort to break down the prejudices of the Capitalists. One is reminded here of the " change of heart" appeal of the I.L.P., Charles Kingsley, and Jesus Christ! Has he ever heard of the class struggle, and does he know what it means ?
H. G. HAYDEN.
8.4 DIVISION OF FUNCTION - Or Coercive Authority?
A difference of opinion exists as to whether men and women will run future society on the
principle of each delegated to his or her function, or whether it will require some people in authority to order others to do this, that or the other.
Having authority instilled into us from the
cradle to the grave, we appear to find it hard to conceive of a life without some trace of coercion or authority. From the parental " do as you're told" to " teacher knows best,", "God knows best," " leaders know best"—all this induces men and women to accept authority (even when imbued with incorrect ideas) as unquestionable—reduces them to mere automatons.
The running of trains is often brought forward as an example of the division of function, and it is, I think, a good illustration. It shows that even under Capitalism each individual, once he has the knowledge of what particular part he has to play, co-operates with others in running the trains. I am not, of course, unmindful of the inequalities of pay I that the resulting puffed-up " dressed-with-brief-authority " grades can imagine that they control this monster network with " orders."
Recently a member was heard to say that someone must be in authority to see that the trains run to time. But what is time under Capitalism except something used for schedules, timetables, etc.—a means by which human beings co-operate in the " efficient" running of that system and not necessarily in the beneficient running of their own lives ? The question of thq future use of time as we know it under Capitalism is as presumptuous as that of whether or not we will use trains in the same way as we do today to earn our living. " CO-OPERATIVE COERCION "—
If we understand Socialism to be a state of affairs wherein all give freely of their knowledge and services to society where does it leave room for someone to compel one to take part?
This regard for the necessity of authority or coercion is also held by some who, perhaps, fear that the dispossessed capitalist minority might have to be forced to work. This, it seems, is the "recalcitrant minority"(?) who first of all will have to be forced to under-
stand how good Socialism will be for them before they accept it. How can members speak of " forcing " people to " co-operate " when a moment's thought will show that the two terms are antithetical?
A good example of the running of a concern by workers is afforded by one of the largest catering concerns in Great Britain, which was so successful and efficient chiefly as the result of staff suggestions. Another good instance, surely, of co-operation without compulsion or authority is that of a club—an ordinary social club. Who will deny that the division of function which exists is for the benefit of all the club's members?
Socialism is a system that makes the whole world like a club. An individual who breaks the rules of a democratic club (i.e. acts against the interests of its members) forces himself out of the club, and it is not a case of the other members forcing him out.
It would be interesting to hear from members examples of where authority or " cooperative coercion" will be necessary under Socialism.
G. HILBINGER.

8.5 WHAT DOES SELECTIVITY MEAN?
Comrade Turner's article on Selectivity in the March " Forum " should not pass without critical comment. In general its contents appear very largely irrelevant and arise from a repeated mis-statement of the issues involved. Early in his article Turner, referring to a statement which I made at a recent forum, said: "It was suggested that we should learn from this [advertising technique] and direct cur propaganda to people who are more likely to be interested in our case." This is a correct aatement of the issues involved in selectivity, and accurately summarises my view on the natter, provided that such " direction " of propaganda is not rigid or exclusive. Having made this proper statement, Turner makes a number of rhetorical questions and then proceeds to attack a completely different proposition. He asks " What then is there that makes it impossible for Capitalists or any other group to understand and accept Socialism?" [having asked the question (an entirely irrelevant one) he then proceeds to " answer " it as follows:
" The only answer I can see is that the Capitalists' position is not solely due to particular conditions, but is such that they have been affected biologically; Capitalists are somehow prevented from grasping ideas that others can”
Having introduced biological barriers into the argument (an idea as alien to my views as his own) he then sets off in full pursuit of this home-grown red herring. Continuing the only answer he can see he says " This would also be true of all groupings such as Fascists, women, and the people in backward countries whom it is said we will never get to understand or accept Socialist ideas." The impartial reader will have noticed a second grave mis-statement of the point at issue.
To place the matter beyond ail doubt we find a little later this explicit mis-statement of the case for selectivity, a caricature of the real position: "... if we take the attitude that there are groups that cannot understand and accept our ideas then our propaganda must be framed to exclude them." This statement, when compared with the first one, lays bare a quite inexcusable misrepresentation of the entire matter under discussion.
It is apparent the essential difference between the following two ideas has not been grasped: (1) Some people can't understand Socialism ; (2) Some people are better prospects, more likely to understand than others.
To attack proposition (1) when the matter under discussion, backed up by his own initial statement of the issue, is based upon proposition (2) is as futile as attacking our ideas of Socialism by criticising the nationalisation misconception of Socialism held by the Labour Party.
I am in entire agreement with Comrade Turner (and Parker) in criticising the following ideas:
(1) That the working class alone are or will be the saviours of mankind.
(2)That the Capitalists have nothing to gain and everything to lose by the establishment of Socialism.
Further, I agree—we have a message for all human beings. Having said this, however, we do not undermine selectivity; on the contrary, it is reaffirmed.

8.6 THE WILL TO BE CONVERTED
Comrade Farmer suggests that the following aract from Health For All, Jan., 1953, has some bearing on the question of selectivity in propaganda:
People can be convinced of new ideas and converted to other beliefs and modes of living. But the will to be thus converted must already be there within them. There must be something in them which is dissatisfied with things are, whether it is relative to politics, religion, disease, diet, or anything else. And once there is this dissatisfaction (or mental within them, then they are ready to heed to views contrary to those they already hold.
" It does not follow that an individual who is mentally dissatisfied with certain. aspects of present-day life or thought is likewise dissatisfied with all aspects of such life or thought. But it is generally found that people whose former faith in accepted standards of living in one field has been undermined are more prone to view unorthodox ideas about other aspects of living with an open mind than those Who have still that blind and childlike faith in everything orthodox and conventional with which tradition and custom have encumbered them."

Because Socialism is in the interests of the whole of humanity it does not follow that all human beings will, at this stage in our development, find our message equally acceptable. On the contrary, our propaganda history (and generally speaking the rise and ultimate triumph of all new social attitudes involving a radical break with outmoded ideas) shows the opposite. Our movement will, in my opinion, grow by ones and twos for some considerable time to come. As I stated clearly in my first contribution "... differing environmental backgrounds make for' differences of view-point among people which render some more receptive to Socialist propaganda than others. In this way we explain why only the odd one or two at present respond favourably to our propaganda and ultimately join the Party while the majority we meet react in a different fashion." This is a statement about the propaganda situation with which Turner and any other critic of selectivity must deal.
Havink " dealth " with a caricature of the real argument, the article continues " the answer to all this as I see it is that our propaganda should convey our idea of Socialism to ALL people presenting our case to them as HUMAN BEINGS."
Now, no propaganda method has ever been or ever will be devised to convey our idea or any one elses to ALL people as HUMAN BEINGS. S.P.G.B'ers, Tories, Communists, Fascists, I.L.P'ers, Capitalists, Workers, Polynesians, Prostitutes and Politicians, we are all identical—AS HUMAN BEINGS.
But to convey ideas of Socialism, or anything else, we have to speak within the " frame of reference " of the person or persons we wish to impress. This involves seeing people not merely as HUMAN BEINGS, but as beings born into a given culture pattern, a part of society at a particular phase of development, as human beings in their particularity holding certain ideas and identifications, customs and tradition, minority groups and majority groups, with conflicting hopes and fears and frustrations. The propagandist must not only know his commodity—he must get to know his customer. One man's food is another man's poison (a saying as true of political attitudes as of anything else).
On the question of understanding, let me be explicit. ALL PEOPLE, provided they are interested, have the intellectual equipment to understand Socialism. But the phrase " PROVIDED THEY ARE INTERESTED " is an important qualification to which we must not be blind.
The social conditioning of ' the 'interest" factor is a potent matter for the Socialist propagandist. Interest always implies its opposite – indifference. The more a person's energy is canalised and restricted to a few fields, the less energy, inclination and interest are available for other pursuits. The modern world has bred a tremendous diversity of interests, but there are still only 24 hours in a day.
We are not faced with biological differences which determine whether we tend to accept or reject: Socialist ideas, but with socially determined interest patterns " which make it difficult for the Socialist propagandist to overcome the general lack of consistent, enduring political " interest"—and by implication a consent and enduring interest in other matters.

A further serious misunderstanding of selectivity apparent in the statement about excluding groups from our propaganda. For my part the exclusion of people from our propaganda or from membership of the Party is not consistent with the Socialist aim. We have a message for all people. It is not us but, as clearly shown above, the nature of society itself which tends to exclude large masses of people from our propaganda.
Further selectivity does not involve dropping public outdoor propaganda, although it does imply a criticism of the sincere but rather fruitless attempts, at this stage in our development, to do battle at innumerable small outdoor meetings spots where the public speaking tradition does not exist. These atomised propaganda efforts of the " hole in the corner," " two men and a dog " variety, are in my view " almost useless," and largely responsible for much apathy and disillusionment of ourselves and others sympathetic to our ideas—a luxury no revolutionary movement can afford.
Wherever possible it would seem desirable for several branches to stage large, joint propaganda meetings, rather than innumerable un-co-ordinated, unattended, unwanted and unsung apologies for " public " meetings. The gradual introduction of selectivity, as future discussion will show, would require the continuation and development of large indoor and outdoor meetings, e.g. St. Pancras Town Hall, Hyde Park, Metropolitan Theatre, etc. These large and successful gatherings are of immense publicity value. They give the impression of numbers (and consequently a prestige value to the idea expressed), a valuable initial impression when trying to influence people, particularly those strongly identified with group opinion. First impressions are vitally important. We should always strive to convey the impression of unity, strength and success. Large meetings do this; something beneficial for the audience and ourselves alike. As the whole world knows—nothing succeeds ... like success. In the fifth paragraph of Turner's article he asks which groupings will be least likely to be attracted to our case (a valid question—note " least likely " not " cannot understand."). I have given a general answer: idealist and near idealist groups expressed politically in right wing thought. In justification
I have instanced our own emergence. Further I express, the view that materialists and near materialists are most likely prospects for understanding our position. To re-phrase Turners fifth paragraph I would say, Materialist and near Materialist clerical workers, trade unionists, Capitalists, managers, small shop keepers and any other occupational or racial classification are more likely to understand and be interested in our case than idealist and near idealist clerical workers, trade unionists, Capitalists, etc., etc., etc.
That all occupational groupings contain an equal percentage of materialist and near materialist members is, to my mind, unlikely. Quite clearly, whether people are most likely or least likely to be interested and to accept our position is not primarily an occupational distinction, but basically a question of opposing philisophical concepts consciously or unconsciously underlying conflicting outlooks.
J. McGregor.

8.7 MASS PRODUCTION UNDER SOCIALISM
Comrade Turner, in stating his case against mass production, takes the example of bread making (a good one) in support of his contention. But one does not live by bread alone; and under Socialism only the best goods will be produced.
Let me take the case of mattress making, because it happens to be the work I am partly engaged in. The best kind of mattress made, up to date, for comfort and rest is the spring
interior mattress. Inside this there are up to 300 steel wire spiral springs, which are sewn
into pockets by machinery. Prior to this the wire has to be processed and tested, and later hair pads are sewn over the springs. In addition, a border is sewn on and finished off by cord piping. All this is done by machinery.
It seems to me that under Socialism. this type of mattress is impossible without some form of mass production. Housewives may like baking their own bread, but I doubt very much whether they are willing to make a spring interior mattress to sleep on. I should like Comrade Turner to explain how such things as gas stoves, electric irons and fires, wireless and television sets (let alone rail- way engines with their 5,000 independent parts) are going to be produced without mass production. Articles made up of so many pieces are impossible to make in the home. Before Socialism is possible, as Marx and others have pointed out over and over again, large-scale production is necessary. Although we may abolish large cities, it does not mean we are going back to small-scale production.
8.7.1 Attractive Methods?
Comrade Turner wants to hear about the differences which make mass production methods attractive within Socialism. I will do my best to oblige him.
Under Capitalism a man is tied to a mattress machine for 8 hours—whereas under Socialism he works perhaps 2 at it, making it very much less boring and arduous. Also he is fed, housed and clothed better, and this makes any work more pleasurable. It is just the " excessive" division of labour (which under present conditions has become a curse) that is the means—the starting point—of the increased production and all-round development to which Marx referred.
All the machines I mentioned in mattress
making are easy to work. An operative working on one can change to another, so that over a period of time all the operatives are able to work all the machines.
It is easy to see that when this principle is applied generally it means an all-round development of each individual. Continually doing fresh things, he knows that when he finishes working in one field of labour he can soon turn to another. At the start people will, if necessary, decide among themselves by democratic vote who operates which machine. There is no difficulty here, because the operatives have full control of production.
In short, mass production, rightly understood, is seen to be beneficial to society instead of the curse it is today under Capitalism,
J. E. ROE.

8.8 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
5 — The Social Superstructure
In preceding articles something has been said about history and about men. What marks the Socialist is his attitude to history, and what, theoretically, lies behind the Socialist movement is the continuous creation of a theory of history. It is different concepts of history which mark Socialist from non-Socialist, and Socialists from each other. In the first article it was suggested that what we often speak of as a succession of social systems, punctuated by revolutions, are distinguishable phases of a continuous process of social integrations (extrinsically, tribal and territorial fusions; intrinsically, fusions of ad hoc customs into the reneralised institutions of property, law, State, and the concurrent modification of general .incepts and sentiments). The section on historical materialism stressed this cumulative character of history, the accumulation of means, inhering in the act of production by means of means, as the engine of social change - what Marx calls " the daily and hourly fulfilment" of the human productive which creates means as dictated by the means created”. In the silent, unseen, drop by drop accretion of means lies the mysterious wonderful emergence of the qualitative changes in human ways that we call the phases of social evolution. It is mysterious and wonderfulonly in so far as the eye cannot see, nor mind contain, the infinitude of molecules each drop in the ocean of human achievement. In an age of big machines and little men we relax from the " great man " view of history, and begin to relax also from the myths of great ideas and great inventions and great revolutions. We know that inventions are not invented, but grow. We know that great ideas and revolutionary outlooks have a long ancestry . We begin to see that there are no fateful turning points" on the long road of men's work and wants, and that the division : history into "social systems" is arbitrary, a mental device to enable us to summarise the uncountable drops into seeable bucketfuls. We begin to see the revolutions in history as the mental punctuation marks that we ourselves insert so that the unbroken tale may be told, a “say when” for the filling of our arbitrary buckets. So far as we fail to see the subjective nature historical periods and milestones, our philosophy of history is episodic and idealist. It remains at the level of Greek physics,, with its ultimate " earth, air, fire and water," so long as we accept barbarism, chattel-slavery, , Capitalism as being separated by a revolutionary act. It remains at the level of manorial politics, so long as we are haunted by the ghosts of our false separations, with the " dialectical relation " between evolution and revolution, with the order of precedence of thought and action, with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of base, superstructure and reflection, with an immaculate conception of Socialism to save the world from imminent destruction.
As a (historically conditioned) analytical necessity our classical Socialist forbears placed the social superstructure between economic base and ideological dome, as effect of one and cause of the other, which lazyness has reduced to an abracadabra to be read forwards (M.C.H.), or backwards (Revolution—where dome, through political superstructure, reconstitutes base) ,or split (Glass Struggle—relations of production in conflict with the forces of production), or circular (dialectical action after thought after action after . . .), which signify with cap and bell the master's absence. But because genius is no longer socially possible we do not need to play the fool. Ours is the collective task of shaping a more integrated philosophy of society as the sign and instrument of the movement towards a more integrated society.
Society is a structure of institutions, for these are the patterns of co-operative, organised labour, and the structure is neither super nor sub. It is not a part, but the whole, and it has no location, for it is an integrative function. The purpose of human society is bread, and the rest; the organisation of the ways and means is the structure, the institutions. And just as there are no actual boundaries between one social system and another (nor between work, relations, and outlook, nor between thought and feeling, and so on), so there are none between the separately distinguished institutions of a society. Try to trace out the shape of " property" and you find you have drawn " law," " class," " family," " religion," " State." As social realities they are aspects of one another.
The correlation of God with the word, the root of mysticism in conceptual (linguistic) thinking, was not mentioned without purpose, but because its recognition is essential to a materialist view. For we deal in social science with intangibles—relationships—whose molecules alone are seeable, as the acts of everyday life, but which in their entirety can only be conceived, because in their entirety they can never be present to the senses. Thus "...
imagination bodies forth the shape of things unknown . . . turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name." When we use the words " social system," " economic base," " family " or " State," we are stuck with a lawless, inconsequential view of history, and an incoherent, atomised view of society, in proportion as our relativity is less than absolute, in proportion as our necessary distinctions are animised into " real" separations, and having given them a name, give them also boundary and a local habitation. When did "Property" begin? For practical (arbitrary) purposes the Thames begins at Tower Bridge for the liner; at tide-ending Ted-dington for the mediaeval barque; in the Cots-wolds for the geography lesson; and if you would trace its " real" beginning you must follow up every tributary to every stream to every trickle no thicker than a finger, and then its beginning would slip through your fingers in the broken rhythm of rain and drought, in night mist and morning dew. The beginning of Property likewise disappears into thin air. It becomes a recognisable Thing when its tributary parts (which are tributary parts also of Law, Family, Religion) coalesce to a given magnitude, whose continuous movement is perceivable as change recollected in retrospect. (Some of us would add, with Galileo, that still it moves.)
The continuous character of history cannot be grapsed without grasping at the same time the unbounded, unseparated character of institutions. The cumulative character of history cannot be grasped without grasping at same time that changes of social quality (living this way instead of that, thinking this way instead of that) t are only changes of social quantity. The expropriation of peasant and craftsman was the concentration of capital into fewer hands, and at the same time it was also necessarily the transference of ownership from single persons to associations of persons, companies, what the French more aptly call the- societe anonyme. To-day's more anonymous society is only yesterday's societe anonyme writ larger, and the increasing anonymity of ownership keeps even pace with the social magnitude of capital, for the quantity of productive means is the quality of social organisation, the quality of men's lives. The peasant was collectivised, but capitalism was not established by the Duchess of Sutherland. She and the shirt-makers, Lord and Luddite, pauper labour and Peterloo, were only the sparks which flew from the anvil of Kay Arkwright beneath the hammer blows of Bessmer and Boyle. The shape of history was turned under the pressure of steam. the keen and cunning bite of chemicals, the "whirring wheels.
Predatory, irresistable. its appetite grown by what it fed on: the merchant capital of wool trade and cloth gild, of-East India, Hudson Bay and the Levant ate up the peasants' plots as the flying shuttle of the factory defied the frantic fingers
of the weaver and his wife. King commodity was crowned, and to crofter and craftsmen were bequeathed the Inalienable Rights of Man. “ the fair market value, as between a willing seller and a willing buyer" of their labour power—wages, cap in hand.
What steam began, heavy water and hydrogen continue. Individual ownership of the instruments of production went out when the power machine came in. Ownership became more vicarious, delegated to the anonymous associations, matched by more and more anonymous associations of labour. Intermediate forms of combine and cartel have their day; the moguls of commerce become an anachronism, the rugged individualist a public pest; the captains and kings of industry depart, commissioners cake their appointed places. The accumulation of means which qualify the ways of man goes into higher gear when the productive instruments, in the form of capital, become dedicated to accumulation as an end in itself, as a desecrate necessity for survival. The transitions from trading to industrial capital, and within industrial capital from absolute to relative surplus value, are a function of the social magnitude of capital. When it reaches a certain size, trading capital must take possession not mty of the products but of the productive instruments. When industrial capital reaches a given social size, it must replace absolute by relative surplus value, and when it reaches a certain size it compels " expropriation " by the State.
* * *
Hardly has commodity society come of age, all things unshackled from fief and freely alienable in personal possession, than joint stock, etc., begin the depersonalising of ownership which limited liability strengthens and nationalisation continues.
The property of a partnership is owned by the partners, but the property of a company is not owned by the shareholders, nor by the directors, who may not even be shareholders, but by a fictitious " person " created and confined by legal instruments which determine the various rights of various real persons, who are thus separated by a whole series of barriers from what was once their property. No real person in Britain owns coal at the point of production, neither the members of local executives, nor of regional commissions, nor of national boards, nor any of their chairmen or presidents, nor the Minister to whom they must defer in regard to prices and production, and who must in turn defer to the Cabinet in turn answerable to the House that Jack built. Social ownership inheres in the nature of capital. The " concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands" is the progressive socialisation of ownership. The change in the quality of the institution (Property) is the outcome of the change in quantity, and the speed of capital's transition reflects its feverishly cumulative character. Is it too much to ask of the socialist, the materialist, to consider social ownership in relation to atomic fission? Can we not learn from steam and turbine that fission compels, and therefore produces, complete depersonalisation because nothing less than society at " own" the atom which is the :
Failure to see the qualitative changes that we call social evolution as issuing from quantitative change in means and products is itself only an aspect of the erroneous separating a things social, which are seen as separate parts " (like heart and liver) instead of as aspects of the whole (like " mind" and " body "). It obscures the fact that, as purpose. society is wholly an economic phenomena while as structure it is wholly institutional, and therefore wholly psychic, behavioural. Likewise the separately distingushed institutions art not separate parts, with points of contact: a given society is wholly Property, wholly Government, etc. There are no parts. Anthropologists tell us of " primitive societies" vapourised by the imposition of a single alien instituition or technique, or ethic. The social sciences to-day are sobbing wet tears for an intergrative principle which will give coherence and meaning to their brilliant ad hoc discoveries. Yet " we have nothing to leam ". because we have nothing to teach. The dumb gesticulate at the blind, the blind rant at the deaf.
The unity of social forms and processes is not sufficiently expressed when we describe institutions as being geared together because geared to the labour which is what society is for, or describe them as interdependent like the organs of the body. These analogies fall deceptively short, for institutions are not parts connected, or strands interwoven: they are each the whole, turned to catch the mind's light this way or that.
(To be continued)
F. EVANS.

8.9 Extract from “SIN AND SEX"
There is little ground for the conflict of individual interests where there is little private property. Where all interests are in common, mutual assistance and goodwill are spontaneous sentiments. Common interests take the place of individual interests. To assist others, to share with them and to protect them is as r.acural in uncultured societies as it is natural individualistic communities to rob, to cheat, outwit and defraud. Hence, while the Sermon on the Mount appears sublime to civilised, people, it appears commonplace to savages. So commonplace and spontaneous is the social morality of the savage that it does not occur ro him to formulate it as moral principles.
When people speak of safeguarding public morals, they are not alluding to the desirability of checking fraud ... of putting down war, or poverty, or social injustice. In speaking of MORALITY, they are referring to none of these things. What they have in mind is the exposure of unclothed human bodies, the denotation of physiological functions and organs by other than Latin words. The world is writhing under needless suffering, it is desperately crying for justice. But the righting of injustice, the safeguarding of life, are matters for lukewarm and leisurely speculation which is, indeed, generally regarded as of questionable taste and doubtful repute. Meanwhile, ' public morals' are being safeguarded, the observance of the tabus of decency is being enforced with fierce, ferocious and effective zeal ....
It must not be imagined that savages are, as the unfortunate term suggests, brutal, bestial, and inhuman. Quite on the contrary, they are very agreeable and pleasant people. It is impossible for anyone to become acquainted
with them and to live amongst them for some time, without being drawn to them by feelings of affection. They are very nice people. And their niceness arises from their truly affectionate disposition. |ndeed there is more love, in the general sense' of the word, in uncultured than in cultural societies, There is a thousand times more love in a tribe of howling Melanesian cannibals than in any gathering of the fashionable in Mayfair, or of the intellectuals in Chelsea. It is to that natural affectionate disposition, as I have repeatedly insisted, that human society owes the possibility of its rise out of animality—-much more than to brain and cleverness. But the charming contrast between Melanesia and Mayfair, all to the advantage of the former, is due precisely to the fact that the affectionate disposition of the Melanesian savage is frittered away on all and sundry, whereas the men and women of Mayfair cordially detest one another and know perfectly well that they are themselves detested by most of their ' friends'.
The latter state of things is very deplorable, but it is the inevitable result of a society founded upon individualism and the rights of private property—disguised at times as ' the family'. In such a society, everyone, man or woman, must look after himself or herself first. ody else will. All the people with whom I have to deal are very nice people. They are really quite as affectionate in disposition as the Melanesian cannibals. I do firmly believe that when they rob me, malign me, and kick me when I am down, they are grieved in their
hearts at doing so. But que voulez vous. They must look after themselves first. They must also look after their families, their wives and children—the foundation of society. Consequently they cannot afford to waste much time in sympathy over the consequences of their having robbed, cheated, slandered, and kicked me.
. . . And yet, despite everything, they are essentially affectionate people. They are just as affectionate as the Melanesian cannibal. Human nature has not changed in that respect. If anything, it has improved. The modern men and women are probably more tenderly and deeply affectionate than the cannibals.
They show it in the infallible appeal of sentiment, of sentimentality, however sugary and soppy, which they can indulge in without jeopardising their own safety. They feel their position. It is simply intolerable . . . Each of them, man or woman, longs, if the truth be told, for sympathy and affection. Each longs beyond anything in the world to be able to put aside, if only for a short interval or respite, his or her self-defensive armour, the terrible necessity of looking after themselves, of being on their guard, of distrusting every other human being. They long for love."
ROBERT BRIFFAULT.
8.10 NOTES ON FUEL AND POWER SOURCES
The physicists have shown that heat can be converted into work, or heating power to mechanical power, so here both these manifestations of power are treated together.
The main sources of power in use today are coal and oil. They are removed from the bowels of the earth, refined somewhat and then transported to the engines that they are to hive. They suit the needs of a trading world cry adequately for they can be used in any size of engine, from the small internal combustion types in motor cars to the turbines used in large powered plants, and even more important, these machines can run for 24 hours each day if necessary.
To these the possibility of atomic or nuclear power has now been added. A superficial analysis indicates that this is an entirely new eyre of power source, and so some people have rashly called the use of atomic power another industrial revolution. But this is a fallacious ie -. The source of the energy is the transmutation of the atoms of the substance. In burning coal or oil the atomic structure is unaltered, while the atoms are rearranged and the molecular structure is changed. But it is not the physical nature of the energy that causes industrial revolutions—it is the human uses of the energy or power that is important. The atoms of uranium to be transmuted must be mined, refined somewhat, and then transported to the power house (in this case an atomic pile). The atomic energy released can be transformed into electricity or heat, or even “canned " into an atom bomb, as oil can be " canned " into an oil bomb.
Thus we see that the human uses of atomic power, are as yet, no different from those of molecular power. In fact the basic power source of capitalism must be mineral, for only a that way will the " Iron Master " obtain an obedient slave. Even vegetables have their seasons.
8.10.1 POTENTIALITIES OF FUELS
Oil is mined bv machinery at the moment.
and any changes in these methods in the future will be refinements, not fundamental changes in the method of production.
Coal is at present mined in three main ways. In the crude direct method a human being works at the coal face with a tool (in this case a pick) and animals (in England pit ponies) carry or pull the coal to the surface, or, in the case of a surface working, to the washery. Usually, in a mechanised mine the collier uses a machine to cut the coal, and haulers, trains and pit cages carry it to the washery. An interesting hydro-mechanical method was tried out in 1937 at Sverdlovsk (U.S.S.R.). In this method the coal is smashed up and carried away by high-pressure jets of water directed at the coal-face. The water not only wins the coal, but also transports it in troughs and the smaller particles are even pumped to the surface in the water. It was estimated that the method increased the productivity of labour three-fold and cut the production costs by a half. By 1940 it was being applied in several other mines. The underground gasification method is a completely automatic method of mining coal. Lilley describes it as follows:
" It eliminates mining altogether and turns the coal seam into an underground gasworks. Air or steam or a combination or alternation of the two is pumped down one shaft to the burning coal seam and up another comes the gas, which can be varied in composition at will. . . . The method shows several advantages over mining, at least for some types of seams. It abolishes the dangers of underground work. It extracts 80-90 per cent of the coal, as against 60 per cent by mining methods. It makes economical the exploitation of seams which are too thin and of too low quality for ordinary methods. Although the method is still in its infancy, it is claimed that it has already reduced the cost of power production from coal to one-third of the usual. The gas which emerges is used for electric power generation
and as the basis for synthetic chemical industries, besides being distributed to consumers in the same way as ordinary town gas."
—P. 154, " Men, Machines and History." Cobbett Press (1948) In 1949 the Ministry of Fuel and Power began large-scale trials on the underground gasification method at Newman Spinney near Chesterfield, and followed this up by starting further trials at Bayton in Worcestershire last year. Here shallow coal seams are utilised and the gas is used to drive electric power-producing turbines at the pithead. It has also been suggested that coal could be turned directly into electric power underground, by constructing a Coal-Cell in the seam. The coal would then produce an electric current, just as a simple dry battery used in pocket torches does, and this current would be brought to the surface by a cable. In principle, at any rate, this is simplicity itself.
Atomic power, in contrast to the other two, is as yet primarily a war weapon. Besides the uranium and plutonium bombs of the last war, we are told that Hell bombs, atomic artillery, submarines and rockets are being developed. Incidently, some heat is being produced in the atomic piles in use today, and this could be used for central heating, or converted into electric power. However, as far as simple, useful power is concerned Sir John Cockcroft, the director of the atomic research establishment at Harwell, has stated that:
" We can be fairly certain that there will be no large-scale development in the next decade, and it is unlikely that any appreciable part of world power will come from nuclear sources in the following decade, though there may well be special applications of importance." —P. 95, " Atomic Energy " (Penguin Books).
1950 ROBERTUS.

9. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
JUNE 1953

9.1 From America REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP
What should be the minimum requirements for membership of a Socialist Party? They should be broad enough to include all
who are Socialists. There is no justification
for barring Socialists from membership. They should be narrow enough to exclude all who are not Socialists.
Since the criterion for membership is based on whether an applicant is a Socialist or not, it becomes necessary to define what is a Socialist.
Broadly speaking, a Socialist is one who understands that Capitalism can no longer re reformed or administered in the interest in the working class or of society; that Capitalism is incapable of eliminating its inherent problems of poverty, wars, crises, . and that Socialism offers the solutions
for the social problems besetting mankind, since the material developments, with the
sinngle exception of an aroused Socialist majority, are now ripe for the inauguration of Socialism.
This is the Socialist case. It is not difficult to grasp. Membership in a Socialist Socialist organisation does not require being erudite pundits or profound students. There is a unity of agreement among us that the above is the minimum requirement of being a Socialist.
However, there is a justifiable fear that there is a danger that we may open the doors to confused " Socialists," non-Socialists, or even anti-Socialists. This fear exists because a Socialist party is democratically controlled its membership. An influx of such elements could transform a genuine Socialist party into its opposite. Therefore, we must summarise the barest minimum of Socialist principles upon which all Socialists agree and upon which there is no compromise The principles that weld us together with a . uity of views may be stated as follows: —
9.1.1 Socialist Principles
Socialism has three aspects, viz., a science.
A movement, and a system of society.
As a science, it is materialistic. It recognises that everything in existence is interelated and in a constant process of change.
In a very real sense, it might even be con-
sidered that Socialism is the science that integrates all branches of science into a correlated whole.) Specifically, it explains social evoluation and, more particularly, the nature of Capitalist society.
As a movement, its very essence is to exert all its efforts to arouse the working class and all others to become Socialists so that the majority become conscious of their interests and institute Socialism. The Socialist revolution is majority, conscious and political. Such a revolution is inherently democratic.
As a system of society, it may be concisely described as a social relationship where the interests of every member of society and society as a whole are in harmony; where everyon co-operates by giving according to his abilities and receiving according to his needs.
On these Socialist principles, there is no compromise. On these Socialist generalisations, it might be said we are dogmatic. Our dogmatism applies to processes and scientific analyses. (On the other hand, we do not have any authoritarian dogmas or creeds. See E.W.'s splendid comments on the Bolshevik behaviour, in this respect, in his article in the April, 1953 Socialist Standard.)
Further, we do not compromise with the Capitalist system. We oppose it and are organised to get rid of it. Nor do we compromise in our defense of the Socialist case and Socialist principles.
Finally, the above Socialist summary is what distinguishes us from all other parties claiming to be Socialist. No other party, outside the companion parties for Socialism, holds these views. That is why it is unlikely that there would be two Socialist parties in any one country. Should another Socialist organisation appear on the scene, steps would be taken to merge—we are hot engaged in a rivalry to emancipate the workers.
9.1.2 The Socialist Attitude
The Socialist attitude should be one of constantly re-examining our position and activities, especially in the light of unfolding events. FORUM is a healthy and sound demonstration of such a Socialist attitude. it is a valuable asset in illustrating the fact that thinking is not a violation of Socialist discipline. Socialists must not be afraid to think or express opinions lest they be brought up on charges. To those who view the companion parties as being rigid sectarians, FORUM is a living refutation. In a Socialist party there is plenty of room for differences of opinions.
Whilst it might be said that Socialists are dogmatic, in the scientific sense, on fundamental Socialist principles, i.e., on generalisations and processes, they should not be dogmatic on specific details. We are on sound grounds as long as we confine ourselves to scientific analyses of processes. The moment we become specific in telling history what it must, do, what it can only do, etc., history may make liars out of us. Speculations are useful and interesting but not fundamental. Also, we can be sadly mistaken in laying down formulas to be adhered to for all types of problems and situations. Witness the quarrel in FORUM regarding the printers' union (strike-censorship issues).
Illustrative of my point is A. Turner's article in the March issue. It does not take much imagination to hear some rumbling that Comrade Turner has " repudiated " the class struggle and should be brought ud for charges. Can anyone quarrel that the Socialist revolution is in the interest of all mankind, including the Capitalists? We become dogmatic (in the Bolshevik-Catholic sense of authoritarian dogma) to consider Turner's viewpoint as anti-Socialist.
Still more effective illustration is the article in the April, 1953, FORUM suggesting, (horror of horrors) a "revolutionary" revamping of our Declaration of Principles. Comrades can hold such views and still be members of a Socialist party ; for, are they not Socialists?
One additional word regarding what is a Socialist. Fie is not only one who understands and agrees with the Socialist case but also does something about it. Of course, in all fairness, consideration must be given to personal problems and special circumstances.
I. RAB.
9.2 Reply to S.R.P. CLASS STRUGGLE AND THE S.P.G.B.
In advising us to present our case to human beings " irrespective of their social origin, S.R.P. (April FORUM) forgets, or seems to forget, one or two self-evident facts
about " human beings."
Human beings are born into society and not outside it, and those here envisaged are the inevitable fruit of the present vicious social system. In any discussion about human beings and society it is important to keep in mind the fact that society is not an independent entity, but a specific mode of reduction which gives it its distinctive character and determines its institutions.
Each society is only a phase in the le elopment of the social labour nrocess from production for use at one end to production for use at the other. This being a development of social labour (that is, men working together in a definite way toward a definite end) every man is dependent upon the social skill and techniques which he, in common with others, socially inherits, modifies and passes on. In this way past generations prescribe to the new generation its conditions of living and working. The productive activities of men today are determined by the character of the industries they find in existence.
The availability or the number of jobs in these industries is determined by how much profit can be made by the owners of these industries. So that when considering the influence of society on men we should remember that their relationship to the productive process is determined by the class to which they belong. It is undeniable that society-lays the broad foundations and imparts colour and tone to the general outlook and habits of men. Nevertheless their ideals and interests, aims and attitudes, are those of their class, and in this sense a man is a product of his class and is identified with it
However, S.R.P. holds that class-consciousness is not the consciousness of a class conditioned by the specific relationship which that class has to the productive process. According to him it is, rather, the contemplation of a struggle between classes, an awareness of class differences, which contemplation transcends these differences ("has nothing to do with which class you belong to ") and resolves this struggle (" it is knowledge that there is class struggle that ends it, not the actual prosecution of that struggle ")
One can visualise employers holding classes on the class struggle instead of Music
While You Work programmes, because it is " knowledge " of this struggle which resolves all antagonisms. This is better than any of the profit-sharing or other schemes yet devised by the class-collaborationist tribe.
Then he attacks the " out of date " conception of class-consciousness by asking what hapens when a Capitalist becomes class-conscious. The answer is that he acts in line with his class interests. In defeating the feudal nobility the bourgeoisie donned the mantle of the ruling class. Their first task was to eliminate or throw aside all the restrictions which feudal society had olaced in the way of the further advancement of industry and commerce—in short, to establish institutions and relations in keeping with their own interests.
The ruling ideas in society are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, in this case the property relations peculiar to Capitalism When the boureoisie became the ruling class their ideas became the ruling ideas and have remained so ever since.
The ideas of bourgeois dominance are inculcated into the child mind, so it is not surprising that workers leave school holding (ideas about " our empire," " the nation's prestige," our democracy," " the British way of life," etc. From the cradles to the grave every man and woman under Capitalism is press and pulpit, screen and radio, and now television. Is it any wonder that millions of workers are unable to see beyond the rule of the bourgeois?
Thus the class-consciousness of the bourgeoisie rermeates society, even to the extent of placing obstacles in the way of workers—acquiring Socialist knowledge. These obstacles, difficult as they are for a worker to circumvent, prove almost insurmountable to the Capitalist, whose class subjected to a barrage of such ideas from the status depends on his ability to wring surplus value from the workers. He is easily led to believe that his is the best of all possible systems. He can point with pride to the achievements of the past 200 years of bourgeois rule as being the most progressive in -the history of mankind. He can boast : equality of opportunity for all. " If greatgrandfather could do it, any worker can do it," " Socialism is a gospel of envy, the creec of misfits." And as for wars, "there were wars before Capitalism—they are the resui of something inherently foul in human nature, the evil designs of wicked men."
This has proved such a barrier in the past that even the few who caught a fair.: glimmering of the truth could not overcome their class-conditioned snobbishness and superiority. They had to enter the field as leaders, with the lamentable results that i know only too well.
" The dictum that Communism is not a mere party doctrine of the working class, but a theory compassing the emancipation of society at large, including the Capitalist class from its present narrow conditions . . . i true enough in the abstract, but is absolute;-useless and sometimes worse in practice. So long as the wealthy classes not only do not feel the need for any emancipation but strenuously oppose the self emancipation of the working class, SO LONG THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION WILL HAVE TO BE PREPARED AND FOUGHT OUT BY THE WORKING CLASS ALONE "(1).
This position is neither " satisfactory *' nor " unsatisfactory," but logical and, in mv view, correct. But the subjective attitude of S.R.P. appears in all its nakedness when he tells us that if we do not accept his view then we have a position which is " unthinkable "—the implication being that if a thing is unthinkable it is unreal. After 50 years' experience the Party is being advised to return, not to Marx, but to Hegel: "All that is real is rational."
9.2.1 The D. of P.
The idealism in this position becomes more evident when we consider the proposed amendments to the D. of P. In stating " that this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself'' the Party emphasises that Socialism must be the result of majority action. If this amendment was carried then no such qualification is contained either explicitly or implicitly. Further, the emancipation of the working class can only be achieved by establishing classless society. Thus the amendment is tautologous and has no point unless one of the is true: —
nat the working class are incapable acquiring class-consciousness, and Socialism must be established by minority action.
That class-consciousness is not the reflection of working class conditions, the NECESSARY outcome of class struggle, but a theory which is to be drilled into the heads of people irrespective of their social origin.
The objection to the emphasis made in principle 7 " that all political parties are but the expression of class interests " arises from the claim that the Socialist Party does not express class interests but human ones, and class interests to him are no different from an interest in music, stamp-collecting or bug-hunting. This makes the Socialist revolution dependent on the Party. Thus Socialism is not NECESSARY, but conditional upon the ability of the Party to convey ' message ' to ' humanity.' However—'" For us Communism is not a condition of affairs which ' ought' to be—not an Ideal end in correspondence with which Reality is forced to shape itself. When we speak of communism we mean the actual MOVEMENT which makes an end of the existing order of things. The determinants of this movement arise directly from the conditions actually existing.
" Not criticism but revolution is the native force of history "(2).
It is not the battle for Socialism which lines the workers on one side and the Capitalists on the other, but Capitalism itself, which can only develop by bringing into existence a class which has to endure all the hardships and burdens of society without enjoying any of the advantages. This is a class which forms the majority of society and 'performs the whole social labour, a class which can only obtain its barest wants by means of a continual struggle, which eventually produces consciousness of its origin and outcome, proletarian class-consciousness or Socialism.
So that rather than being the evangelistic, non-partisan creed of S.R.P., Socialism is the revolutionary consciousness of a struggle to abolish the existing system of society, Capitalism. Capitalist society is the rule of the bourgeoisie, consequently the abolition of Capitalism is the " defeat" of the bourgeoisie.
" The rule of all classes will be abolished with the classes themselves, because it (the revolution) is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society s is not recognised as a class and is in itself the expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc., within the present society "(3).
Socialism is inseperable from the working class struggle, and is nothing more than the highest expression of that struggle. This does not mean that Capitalists as individuals have
nothing to gain from Socialism, or tha. cause they are wealthy they are incapable of
understanding Socialism.
" It is possible that particular individuals are not always influenced in their attitude by the class to which they belong. But this has as little effect upon the struggle between classes as the seccession of a few nobles I the Third Estate had upon the French Revolution. And, then the nobles did at least join a class—the revolutionary class, the revolutionary class, the bourgeoisie. Mr Heinzen, on the other hand, sees all classes melt away before the solemn idea ' Humanity' "(4).
My use of these quotations is not in order
to " invoke the deities," Marx and Engels.
but to point out that not only are the " seemingly self-evident truths of 1904" a legacy;
from the past, but that the so-called " revolutionary changes" suggested by S.R.P.
were advanced and ANSWERED over 100
years ago. ;.
J. RICHMOND.
QUOTES:
1.F. ENGELS, preface to " CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASS IN ENGLAND IN 1844," page x.
2.K. MARX, "GERMAN IDEOLOGY," pp. 25 and 29.
3.Ibid, p. 69.
4.K. MARX, "SELECTED ESSAYS," p. 156.
9.3 DAMN THE CAPITALISTS!
No Soothing Syrup
Has the Party an anonymous capitalist in its ranks, someone who feels ill at ease? The article "People of the World—Unite" makes one wonder, for what worker in the Party gives a dam for the capitalist class?
It has been said that some capitalists would do anything for the workers except get off their backs. Let S.R.P. read nos 2 and 3 of the D. of P., once again. They are short and crisp, and allow for no compromise.
To introduce Socialism, Capitalism must be abolished—the expropriators must be expiated, including any capitalist who may "re a member of the Party. The class struggle will have to be fought to a finish. There can be no question of soothing syrup
- the Capitalist class to gain their support
Maybe there are a number of exceptions among the capitalists—so far they have few. Engels was the most notable, but he never tried to win the capitalist class over to accepting Socialism.
The article in question is about the most revolting I have ever read in a Socialist journal. What does he mean by the following? " When a Capitalist becomes class-conscious that doesn't mean he says to himself ' Yes, I see that Capitalism makes us all money-grabbers, makes us distrust and try to get the better of each other, brings wars in which even Capitalists get killed— but I belong to the class that is top dog, so I'm going to oppose a world in which all those things won't exist.' "
All Capitalists are class-conscious, and the very thing S.R.P. says the Capitalists does not say is the very thing he usually does.
What do members think of this statement? " Capitalists and workers alike can desire Socialism and feel it in their interest, because its basic attraction is not so much material gain as the ending of antagonisms." It reads like a message from the so-called " Socialist Sunday School."
As one Socialist and worker I hold that the ending of class antagonisms is not the basic attraction. The basic attraction is that Socialism is the only way in which I and other workers can end our present poverty
position. S.R.P. appears to think that conditions have changed for the better. I agree with Horatio who, in the same issue, stated that conditions have grown worse.
I advise every member who wishes our propaganda to be directed to the Capitalist class as well as to the working class to read again Chapter V of " The Socialist Party-Its Principles and Policy," especially p. 18: " With classes, economic interests govern rctions, whatever may occur in exceptional individual cases."
It is significant that in order to make our propaganda unselective, S.R.P. had to amend half the D. of P.
D. W. LOCK.
S.R P. will reply to these and a further critic next month
9.4 EDITORIAL
After nine months of publication FORUM is still " full of running." The criticisms of individual contributions have been many and varied, but the interest of members in its contents as a whole has been well maintained.
There is only one black spot—branch circulation has fallen a little from its peak, and this has compelled us to cut the number of copies printed to 1,000. This, in turn, has meant that we have had to reduce slightly the number of words printed, so as not to incur a loss to Head Office Funds.
We know that there are a number of members who would wish to help us out should present standard of production of
FORUM be threatened. We suggest that the best way they can help is to increase its circulation by getting other members to read it. No publication can achieve its maximum possible circulation without some encouragement to purchase being given to those who do not seek it out.
There is one particular criticism that we feel should not go unheeded. It concerns the relationship of FORUM to Party propaganda in general. It has been said that the time and effort spent in producing FORUM detracts from other Party work and would be better spent in other directions.
It seems to us unsatisfactory that members should look upon FORUM as something apart from Socialist propaganda. Its justification for existence is its capacity to aid the rest of our propaganda in four main ways: —
5.To clear up the Socialist attitude to certain existing issues.
6.To discuss new ideas.
7.To augment members' knowledge of subjects useful to Socialists.
14) To examine critically the techniques and effects of propaganda with a view to improvement. The important thing is that contributions to FORUM should be relevant to some feature of Party work. It is not easy to draw a fine beween relevancy and irrelevancy, and it must be left to the good sense and responsibility of members to see that FORUM plays a useful role in Party activity.
9.5 CORRESPONDENCE COLUMN
TO THE EDITORS
Comrades.
The function of the S.P.G.B. is threefold -education, organisation and emancipation. At the present our main task is education, that is, Socialist propaganda. To hold Socialist ideas and not actively propagate them or help in their propagation is useless. We must unite our theory with practice. But, unfortunately, numbers of members do not seem to realise this. Although they subscribe to the object of the S.P.G.B.—Socialism— they do not support its activities.
Therefore, now that we are in the middle of our summer propaganda season it is opportune to point out that an important way in which we can get our ideas across is the outdoor platform—in the parks and at the street corners. To have sucessful meetings it is imperative that EVERY member who is physically capable should support his branch's outdoor activities.
If a meeting at, say, Earls Court, is to be successful then all members living within two or three miles of Earls Court should be there at the time the meeting is scheduled to commence (8 p.m.). It is no use members rolling up at half past eight or nine—the most difficult job is for the chairman to get an audience. If there are 15 or 20 members already there when the chairman gets up (with some of them heckling him) then half the battle is won—people will soon come round.
So, comrades, prove that you really want Socialism URGENTLY and (1) support all your branch's outdoor meetings; (1) get there sharp on time, and (3) help with selling literature, etc.
Yours fraternally,
PETER E. NEWELL
Comrades,
Our brow was wrinkled at what seems to us the excessive use of the editorial plural in ¥/. Waters' " About Books " in the May S.S. " We must confess, having had two bites at this book, we have given it up as indigestible. It fails to hold our interest. . . ." The present; writers would like to know (a) Can the Party have collective bites at a book (and presumably get the communal burps)? and (b) What's wrong with using " I " when we mean "I"?
Yours fraternally,
S.S. READERSHIP
Back numbers of FORUM (except the first October, 1952 issue) are available from Head Office. There are only a few copies of Nos. 2 and 3 available, and those members who have disposed of their copies should not rely upon being able to obtain single back numbers later on.
A further article criticising " People of the world—Unite" will be published in July FORUM, together with a reply by S.R.P. to all of the articles published in opposition to his case.—Editors.
9.6 WHICH CAPITALISTS SHALL THE PARTY SUPPORT?
If our propaganda is going to be in way effective on the working class as a whole we shall need to be very careful not to get too philosophical. The workers are in a big enough puzzle just now without our making it more puzzling for them. In my opinior if we take the advice of Comrade Turner we shall cease to expound the Class Struggle and end up by advocating the Class Puzzle.
It is not a Socialist policy to worry abom the emancipation of the Capitalist class fron the tyranny of the workers—the Capitalists are already emancipated. It is the worker who are our main concern, not the Capitalists who, it seems, are going to be well off r matter which way they turn. That may be so, yet I rather think Comrade Turner would have a very hard job trying to convince a Capitalist of this—it would be like trying to convince a hard-headed old atheist That there is a happy land far, far away where he'll get ham and eggs three times a day.
9.6.1 A Defective Approach
" Socialism for Millionaires " may be all right for Bernard Shaw and Charlie Chaplin and the like, but it is certainly not good propaganda for workers. It is all right for the philosophers' classroom but not for the platform—in fact it's bad propaganda for the whole Party case. It is reactionary, and would tend to become conciliative; it is dangerous, cloudy and puzzling for the workers.
We should cut out all the fancy capers and get on with the business of attending to the backward workers, not the forward Capitalists. If some of the latter think Socialism is going to benefit them, well and good—but let us leave it at that.
It is not our job to bother about which' Capitalists we shall support. If some of them are going to support us, is it our policv to suport them? If we did we would find ourselves in a horrible muddle. They would do more harm in the Party than they would do out of it, and, in my opinion, we should exclude them on these grounds.
What we should really be wary of is not to let slip through our fingers the long, hard and gruelling work of the old members of the Party. The workers are on the move now more than ever before ; they are gradually losing their illusions about the men who once claimed to be Socialists. We must not let them lose their faith in us. However, I partly agree in the philosophical sense with what Comrade Turner says, but still, in mv opinion, it would be very bad for the Party.
R. SMITH.

9.7 HEREDITY AND ABILITY
Some Biological Considerations
We are concerned, as always, with relative phenomena, and my general objection to Comrade Evans and Rowan is that they are attributing absolute values to things which are relative.
I think we can attach very little value to the "' twin method " suggested by Rowan. In recent years statistical correlation has played an increasingly useful part in biological research, particularly in agriculture.
Where variations in plants is concerned, strict control of ecological, conditions ismaintained, one factor being varied at a time Only in this way are relevant causes of variation isolated.
Rowan's environmental terms " exactly similar" or "more similar," "completely different" or " more different" would at rest bring nothing more than a tolerant smile to the face of a statistical biologist. Results by the " twin-method " would be crude and inconclusive. Some psychologists have dabbled in this sort of work with even greater crudity. This is not surprising, for an examination of the terminology used in psychology reveals an extraordinary confusion not found in. science. I refer to such words as consciousness, will, attention, feeling. " the unconscious,'.' pain, pleasure, etc. Their use in an animistic sense and the disagreement amongst the different schools of psychology reveal the shaky ground on which their alleged science rests. They are unable to agree even to the basic nature of the phenomena they claim to investigate.
Because behaviourists have thrown overboard the entire clutter of introspective terminology, and approach the study of mental phenomena in an objective way, the very existence of these psychologists presumes their disagreement with them. They did not have to be present-day psychologists, comrade Rowan. The issue has always been— behaviourism or psychology. Behaviourism is essentially a method. I do not know what he means by saying behaviourism is a doctrine which in its pure form is untenable. It is in any case irrelevant as a criticism. Pure Darwinism is untenanble, but the fact that Darwin incorrectly attributed the process of natural selection to slight continuous variations, and not to mutations, in no way detracts from his main conclusions. Rowan would do well not to rely on expositions of the behaviourists' case by their critics.
Both Evans and Rowan fail to appreciate the significance of the six athletes. They were not isolated by me, as the latter suggests, but by an elaborate process of selection. Thev represented the limiting cases of the appli-
cation of our technical knowledge in that field, being for all practical purposes the fastest men on earth. The physiological problems involved in sprinting are much more simple than in distance running. In the former, general technique is largely agreed upon. In the case of distance running there is still considerable speculation and consequently wide divergence in training methods. Thus Zatopec's training schedule differs widely from the usual, and it is interesting to note that the only two athletes whose type of training approximates to his are both credited with faster performances in their particular event.
Although Evans modifies his original statement regarding hereditary variation—he has dropped the word " abilities "—he has still a very confused notion. Natural selection, though it explains most " straight-line " evolution, is not the whole picture. Most important of all, Evans makes the mistake of applying a general biological law to human society. The selective process of the struggle for existence ceases to apply (see Engels: " Dialectics of Nature ").
As an example, let us consider a mutation which exhibits a deaf-mute condition. In the animal world such a variation would almost certainly be weeded out by natural selection very rapidly. But in human society the situation is very different. Deafness can be compensated for by deaf-aids, perhaps of the bone conduction type, and also by the technique of lip reading. The mute can talk and think in words by use of the finger sign language. Thinking in man almost exclusively involves the use of words, and just as in a normal person covert movements of the tongue and laryngeal muscles occur during thinking, so a thinking mute can be detected moving his fingers. Man, by means of a social inheritance of technique of his own making, thinks with his tools.
In his refernce to leaders, Evans is naive almost to the point of simplicity. The fact of differences in ability is not in dispute. We are continually meeting people who are more able at some tasks than we are. But Evans, not adverse to criticising another comrade for not crediting him with a common acquaintance with the elements of Party theory (FORUM, Jan., p. 7), deliberately misconstrues my remarks. He states that I believe a case for leadership rests on differences of ability. I will not use up valuable space repeating what I did say in that connection ; Evans can look it up and read it again for himself. Does Comrade Evans really appreciate what innately superior.
thought mechanism's imply? Do we have 1 resurrect the hoary old myth of the pyramid of consciousness once again?
Evans says " unlike causes produce unlike effects "—correct. But he evidently does not know what this means. Every difference is not a cause. Because everyone, apart from monozygotic twins, is innately different does not mean that every difference is a cause. Examples: —
8.Two similar bodies are projected tc^-wards the earth at different velocities. The opposing forces of air resistance and gravitational pull will reduce both velocities :: equality—equal terminal velocities.
9.Two glasses are placed side by side in a hermetically sealed box. One is filled with pure water, the other with a different: liquid, sugar solution in water. Because :: the higher vapour pressure of the pure water it begins to evaporate and condenses on the sugar solution. This accordingly overflo' and when the pure Nvater has completely evaporated and condensed on the solution the sugar becomes equally distributed in solution throughout all the water.
10.A particular mutant of drosophila— the fruit fly, possesses an abnormal stomach. Transferred from a moist atmosphere to a dry one this abnormality disappears and the fly becomes normal in appearance. But that the abnormality is still present in the genetic structure is apparent from the fact that offspring, though normal in appearance, revert back to the abnormal characteristic if moved back to a moist atmosphere. Thus drosophila of different genotypes (i.e. total gene-endowment) placed in similar environment— in this case a dry atmosphere—will exhibit similar phenotype (i.e. total external bodily characteristics).
This latter example has a further interest to the subject under discussion as it is an illustration of how a particular gene or genes are rendered inoperative under certain environmental conditions. The above three phenomena, physical, chemical and biologi-. cal, are examples of innate differences hi substance, with equal potentiality in relatively similar environment.
Mendel's laws of inheritance emphasise the permanence of the genotype, whilst the fact of evolutionary change reveals a condition of impermanence. This apparent paradox requires explanation. The total bodih characteristic of any particular organism— the phenotype, cannot be regarded as an independent permanent individual. Eacr separate cell, each molecule and each atom is continually being replaced from external What is relatively permanent is the general pattern of organisation. The use of symbols, language and mathematics, means that the organisation of each brain is inherited not from two people, but from society. Most of the learning of the general rules of behaviour goes on early in life.
Hunger, sight, pain, pleasure, thinking, are a few examples of learned behaviours.
People blind from birth who have been given use of their eyes in adult life take a number of years to learn to see. Differences between such shapes as triangles and circles are
not recognised.
The imbecile finds himself in the asylum not because his fellow-men are faced with an immutable bodily organisation, but because the technique for interfering with and adjusting it is lacking. The limiting factor within the human body is not, I suggest, the genetic structure but the organisational pattern of behaviour. The lower limit is characterised by the pattern of disuse— atrophy—death. The upper limit is set not by parental inheritance, which moves through generation after generation as the shadow of individual man, but by the social inheritance of human technique.
R. BOTT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY " The Chemistry of Life." J. S. D. Bacon,
" The Science of Life." H. G. Wells. J. Huxley, G. P. Wells.
" What is Life?"—The physical aspect of the living cell." E. Schrddinger.
'" Biology and Marxism." M. Prenant.
" The Mind and its place in Nature." C. D. Broad.
"Doubt and Certainty in Science." J. Z Young.
"Natural Causes and Supernatural Seemings." H. Maudsley.
"Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviourist." J. B. Watson.
9.8 UNDERSTANDING AND WANTING SOCIALISM
There are two meanings to the word Socialism " which we do not sufficiently distinguish in most of our talk and writing.
There is Socialism(1) (the system of society) and Socialism(2) (the theory of society). The difference between them is well expressed in the document which accompanies practically our propaganda. The Object defines Socialism(l), while the Principles summarize Socialism(2).
In a previous article (April issue) I tried to show that, while it was perfectly legitimate say that one wanted Socialism(l), it was little premature to say that one understood It may also be pointed out that while it is quite legitimate to say that one understands Socialism(2), it is quite meaningless to say that one wants it. There may be some objection to this view, the ground that there is only one Socialism—the object of all the Party's, efforts, -.nothing else is merely a matter of drawing the implications from this. This objection fall to the ground as soon one considers how the Object arose historically. Far from being the first premise of the arguments of this period of intense theorising, it summed up the results of such arguments. It is a conclusion from other arguments, rather than an argument itself. It is the top rung of the ladder, rather than the first rung. To treat it as the first rung : to rob it of its scientific and rational foundation (i.e. Socialism(2)). In fact, Socialism(l), if not preceded by Socialism(2), s degraded to mere Utopianism.
9.8.1 Not So Easy
One result of this Utopian attitude is the attempt to abandon Socialism(2) altogether.
Those who try this seem to do it on the assumption that Socialism(2) is difficult to understand, whereas Socialism(l) is easy.
Thus Comrade Turner, in his article on Selectivity (March issue), says "Socialism a way of living ; living harmoniously with people." Anyone can accept that as an ideal, he will say ; everyone can understand it. This is rubbish, of course ; nobody can understand it, because it doesn't mean anything. Or rather,; it means just the same as saying " Christianity is a way of living ; living harmoniously with all people," and has about as much chance of converting the infidel.
Socialism(l) is an abstraction, and will remain so until we and society between us make it more concrete. The ordinary man doesn't trust abstractions: he knows that a clever speaker can prove black's white, given half a chance. When we prove to him that he could have Socialism now, just for the taking, he doesn't believe us. And in this he shows more sense than a lot of Party members, who go on mouthing the same moth-eaten phrases week after week, secure in the knowledge that they are theoretically right, even if practically ineffectual.
They say, over and over again, that we could have Socialism now ; that all that is necessary is that the majority of workers should realise their class position, and Socialism could be established this afternoon. It just isn't true. And those who put it forward can never have thought seriously about what is entailed in learning how to live under a new social system.
Any social system has its order of values, its institutions, its ways of doing things, which become habitual and enter into the whole way one thinks, whether one accents or rejects them. That is the difference between a system and a chaos. What such speakers are proposing, then, is to change from one such system to another—only the other is a dim and formless abstraction, whose details are the subject of long and acrimonious debate—and they say that this could be done now!
And then they wonder why nobody believes them, why their audiences " can't accept (the Socialist case." Occasionally they try to get out of it by saying that such people aren't politically mature. But one-wonders just who is being immature here.
One wonders whether the people in the audience haven't got a better grasp of reality, a greater understanding of the world in which they live, than the speakers who are supposedly " educating " them.
9.8.2 Getting Things Clear
The first step towards knowing whether what you are saying is right or not is finding out exactly what it is you are saying.
When we say " The first essential is to have a working class thoroughly resolved to abolish the system and establish Socialism " we obviously mean Socialism(l). When we say " Socialists must at all times clearly put forward the principles of Socialism, asking only for the acceptance of those principles " we equally obviously mean Socialising). But when we say " The strength of the revolutionary party depends on the number who understand what Socialism means, and whose adherence is founded on this understanding " what exactly do we mean? This statement looks very much as if it is founded on the " implication " theory, which is, as we have seen, dangerously false. And when we see " Much of the support they received was from those who had not grasped the implications of Socialism but wholeheartedly tacked political and economic reforms " the cloven hoof becomes even more obvious.
Until we get this matter really sorted out, any argument on such questions must remain cloudy and confused. While it is true that Socialism(l) is complementary to Socialising), and that each needs the other to complete its own meaning, it does not follow that we can afford to ignore the primary distinction between them.
And the attempt, in particular, to gloss over this distinction by reference to, the-obiect-and-its-implications is full of the utmost danger for consistent Socialist thinking. A further article will show how this inadequate view arises, and the important implications for propaganda which ensue from this analysis.
J. C. ROWAN.
9.9 ON BEING SELECTIVE
In the last three issues of FORUM there has been raised the question: ought the Party to be more selective in its propaganda " The question presumes the existence of a type, group or grade of worker : ready to understand the Socialist case than others.
It requires no learning beyond an elementary school education to visualise a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living, which ideal is the highest any mind can attain in matters political at the present stage human history. All the Party asks of the workers is that they learn the elementary economics and unlearn the delusions of Capitalism ; the first will largely condition the second.
The seeming slowness of the workers to become Socialists can only explained by instigating the causes which turns a worker into a Socialist. Practically every event is the complex of many causes and these can usually be grouped under two headings: —
1. Predisposing causes: those which have
existed for some time, are often below the
surface or, at least, not immediately visible,
: do not produce the final event without
2. Exciting causes: those which come
often like a bolt from the blue, are patently
bvious, and often get the credit for being
the sole cause, yet would not produce the event if the predisposition was not there.
Socialist propaganda is only the exciting cause of a worker's conversion to Socialism. The predisposing causes are: —
1.Fully developed social production being the prevailing mode of. production.
2.The worker divorced from all means of production except his own labour-oower and, consequently, divorced from all property sentiment except respect for his own labour-power.
3.Products so well ahead of the market as to be relatively over-produced, including the commodity labour-power, all resulting in a fall of prices, including the -rice of labour-power.
4.Large-scale unemployment causing insecurity to be more felt, coupled with a market glutted with goods and the worker denied access to them.
These predisposing factors have existed in varying intensity throughout the memories of all of us; it is only in time of war and rearmament that the last two factors are abated in any degree.
If Socialist propaganda is really slow in making converts—and there is no yard-stick to measure it as it falls into a class by itself and has no precedents—we must remember that the average worker has much to unlearn.
The chief delusion of many workers is that one type of worker can be different from another outside their respecive vocations and any attempt to make Socialist propaganda selective will foster this delusion in ourselves, not destroy it in others. Men may differ greatly in "temperaments, dispositions and character, just as they do in their physiques, but these differences are infitesimal compared with resemblances.
Comrade McGregor asks: would anyone seriously contend that our Party could have emerged from Conservative political circles. I would not seriously contend this. But nevertheless, a Conservative worker can be iust as near to understanding the case for Socialism as a Labour or Communist worker as he has no more than they to unlearn. Every member of the working class is a potential convert. One can only sow the seed —the exciting cause—on to soil which may not be fertile at the moment; yet this same seed may remain dormant until the soil made fertile by predisposing causes perhaps not so far away.
Finally, we have to assume, of course, that the Party can confine its propaganda to workers of a special type without committing political suicide.
E. CARNELL.
9.10 WAR AND 20th CENTURY CAPITALISM
In this century wars have not merely become bigger ; they have become total, global, war. In contrast, the Marxian theory was a child of the 19th century, where the nro-duction of surplus value, not the realisation of surplus value, was of primary interest to the young, vigorous, developing Capitalist society. In such a society war tended to be merely a consequence not a dynamic cause.
However, Marx was not ignorant of the role of warfare as an innovator, for he wrote
Engels in 1857 stating:
"" In general, the army is important for economic development. For instance, it was i the army that wages were first fully feveloped among the ancients. . . . Here, too, the first use of machinery on a large scale." P. 378-9, K. Marx, "Selected Works," Lawrence & Wishart.
But, as Comrade Evans pointed out in "FORUM last October, " It still remains to
some extent our evil genius that we see so clearly what went on under Marx's nose."
A striking example of this is the fact that r. discussing " selectivity " in paragraph 4 of his contribution, in the May FORUM. Com-> lie Hayden considers only production luxury, poverty, and exploitation), and ignores war, as if this were not an essential rart of Capitalist society today. However,
this is far from true, for atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, bacteria and rockets, will kill people regardless of their class, and it is to give society an organisation which does not resort to such " solutions " that Socialism is necessary. In this way the need to end warfare, before it finishes us, is the main factor that forces all classes to consider Socialist ideas today.
Comrade Evans is the only contributor to Forum so far who has tried to relate war to his analysis of present-day economics and politics, and he has related the Welfare State to the Warfare State. However this is not the only role of war in the world today. I now outline a few relations between war and society, hoping that this will provoke others to start thinking on this subject, and so help to increace our knowledge of society.
In recent contributions the nature of town and country in a Socialist society has been discussed. Capitalism has produced large cities, but is it not now tending to decentralise? The technical possibility came with the electric motor and generator in the 19th century; the need for decentralisation came with the development of long range weapons of war. (aircraft, rockets etc.); and the dispersion of industry was noticable in Germany in the last war.
The relation between natural science and warfare today is important. Much so-called " pure " scientific research to get " knowledge for its own sake " is sponsored by many governments. The lesson of the atomic bomb is crystal clear.
In the application of scientific knowledge to weapons of war techniques are developed which tomorrow will form the basis of new methods of production. Today auto-controt are being developed for weapons of war (guided missiles, aircraft, etc.) and morrow when they are applied to industr they will probably raise " productivity ten-fold or more. Just how much progress has been made in this field is shown by the fact that by 1942 atomic piles were : trolled, using auto-control devices, so easily that the operators had very little to do and tended to fall asleep! (p. 102, Ata Energy. Penguin Books. '50.)
Finally, today conscription into the armed services is essential, even in " peacetime and this period of National Service breaks down many local prejudices. Capitalism not loath to blow its own trumpet, but result is not a tune, but a plaintive wail. more people see and learn of it the less they like it.
ROBERTUS

9.11 THE MARQUIS DE SADE
" Everywhere I could reduce men into two classes both equally pitiable ; on the one hand the rich man who was the slave of his pleasures ; on the other, the unhappy victims of fortune ; and I never found in the former the desire to be better or in the latter the possibility of becoming so, as though both classes were working for their common misery ... I saw the rich continually increasing the chains of the poor while doubling his own luxury ... I demanded equality and was told it was Utopian." Thus he Marquis de Sade, impoverished French -nobleman of the 18th century, one of the forgotten figures of history, he is today known mainly in pornographic circles, as his name gave rise to the word " sadism " (his works describe the cruelty of the rich of his day in full detail).
His political ideas were far in advance of his day. His definition of " class " can hardly be be improved: "I mean by 'the people,' those who can get a living by their labour and sweat."
His biographer, Geoffrey Gorer, goes on say: " This distinction of classes is founded on property; and with unaccustomed epigrammatic terseness De Sade defined property as ' a crime committed by the rich
against the poor . . . theft is only punished because it attacks the right of property ; but that right is in itself a theft, so that the law punishes theft because it attacks theft."
On leadership, De Sade has this to say: " You can only govern men by deceiving them ; one must be hypocritical to deceive them; the enlightened man will never let himself be led, therefore it is necessary to deprive him of enlightenment to lead him as " we want. . . ."
"" The accompaniment of tyranny is organised religion. ' When the strong wished to enslave the weak he persuaded him that a god had sanctified the chains with which he loaded him, and the latter, stupefied by misery, believed all he was told.' War is simply public and authorised murder, in which hired men slaughter one another in the interests of tyrants. ' The sword is the weapon of him who is in the wrong, the commonest resource of ignorance and stupidity."'
As regards prison and the death penalty, De Sade is opposed to every form of punishment: " It is far simpler to hang men than to find out why we condemn them."
In the family group, De Sade saw the greatest danger to equality; family interests are necessarily anti-social. He considered that the position of women both sexually and legally was anomalous and unfair; consequently he demanded complete equality of men and women in every circumstance. De Sade found the greatest causes of European misery in four things—private property, class distinctions, religion and family life. In the future societies he described these institutions had been abolished or transformed. He describes an imaginary island where
all priests were banished . . . there were no temples and no vested intrest in reliaion. Thre were also no professional lawyers and discussion of theology or law was punished as one of the gravest anti-social crimes. There was no money. ...
As a revolutionary thinker De Sade was in complete opposition to all his contemporaries, firstly in his complete and continual denial of a right to property, and secondly in his view of the struggle as being—not between the Crown, the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy or the clergy, or sectional interests of any of these against one another (the view of all his contemporaries)—but of all these more or less united against the proletariat. By holding these views he cuts himself off entirely from the revolutionary thinkers of his time to join those of the mid-nineteenth century. For this reason he can with some justice be called the first reasoned Socialist."
9.12 QUESTIONAIRE (continued)
In a previous issue we analysed the answers to the five multiple-choice questions. To deal with the sixth one (have you any ideas on how to improve our written and spoken approach to non-Socialists?) is much more difficult. This question was answered by 37 of the 55 participants and the replies naturally covered a very wide field. It is impossible even to summarise here all the points that were made, so we shall mention only those that were made in two or more cases:—
The Party must become known by canvassing and election campaigns.
Propaganda should cater more for the newcomers to our case.
We should use simpler and less-hackneyed slanguage.
The need for more frequent publication of the S.S.
Some articles in the S.S. are too complicated and academic, and we should avoid the usual rallying " moral" at the end.
Speakers should concentrate more on everyday problems of workers' lives.
More time should be spent on explaining what Socialism will be like. SOME SUGGESTED CONCLUSIONS TO DRAW (from the results in the January issue).
There are many possible interpretations of the results, but we put forward the following as a basis for further discussion: — IN THE LIGHT OF THE ANSWERS TO Ql. Members should attach the greatest importance to being active exponents of Socialist ideas and should take every opportunity of discussing them with non-Socialists. Education of members should include the technique of discussion rnd " button-holing." The,effect of our literature is that it seems to follow up personal contact and outdoor meetings but does not very often precede them.
Q2. In spite of the high proportion of our propaganda attacking other parties on'v a fifth of members replying were enticed
away from them. There is a definite connection (indicated from Central Branch members' replies) between personal contact and holding views not corresponding to am single party line. More than half the potential Socialists we address probably have v special party political views, so we should not over-emphasise our criticism of other parties.
Q3. Again, considering the amount of our propaganda that criticises opponents policies, relatively few Socialists are made this way. Explaining Capitalism is the necessary pre-requisite of Socialist knowledge, but it is difficult to judge the effect of the Party's emphasis of this on those who feel they should credit this regardless of the importance they attached to it at the time. One in 9 may seem a small proportion for those who were concerned about the Socialist future, but it is not so small when related t; the amount of our propaganda devoted 1 this. Central Branch members were more interested than others in the question of the future, so it might pay us to clarify our ideas by talking more of it, with a view to including it in our written propaganda, which Central Branch members more often have to rely on.
Q4. We should make special efforts to get across the idea that others can understand Socialism. It might be useful to expand our case on this subject, by dealing with certain aspects of human nature for example. Central Branch members were again more concerned than others with the Socialist future, but the difficulties may wefl be not with what is expressed but with what is inadequately dealt with or ignored.
Q5. The preference appears to be for the positive aspect of explaining (world events and our case in detail) at the expense of the negative one of attacking opponents, In spite of the uninteresting nature of much of the correspondence in the S.S. there seems to be a reasonable demand for it, which would, no doubt, be increased by answering questions of more general interest put by more typical inquirers. The poor demand f?r more reviews may be due to the style of reviewing and to the fact that in many cases they were such that they could have been done as well, if not better, by non-Socialists
Finally, we must make it clear that have been examining the effect on members of certain definite conditions. This propaganda has made a certain type of Socialist in the sense that from his experience of it he has evolved certain ideas about how it should affect other people. These ideas must be constantly reviewed if we are to take the ful-1st advantage of all the factors that are working towards Socialism. We cannot calculate from a questionnaire the possible influence of new factors that may enter into Socialis propaganda in the future, but some of them will no doubt take shape from a critical examination of its present forms.
PADDINGTON BRANCH.

10. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B. 10
JULY 1953

10.1 MUST WE PROSECUTE THE CLASS STRUGGLE?

A spectre is haunting the April FORUM -the. ghost of Utopianism. A contribution entitled " People of the World—Unite " rattles the dry bones of Robert Owen before us. In an article advocating " revolutionary " changes in our D. of P., we are offered, as a substitute for "Das Kapital", the "New View of Society". The same standpoint as that which Marx criticised in this third and tenth "Theses on Feurerbach " is propounded as being more up-to-date than the " legacies from other organisations and past conditions" which allegedly constitute the present socialist case. There is, seemingly, no necessity for talk (or action) about class-struggle on the political field. All that is needed is to become class-conscious, which " simply means seeing that there are two classes in Society whose interests are opposed, and that so long as Capitalism lasts there will be class struggle". Having adopted this SPECTATOR'S VIEW of class-struggle, one whether capitalist of worker) may " tower" above Society and do sterling duty as the great "educator" himself.
Revolutionary socialists, on the other hand, forsake the grandstand of the ivory tower for the political arena in order to end class struggle the successful prosecution of the last class struggle. Realising that men are born into society as a going concern, it does not surprise then that men are either capitalists or workers.
In the plexus of social relationships which constitute capitalism a man has no choice—he must belong to either the capitalist or the working class. The revolutionary, therefore, does not condemn the individual capitalist for being one of the privileged minority. Rather does he condemn the social relationships which determine that a man must belong either to the exploited many or the favoured few. Thus the aim of the revolutionary is not to abolish capitalists—but capitalist society ; not " the ending of antagonisms "—but the revolutionising of social relationships.
The basic capitalist relationships which must be abolished is the relationship of employer to the employee—the class relationship. So long as this class relationship endures, so long will capitalism run its course, and, so long will the capitalist class, as the ruling class, be committed " to preserve their system". The capitalist class, as a class, cannot abdicate. Individual members may relinquish their capitalist-status, during, say a crisis, but only to become members of the working class.
The socialist claim " that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself " does not imply that " the S.P.G.B, should address its propaganda to the "working class alone, as coming from the working class alone" in the sense that individual capitalists cannot understand Socialism. Socialists recognise, along with Marx (see. the " German Ideology", etc.) that individual capitalists can become Socialists. But in so doing, these individual capitalists do not step outside the class struggle but merely change sides . Nor does our clause 5 tie us to the view , that " capitalists ... are powerless to help— even if they have socialist understanding, they cannot act on it in the way that workers can ". Indeed, our fifth clause means the opposite. It means that individual capitalists who have socialist understanding MUST act on it in the same way as workers with socialist understanding. That is, they must assist in the prosecution of the class struggle ON THE SIDE OF THE WORKING CLASS, the aim of the struggle being to abolish the proletarian status.
Since S.R.P. recognises that " capitalism continues not against the will of the working class, but because it is just as much the workers' choice as the capitalists'", he will no doubt readily concede that if every individual
capitalist became a Socialist, capitalism would not therefore disappear. But why not? Surely only because of the fact that the class relationship still remains. The early Utopian Socialists held the view that Socialism could be established by appealing to the ruling class to use their power for that purpose. Robert Owes spent his life and fortune in that direction. Our clause 5 registers the fact that it is futile to appeal to the ruling class. Not because the ruling class consist of hard-faced business men. but because the INITIATIVE rests with the working class. So long as the working class do not feel compelled to abolish capitalism, so long will capitalism endure.
Where S.R.P. errs is in his subjectivist view of class struggle. He sees in the class struggle only the " antagonism " of individual capitalist against individual worker, whereas the revolutionary regards the class struggle as the EXPRESSION of the antagonisms " inherent in the life conditions and social circumstances of individuals" (Intro, to Critique of Pol. Econ.). For the revolutionary, it is not a question of what this or that individual worker may regard as his aim—or what the working class as a whole may regard as its aim. What we are concerned with is that which the working class IS.
On the political field, it is true " that the S.P.G.B. is equivalent to the working class party", since in that field the rest of the working class, as individuals, take their place inthe class struggle on the side of the capitalist class. Nevertheless, since it is in class struggle that individuals attain class-consciousness, a socialist party must prosecute the class struggle. It is thus, and only thus, that a situation can . develop wherein " the uprising class can free itself from its old trammels and become capable of founding a new Society (" German Ideology "). It is only in this movement of class struggle that human beings can discard the " outlook of single individuals in civil society" and attain " the standpoint of the new (which) is human society or socialised humanity". (Thesis on Feuerbach.)
R. RUSSELL (Reply overleaf)

10.2 OUR ATTITUDE TO CLASSES Emancipation of All
Comrades Richmond, Lock, and Russell have between them opposed most of the ideas that I put forward in " People of the World— Unite ". In their enthusiasm, however, they have unfortunately read into my remarks much that I neither said nor meant, and have themselves made statements which are not entirely unsatisfactory. In the hope of clarifying matters, I shall take up some of their points.
10.2.1 RICHMOND
According to Richmond, men's " ideas and interests, aims and attitudes, are those of their dass, and in this sense a man is a product of his class and is identified with it." As a generalisation, this is a fair statement—but we must not over-simplify the position by making each individual fit the generalisation.
Let us, rather, say that within class society it is classes that set the pattern of man's social environment. It is classes that, by assigning him a specific role in the division of labour, ie:ermine the manner in which he will deal vrith that environment. A man is not so much a product of his class as a product of class society. And the empirical justification for this iew is that an individual CAN, despite all the ibstacles, change his class and become identi-fied with another.
Class consciousness is not contemplation but .-—owledge. Richmond implies that I said it was knowledge of class struggle which resolves all antagonisms"—seeking to give my remarks a class-collaborationist flavour. What I said was, " it is knowledge that there is class struggle that ends it". The prosecution of the class struggle is, on the proletarian side, fighting for higher wages, T.U. activity, etc., of which a necessary element may not be knowledge of the nature of Capitalism. You need not be a socialist to participate in the class struggle—but you must have knowledge of it and of how to end it if you are to be a socialist.
Richmond writes of the obstacles to socialist understanding. " These obstacles, difficult as they are for a worker to circumvent, prove almost insurmountable to the capitalist." It is more accurate to say that very few capitalists have surmounted them. But then very few workers have either. Most of the reasons for preserving Capitalism that Richmond says capitalists give, are also given by workers. A capitalist never boasts of " 200 years of bourgeois rule "—he may dismiss Socialism, and talk of war being due to human nature, but such views are just as sincerely and tenaciously held be workers as by capitalists. As for the class-conditioned snobbishness and superiority ", don't forget that inverted snobbishness and inferiority are also barriers to socialist understanding.
Richmond then quotes Engels: "The dictum that Communism is not a mere party doctrine of the working class, but a theory compassing the emancipation of society at large, including the capitalist class, from its present narrow conditions ... is true enough in the abstract, but is absolutely useless and sometimes worse in practice." If a dictum is true theoretically, then how can it be useless and worse (i.e. false) in practice? I can only hope that Engels meant that it was open to misunderstanding, and therefore better avoided.
"True in the abstract" can only mean "true ultimately"—Communism WILL involve the emancipation of the whole of mankind without distinction (of race or sex or any other type). My case is that it is possible and desirable, despite all the difficulties, to explain this to everyone. The remainder of the quotation merely amounts to saying that if no capitalists are socialists, then the socialist movement will have to be carried on entirely by workers— obviously.
On the question of my proposed amendment of our fifth principle, Richmond states that " must be the work of the working class itself " emphasises majority action. I confess to having overlooked that without this clause there is no specific commitment to majority action; though even this seems inadequate, since to me Socialism is something that will be brought about by virtually the whole of society, and not merely a majority. I am never happy about who the minority opposing it will be and why they will do so:
Class consciousness is not just the reflection of working class conditions. In saying that other elements (e.g. the antagonistic relations to property) enter into it, 1 am not saying that it is just a theory which is to be drilled into peonle's heads. In my article I explicitly stated that Socialism is in the interest of the working class. Nevertheless, it is not enough to say that the SP.G.B. expresses class interests unless you also say that those interests are to abolish classes.
If my position is " evangelistic and nonpartisan ", then Marx seems to have been tarred with the same brush. Richmond quotes him as saying that the revolution " is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society, is not recognised as a class and is in itself the exnression of the dis-
solution of all classes". I interpreted this to mean " it is not workers acting as the working class who achieve Socialism. Workers acting as socialists achieve it".
I do not understand the relevance of the the last quotation from "Selected Essays". True, the attitude of some individuals does not alter the class struggle. " Mr. Heinzen, on the other hand, sees all classes melt away before the solemn idea of 'Humanity'". From Richmond's concluding remarks (" the changes suggested by S.R.P. were advanced and ANSWERED over 100 years ago") it seems that he believes that Heinzen and I are putting the same case. You have only to read the essay quoted to see that this is not so. For one thing, Heinzen denied the division of present society into economic classes.
A further word on ' humanity ', since many members apepar to be troubled about it. It is true that Marx and Engels did polemicise against their opponents' use of phrases like ' true love of humanity'. Not, however, because they themselves cared little for humanity, but because their concern was too real to tolerate hypocrisy and lip-service. In advocating scientific socialism, they were up against all kinds of counter programmes, e.g., those of Feuerbach, Proudhon, Duhring, etc. It was not the idea of humanist equalitarianism they were attacking, but because, without political organisation, it can only be reformist and reactionary.
10.2.2 LOCK
An " anonymous capitalist" in the Party? Lock gets such obvious pleasure out of swearing at capitalists that I feel quite guilty about confessing to being a worker. Though, to use his phrase, I don't give a damn for being a member of the working class.
" There can be no question of soothing syrup for the capitalist class to gain their support." Why bring in soothing syrup, which means 'making special concessions'? Nowhere did I suggest that we should make special efforts to gain the support of the capitalist class. If. however, directing our propaganda to all is called soothing syrup, then the absence of such syrup can only soothe those who hold that no capitalist can be a socialist. Lock rums his whole case bv wanting the exception of Engels —or did someone give him soothing syrup?
"All capitalists are class conscious ", asserts Lock. He takes class consciousness to mean that " I belong to the capitalist (or working) class ". But you must see the difficulties this
leads to. Engels was a member of the capitalist yet his class consciousness was obviously more than ' I belong to the capitalist class''". There are many workers who are conscious that they belong to the working class, but they are not socialists. That is why I insist that the term ' class consciousness' (which should not be used apart from 'socialist') denotes an UNDERSTANDING of Capitalism, which includes a desire for Socialism. I am sorry that Lock finds my explanation of the basic attraction of Socialism reads like a Sunday-School message. It doesn't particularly matter why Lock or I think we want Socialism. The attraction is basic because it is something that nothing except Socialism can bring and because it is part of the object that all socialists share. There is nothing except socalism that will enable us to live without class antagonisms and in social harmony. It is true that Socialism is the only way in which working class poverty can be ended. But it is not true that it is the only way in which Lock or I can end our present poverty position. Lock, through no fault of his own, had enough money to relieve him from the necessity of working for his living, would he give up being a socialist because he would be on the “ right end " of the antagonism?
My amendments to the D. of P. were not in order to make our propaganda unselective ". The D. of P.. is the basis of membership, and should be an accurate expression of what holds us together. At present, I think I would be generally agreed that the basis of membership is knowledge. As far as I know, no Party rule excludes members of the capitalist class from the Party, which does not . question the way in which members get their living. That is the principle at stake.
10.2.3 RUSSELL
I did not say that " legacies from other organisations and past conditions " constitute (be present socialist case. It is just that " the dead past weighs like an Alp upon the brain of the living". Nor is there any apparent connection between my standpoint and that •which Marx criticised in his 3rd and 10th Theses on Feuerbach. Here are the theses:
10.2.4 III
The materialistic doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and education forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that the educator himself must be educated. This doctrine has therefore to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can only be comprehended and rationally understood as revolutionary practice.
10.2.5 X
The standpoint of the old type of materialism is civil society, the standpoint of the new materialism is human society or social humanity.
It is most unfair of Russell to imply that J think there is " no necessity for talk (or action) about class struggle on the political field". The Party's view, to which I subscribe, is quite clear on this. We are out to abolish the " antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle ". Call it " successful prosecution of the last class struggle " if you must —so long as you mean by that the ending of classes.
I do not deny that Russell can claim that the Party supports HIS view, since on p. 14 of Principles and Policy we read that class struggle " is a struggle on the one side to maintain and on the other side to abolish a social system". However, I take it that in FORUM we are not so much concerned with the authority behind statements as with their correspondence with facts.
The class struggle and the socialist movements are NOT identical nor is the latter the mere political expression of the former. The class struggle is fought out in the arena of Capitalism. The working class, by definition, can never successfully prosecute the class struggle—they can only end it. What they prosecute successfully is the struggle for Socialism, but this is a struggle against ignorance, not against capitalists.
Why does Russell insist " not the ending of antagonisms—but the revolutionising of social relationships" ? Surely the position is that the social relationships will be revolutionised from those of mutually antagonistic owner and non-owner to those where such ownership and consequent antagonisms will not exist.
He takes " committed to preserve their system " to mean that the capitalist class cannot abdicate. Neither can the working class. A capitalist is no more bound to support Capitalism than a worker, and there are no logical grounds for treating the capitalist's opposition to Socialism different from the worker's.
Russell says that individual capitalists with socialist understanding " must assist in the prosecution of the class struggle ON THE SIDE OF THE WORKING CLASS " and that outside the S.P.G.B. "the rest of the working class as individuals take their place in the class struggle on the side of the capitalist class ". A little thought will show how absurd this is. A capitalist, as capitalist, can never change sides, If he happens to be a socialist and he employs people, then there is still an antagonism of interests. Similarly, non-socialist workers don't fight the class struggle on the political field on the side of the capitalist class.
The simple position is that ALL workers are on one side of the economic class struggle and ALL capitalists on the other. As regards the ending (political) of class struggle, I repeat that membership of either class is irrelevant:
I suggested modifying clause 5 of the D. of P. because I agree with Russell that it does register the fact that it is futile to appeal to (members of) the ruling class. Russell brings in the red herring of the Utopian socialists " appealing to the ruling class to use their power ", but it is obvious that I didn't mean that. How can we justify the assertion that it is futile to appeal to (i.e. hopeless to expect) understanding of capitalists when we know some have been socialists?
There is, of course, no basis for Russell's assertion that I see in class struggle only the antagonism of individual capitalist and individual worker. And why refuse to discuss what the working class may regard as its aim; Surely any discussion about what the working class IS should not over look the fact that they are people—and people do have aims.
The clash of opinion on this subject has not been without value, and I summarise my conclusions as follows:
1.The class struggle is the inevitable product of class society, and is fought over division of wealth, condition of employment, etc, within that society.
2.As a result of dissatisfaction with class society, and in particular with the failure of the subject class successfully to prosecute the class struggle, there arises a movement to abolish it and to establish in its place classless society.
3.This socialist movement is something more than a form of class struggle, since its aims include the ending of class struggle.
4.In the very process of ending this struggle, the socialist gives expression to the highest aim of the subject class, which is an equalitarian society.
5.No individual within class-divided society-is incapable of participating on equal terms with all others in the socialist movement, since Socialism constitutes the emancipation of the whole of society from its present narrow conditions.
S.R.P.

10.3 THE ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIALIST IDEAS
In dealing with Turner's article on selectivity March FORUM), Hayden denies that socialism is a way of living. He tells us that "it is a way of thinking about the problems of society especially poverty, and advocating is a solution the transformation of capitalist society to a communal one ". A a definition of Socialism, this is deficient in two ways. It does not make it clear that Socialism is a system of society (in its human aspect, a way of living); and its use of such terms as " thinking" and " advocating" makes it into an intellectual rather than a practical proposition. Plenty of people outside the socialist movement could claim to be thinking about the problems of society and advocating a communal one (e.g. Anarchists).
Hayden did not complete the sentence: Socialism is a way of living . . . ". Turner added "living harmoniously with all people". As Turner states, there are no groups of people, past or present, who, living under a property regime, have not been antagonistic to each other ".
Here, in my opinon, is the very kingpin of the argument—absence of harmonious relationships. This absence is not confined to an antagonism between capitalists and workers alone. There are groups of workers antagonistic to other groups of workers; groups of capitalists antagonistic to other groups of capitalists.
If a system of society can be established to abolish these antagonisms, to abolish devastating wars—in the modern world, wars are no respectors of social status—then what is left ) make Capitalism more attractive to the capitalists except " excessive luxury " ? It is assumed that they will be reluctant, under any circumstances, to give this up. Yet what else is excessive luxury but an attempt to keep up
a competitive standard ? It is considered " the thing " to lunch at Claridges, to go to Ascot, to drink numerous bottles of champagne until the early hours of the morning. But the people who pass their lives in this way are generally no happier nor more integrated human beings than the rest of the population.
It is extremely doubtful whether their access to material wealth and their ability to command the services of others, makes up for their virtual exclusion from productive activity. Thus we read {People, 5.4.53) of ex-King Farouk who, according to a member of his entourage, was " bored stiff" in Rome, and so left for a holiday on the French Riviera. Farouk's man added: " He didn't know what to do with himself. Time was heavy on his hands". The incidence of melancholia and suicide is highest among those who have never worked. And judging by my observations of " social gatherings " over the past twenty years or more, I should say that boredom is much more in evidence than happiness.
Why cannot capitalists be convinced that " all will gain " ? After all, members of the capitalist class have contributed in no small way to the growth of ideas of a future harmonious society. Maybe some were; "utopian"; nevertheless they must have had some measure of understanding of the basis of property relationships and the consequent antagonism of interests.
10.3.1 ENCOURAGING PREJUDICE
No. 3 of our D. of P. uses the words " this antagonism can be abolished " and refers to democratic control by the WHOLE PEOPLE Hayden claims that " the Party's attitude is that we would wish to obtain our objective by peaceful means if we may, but by force if we must." Those who attended the E.G. meetings when the complaint made against Turner on
the question of violence was dealt with will know that this is very far from being the case. For every statement in the S.S. on the possible use of violence to curb a recalcitrant minority,, there is at least another explaining that violence can have no part in the establishment of Socialism. This is an issue which must be thrashed out—however it is not my main concern in this article. I am concerned with socialist ideas, and particularly with the prejudices of some comrades about what prevents others from accepting them.
Socialism, or the ideas of a world fit for human beings to live in, CAN be accepted by those who are wealthy. Prejudice will arise on the question of wealth, of course—but ther. in our propaganda work we meet with such prejudice in people from all walks of life.
" They are welcome to listen to use, but we are not likely to get a majority of them ever. at the eleventh hour", states Hayden. The point is that people will not feel welcome to listen to us if our propaganda is framed to exclude certain groups from the possibility of understanding our ideas. Even the groups to which we appeal may, by our very selectivity, fail to grasp the universality of Socialism.
A description of the world we live in to-day, and our solution to the problems that beset both capitalist capitalists and workers, does NOT mean an appeal to the capitalists for a " change of heart". A change of ideas in all who support Capitalism is what we are after. In no way does this invalidate our conception of the class struggle or what it implies. With the fruitlessness of the ideas of co-parnership, profit sharing, incentive bonuses, etc., it is to our advantage to point out that we have a real solution—" a way of living harmoniously ".
G. HILBINGER.
10.4 MASS ATTACK PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUE
I would like to endorse the views of Comrade McGregor in his article; " What Does Selectivity Mean?" in the May FORUM. One of the reasons for the depressing results after 50 years of both indoor and outdoor propaganda is " small scale technique" and; as he has clearly shown, our propaganda calls for a radical revision.
May one hope in the near future to see an announcement in the S.S. along the following lines? The S.P.G.B. has decided to make an experiment in propaganda in the form of a 3-6 months' all-out attack in a given area where one or more big outdoor meetings will be held at least once a week. The nucleus of the audience will be a minimum of fifty comrades organised on the rota principle and pledged to be present at the start of the meeting to give it a strong send-off. In addition, one indoor meeting will be held each week, covering in turn every available hall in the area and backed up with posters and loudspeaker equipment.
Whenever possible there will be announcements in the local press, supported by the purchase of space, containing a write-up of the subject matter that is being dealt with at the meetings, both indoor and outdoor. Also a challenge to debate to all political opponents or anyone who would like to try his hand at opposition. Should the press refuse to sell us space for this purpose, leaflets will be printed and freely distributed, mention being made that publicity in the local press was refused. In additioni to this, the S.S. will be canvassed from door to door in force. Further, a few comrades will be stationed at well- chosen busy spots all over the area every day, selling the S.S. and other literature.
I would like to wager we would make more progress in both increased membership and permanent literature sales than we have done in the past fifty years. Practically everybody in the area would know of the existence of the Socialist Party, and what it stands for, long before the campaign was over. What a furore it would produce! I visualise the air around those parts veritably electrified with interest.
The S.P.G.B. would be the "talk of the town", and how infectious to the surrounding areas!
Go where you will, stop a hundred people, ask them their views on the soundness of the Party case, and what will be the answer in nearly every instance? "Never heard of that Party." And this after fifty years! Such a depressing state of affairs could not happen at the conclusion of our high pressure drive in the area chosen for this experiment. We can do it—what are we waiting for? The experience gained in the effort would be a useful
guide for our next attack in other areas. None of us knows for sure what the total results will :. We can, however, be certain that they will be in the direction we all desire.
Such a plan of campaign would be bound to arouse intense interest in quite a number of ways, such as in sympathisers, all and sundry interested in politics, and encouragement to all our comrades wherever they may be—especially the speakers. The progress reports in the S.S. would be looked forward to and read, both near and far, with much eagerness.
There must be a great number of "waverers" who try to justify their reluctance to take the plunge on the ground that the smallness of the membership, after fifty years of plodding, is conclusive proof that there is no hope of seeing Socialism realised in their lifetime. They, with others, would be keenly watching progress.
Such a campaign, as suggested, would most
certainly put us on the map for all tune in the a-ea chosen. The press would find it very difficult to avoid giving the drive some further publicity, however small. I consider £150. spent in this way, would give much better value than as a free gift of a forfeited deposit for a few weeks' concentrated effort when everybody is" talking and comparitively few listening. Further, in my opinion, no constituency should be contested until a campaign of this description has preceded it, months beforehand.
I suggest that comrades could do much worse than carefully to re-read and digest what McGregor wrote on this matter in the May FORUM, especially the latter section. It also be interesting to have the views of other comrades on the merits or demerits of Mas Attack Propaganda Technique.
W.H. (Bournemouth)
10.5 THE BALLOT AND COMRADE CANTER
The title: "The Ballot v. Comrade Canter” seems to indicate that Comrade Canter is in opposition to the ballot. Such a title is unfounded and unfair, since he has never repudiated or denounced the ballot. The articles in FORUM (February and March) ignore the salient points that Comrade Canter was making in the October and November issues. It would be difficult to recognise Canter's attitude from reading the replies by Comrades H. (Harmo) Morrison, S.F. and G.G.
The basis of Comrade Canter's analysis is that the socialist revolution is inherently majority, conscious and political. His emphasis is on the conscious majority character of the socialist victory. This is what he stresses as the acid test of the socialist position. The " ballot" is not that test, but a mechanism employed by the socialist majority. The socialist principle is CONSCIOUS MAJORITY action (not ballot). This is what is being lost sight of in this controversy.
In his article, Comrade Canter has made clear that in his discussion concerning the ballot he is dealing with the " existing ballot machinery." In his definition of the ballot, he went out of his way to point out "... and by ballot we do not mean a vote, but the ballot as existing under the present economic system."
(My emphasis.) It is to " legalisms" and “constitutionalism", as such, that Canter is referring. The socialist concern should not be with " legalism ", per se. Comrade Morrison is well aware that the socialist majority is not deterred by constitutional obstacles, as he, himself, asks whether anyone thinks that " a revolutionary working class will have any more respect for the capitalists' Constitution than they have themselves."
The ballot (meaning the vote) may take on many forms. What specific forms it takes will be determined by the particular circumstances existing at the time. We cannot tell history what special measures it must take in the future. What Comrade Canter takes issue with is telling the as-yet non-existing conscious socialist majority, now, what it must do. How does anyone know, in advance, the detailed measures of the future? This much is sure, a socialist majority will know what to do and will do what it finds to be necessary.
The following are but speculations as to what forms the ballot may take: Gallup Polls, Wildfire fervour spreading rapidly, marching feet, general strike by socialists, boycotting elections because of special circumstance—who knows? None of these are essential or integral to socialist princples, but are merely illustrative of possible forms that may be assumed by the ballot. History answers this question, not us.
After the fashion of a third degree, pressure is put on to compel the use of crystal balls, and the crucial question is asked: " Supposing the majority are compelled to use violence?" How are you supposed to answer that question? One answer might be: " Then, that is the step that is taken." Should some strange quirk of peculiar, unforeseeable events compel the socialist majority to utilize violence, how can we, in advance, say " No!" ? However, this much we can say, in advance—the majority has no need for violence.
Suffice it to say that socialists are opposed to violence and its advocacy. What is manifestly unwarranted is the charge that results from the reply to the above question: " Ha!
Ha! See. We have members in the Party who believe in violence and minority action."
10.5.1 W.S.P. ON THE ISSUE
In the 1951 W.S.P. Conference held in Detroit, the following motion, that stirred up a hornet's nest, was carried:
" Under capitalism, where the State machinery is in the hands of the capitalist class, the ballot can be used for the purpose of measuring the developing socialist consciousness of the working class. When this consciousness reaches a majority stagey the ballot can become the revolutionary weapon for the introduction of socialism. If, at the time the socialist majority is obtained, material conditions preclude the use of the ballot, then this majority will use whatever other means are at hand to introduce socialism."
It is not correct that the Party membership views " Comrade Canter's" stand as a violation of socialist principles. This can be seen from the three relevant referenda on this issue passed after the 1952 Conference held in Boston a year later.
1. A Party referendum endorsed the " Introducing the World Socialist Party " leaflet. It contains the following statement: " The World Socialist Party holds that the ballot
... presents the most practiced and possible way for the workers to obtain political power. However,- as a minority party, the World Socialist Party does not, nor should not, lay down the exact steps by which the majority once is becomes socialist, will introduce socialism." (emphasis mine.)
2. A Party referendum endorsed the following statement: "The W.S.P. advocates use of ballot to obtain socialism, but does not preclude any other democratic means used the conscious majority at the time of the revolution." (emphasis mine.) . A Party referendum endorsed the following statement: " We advocate use of the ballot as a means of obtaining socialism, and anyone who advocates violence as the means to achieve the socialist victory cannot be a member of the World Socialist Party."
Thus we see that Canter has not been misrepresenting the W.S.P. position. It takes some stretching of the imagination to interpret these passed referenda motions as being minority, violence, Trotzkyite or anti-Socialist Companion Parties' views.
It is quite significant that after receiving the 1951 and 1952 W.S.P. Conference Reports and tbe " Introducing the World Socialist Party " leaflet, not a single member of a companion party or any of the companion parties felt the urge to raise questions about the "anti-socialist" developments in the W.S.P. There was no avalanche of protests.
Even though the various companion carries of socialism are autonomous, can you remotely imagine there being any silence if the W.S.P. had appeared to make a basic change in their sociailst principles? Fancy, if the W.S.P. started advocating reforms, nationalisation, united front, labour (union) political action, great leaders, etc., what a barrage of letters would have swamped us!
It was not until letters were sent abroad by some W.S.P. members voicing their apprehensions, that we received any expressions of disagreements from some comrades in companion parties. I am quite sure that I, myself, would have reacted against the alleged Canter views if I saw them presented in the manner they were in the letters. I am fully aware that the comrades writing abroad were seriously concerned because of their fears and thus, unwittingly, were slanting their emphases in such a way that the wrong impression was created. In fact, it is wrong to refer to "Canter's views" as though the referenda of the W.S.P. did not support his views.
One thing stands out. No socialist should hare any qualms concerning " Canter's views " read in their context and on their own merits.
10.5.2 THE CRITICISMS OF "CANTER'S VIEWS "
It is perfectly understandable that comrades become concerned when they believe that the scientific socialist organisation is in danger of transforming itself into a non- or anti-socialist tarty. The critics of Canter fear that Canter's stand may be construed as supporting minority and violence actions.
It will be observed that the case against Canter is largely based either on inferences drawn from his statements or interpretations of his views. This attitude on "Canter's views” is based on the fallacy of refusing to deal with Canter's points but, instead, to reason from fears and implications. Though these fears are sincere, they are unfounded.
To illustrate the matter: Canter's case revolves around limitation of approaching the ballot question as a rigid, mechanical, "existing ballot machinery" problem. The $64 question: " What alternative is there to the ballot?" arises from ignoring his plea to examine this ballot question as part of the process of the socialist victory. If the critics looked at this problem (dialectically and materialistically) as being in a state of flux, this question would lose its meaning. However, the question would be pertinent in dealing' with advocates of violence or minority action, but has no application to Canter, whose stand as outlined above is never dealt with.
It is not Comrade Canter's fault that he raised technical questions concerning differences between the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress. The "literal" and "mechanical" approach to the ballot leads to just such "problems". I am well aware that Canter's critics are not really concerned about such technical " difficulties ". • In their replies they recognise the essential and fundamental thing is the conscious majority. After all, this is the basic principle.
No wonder that S.F. and G.G. (March FORUM) lay such stress on "unsupple facts". There never was on unsupple fact. As socialists, we see things in motion. It is a fallacy to look on ballot as a " fact " instead of as the resolute determination of a socialist majority. This also may explain the dependence of the critics upon quotes and references for their views.
Talk of alternative forms of ballot can only be grasped by these critics as opposition to ballot. The alternatives are NOT either ballot or violence and minority—they are various forms of ballot (vote).
When I project myself into the growing socialist movement, I get a different picture than Canter. His may prove correct and mine prove wrong—but there is no quarrel among socialist that the process is conscious-socialist-majority-political in nature. For example, as distinguished from Canter, I do not visualise the capitalist state removing a significant socialist movement off the ballot; I do not think that capitalist control of state machinery can ignore a growing sentiment. I believe all sorts of concessions will be made to powerful socialist convictions. I anticipate that a 20% socialist electorate calls for far different behaviour by the capitalists than the current .0001%. (I can even conceive—but do not expect—a historic situation developing by which the Republicans or Tories might become the actual mechanism for introducing socialism.) Confronted with a socialist majority, I can only visualise the ruling class submitting to the inevitable. Is my speculation socialist and Canter's anti-socialist, or is it the reverse? Isn't it just as likely that neither is the criterion of being a socialist?
All kinds of inferences can be drawn from almost any statement. An analysis is not re-
pudiated because of possible inferences. To call Canter's and Trotzkyist views similar on basis of a quote from the Trotzkyist pamphlet, "In Defence of Socialism", is a case of pseudo-logic. On such reasoning, Comrade Morrison's views could be called similar to those of the same pamphlet, as he himself quotes favourably from it. Actually, in this whole issue, it appears that the rigidity and mechanical nature of their ballot stand causes the critics to be quite metaphysical.
Canter's position cannot be confused with the Trotzkyites by any stretch of the imagination. His crystal-clear analysis of the vanguard concept, of the capitalist nature of the Soviet Union, of the immediate demand programmes, etc., demonstrate the inaccuracy of that charge. The articles signed by the pen-name " Karl Frederick" in the Western Socialist repudiate any such accusation.
10.5.3 CONCLUSIONS
There is a reason why neithed the Declaration of Principles nor the W.S.P. Application for Membership blank have never contained any specific statement or question on the " ballot". They refere to many items, such as: class struggle, emancipation, organise consciously and politically, leadership, religion, Russia, etc. These two Party forms are basic generalisations. They constitute our general view of the historic scene and historic process.
Our major emphases are on the processes and not on mechanisms and details. The ballot is a correct and sound symbol of our whole case. The ballot symbolises the conscious, majority political nature of the socialist revolution. If viewed scientifically, it reveals the democratic nature of the socialist victory.
Again, let us stress that the socialist principle is conscious, majority, political action, that is :he process of the socialist revolution. The ballot (by itself) is not a principle but merely a mechanical device. If we consider the ballot, per se, as a socialist principle, we become essentially sectarian rather than scientific.
We have always refused to be too specific concerning future details and developments. Whilst we speculate on the future, we stress thegeneral nature of future growth and change. We have always pointed out that there need be no fears about what a socialist conscious majority will do. They will take those steps they find necessary, not what we tell them to do.
In spite of all the fuss and fury, there is really no fundamental quarrel. All concerned in this controversy (Canter, Morrison, S.F., G.G., etc.) agree on the fundamental characteristic of the socialist revolution as being conscious, majority and political. This is what marks us off from all other alleged socialist organisations.
The vital thing is THE REVOLUTIONARY, SCIENTIFIC, SOCIALIST VIEWPOINT we all have in common. This is the binding force that welds us into a cohesive integrated whole.
I RAB.
10.6 RAB IN WONDERLAND
With Comrade Rab's contribution to the Ballot controversy, we now have not only Comrade Canter's erroneous views on the subject of the weapon of emancipation—we rise have Comrade Rab's erroneous views on Comrade Canter's erroneous views. Perhaps me most amusing aspect of Comrade Rab's defence of Canter is that everyone concerned
(including Canter) regards the controversy as a “fundamental quarrel "—everyone, that is, with the exception of Rab, who is the only one with sufficient understanding of what goes on in the minds of those, including this writer, who are engaged in the controversy, to recognise that there are " no fundamental " differences! Let us look briefly at some of Rab's points.
“The ballot, he contends, is not the acid test of the socialist position. The ballot is " but a mechanism employed by the socialist majority. The socialist principle is conscious majority action (not ballot)."
As an answer to my challenge ('third degree' he calls it) to come forward with some alternative means that a "conscious majority" can use to attain control and introduce socialism, Comrade Rab proposes such expedients as: “ Gallup Polls, Wildfire fervour spreading repidly, marching feet, general strike by socialists, boycotting elections because of some special circumstance," and comments on this
who knows? None of these are essential or integral to socialist principles but are merely illustrative of possible forms that may be assumed by the ballot. History answers the questions, not us."
To one who has known Comrade Rab and his views personally for even the period I have —about 14 years—this type of reasoning on iris part must come as somewhat of a shock. For, to my mind, the best answers to this sort of drivel when thrown at us by our opposition used to some from this same Comrade Rab, who now appears to be "unshackled" from the traditional socialist attitude on such questions.
I deny most vehemently that I am tradition-bound over anything, but nevertheless must ask Rab this pertinent question: Do you now think you were wrong in the days when you handled our opposition-from-without in the manner you now contend is unsound? Or perhaps you feel that you were right when you were wrong then, while we are wrong now in thinking we are as right now as we and you were then. No matter how one looks at it, this doesn't make sense—no more than does your defence of "Comrade Canter's views on the Ballot. I agree that "'thinking is no violation of socialist discipline" but is your reasoning really thinking?
Look at your alternatives. Comrade. Supposing it were possible to determine by means
of a Gallup Poll (something I do not agree upon) that we have a genuine majority of genuine socialists in society. How can such a Poll provide the means whereby this majority can seize control of the state? There are certain definite jobs to be done. How do they get done? How can "wildfire fervour" put socialist representatives into control of the state machinery without utilising the " existing apparatus ", at least that part of it which is the real means of determining the desires of the population? Does the comrade really believe that he or anyone else can know whether " marching feet" are to be found on the opposite extremity from socialist: heads? And why should a majority of socialists want to go on a "general strike" ? The object of socialist revolution is not to see which class can outlast the other in a strike crisis. Or is it? And since when do socialists " boycott" elections under any circumstances? When a socialist has no other opportunity to register his vote he still votes by marking " socialism " across his ballot, or by any other means he can employ to demonstrate that he will not be satisfied with anything short of socialism. Protest votes such as this are noticed too, when there are enough of them, and have been from time to time commented upon by the press.
Let us now briefly take up an excellent piece cf twisting on the part of Comrade Rab. Under the sub-heading: W.S.P. on the ISSUE he sets down four quotations which are supposed, according to him, to prove that Comrade Canter's views are not in any way contrary to those of the party. The first one, the motion drawn up at the 1951 Conference, was Ideated in a subsequent Party Referendum, but Rab, like Canter, neglected to mention this fact. Perhaps he forgot.
The second quotation under this heading (numbered 1) was also voted down in the same Referendum, yet the N.A.C., against the wishes of the Party membership, continued to distribute the leaflet which contained the (at that time) objectionable statement. On the occasion cf the Referendum following the 1952 Conference, the distribution of the leaflet was sanctioned, although it would have been useless to vote otherwise, since it had already been widely circulated for one to two years.
On the question of the comrade's next two quotations there hangs an ever stranger tale— one which he also forgets to mention. No 3 was the original motion drawn up and offered at the 1952 Conference. One of those most bitterly opposed was Comrade Canter, who stated openly at the session that he would resign from the Party if this motion were passed ; and that were the majority of the workers to resort to violence, he would, support it to the hilt and consider it to be democratic activity (see Conference Minutes). Through a parliamentary trick which went unobserved by the chair and unchallenged from the floor, quotation number 3 was offered as a substitute motion and passed. It was subsequently approved by the Party Referendum.
Comrade Rab's final quotation was submitted as a separate referendum and passed with only 3 voting against, but it was worded slightly different than in Comrade Rab's article—a difference which make ALL the difference. Instead of appearing as " . . . use of the ballot as a means . . . ", it read "... use of the ballot as the means ..." This was probably another slip of Comrade Rab's memory, but whether slip or not, it is good to keep both the comrade and the record straight on the subject.
10.6.1 THE TROTZKYITE POSITION
I do not intend to spend any further time in answering Comrade Rab's " answer" to my article on the Canter viewpoint. This has been adequately covered. Anyone who wishes to know the Canter position has but to read it in FORUM. It speaks for itself. I would, however, like to correct a statement by Comrade Rab concerning a " favourable reference " by me to the Trotzkyite position in my FORUM article. If the comrade will re-read the section in question, he will see that he is wrong. I merely stated that the position on the prevention of the use of violence by the capitalists, as laid down by Albert Goldman in the pamphlet " In Defence of Socialism " was more favourable than Comrade Canter's views on the matter. I did not say it was the socialist position, as Goldman did not insist on the need for organised Socialists in a strength sufficient to discourage its use. A majority of the groups that Trotzkyites seek to organise do not necessarily have to be socialists and generally speaking are not.
Nor did I maintain that Comrade Canter belongs with the Trotzkyites, even though I did state, and documented it, that his views on this subject were definitely those of the Trotzkyites. Such reasoning is also shared by the Third Internationalists and many other small groups. My point was (and I still insist that it is so) that we have a minority of members within the Party whose views do not correspond with ours, and this has been mainly due to a past laxity in some cases on membership requirements and that the situation is one to regret and to guard against in the future
One more parting salvo. On the question of the possibility of the socialist revolution being accompanied by the use of violence Comrade Rab asks:
" Should some strange quirk of peculiar, unforeseeable events compel the socialist majority to utilize violence, how can we, in advance, say: 'No! '?"
He follows this by:
"However, this much we can say, in advance – the majority has no need for violence."
This attitude almost reminds us of the viewpoint expressed by certain advocates of “ preparedness" on the question of a life in the hereafter. "We are fairly certain," they reason, " that there is no God, but just in case we may be wrong we are going to take no chances of eternal punishment. We will not deny the possibility of God's existence."
As for me (and, I am certain, the overwhelming majority of scientific socialists) I have no need for any such " preparedness" other on the Question of God, or as is the case with Comrade Rab, on the subject of violent (socialist) revolution. The onward surge of history which has destroyed the need for a belief in a supernatural power has, at the same time and to the same extent, destroyed both the need and the possibility of a violent socialist revolution.
H. MORRISON.
10.6.2 Final Word from Comrade Rab
Since these articles were received, the following "final word" has been received from Comrade Rab (Editors). '
Comrade Morrison is correct on one item I did err in copying the 3d. W.S.P. referendum
in my article, " Comrade Canter AND the Ballot." This referendum did deal with the ballot as THE means and not as " a " means. It was an inadvertent, honest mistake and was certainly unintentional.
However, in no way does it affect the theme of my article, which pointed out that the revolutionary alternative is NOT between the ballot and some other means of obtaining socialism, but that there may be alternate forms that the ballot assumes when utilized by the socialist majority. The error some comrades make is to interpret speculations on future possibilities as being opposition to the ballot
I. RAB
10.7 LOGIC, TRUTH AND SOCIALISM
One of the fields covered by logic is that- of truth. According to formal logic, propositions nay either be true or false, and must be either true or false. It is therefore called a two-valued logic, because any proposition can only have the value 1 (truth) or 0 (falsity). This : the type of logic used in electronic calculating machines, and is obviously quite capable of dealing quite well with the sort of world such machines have to understand. It is the
world of the " either-or ".
We can get a little nearer to the real world, however, by the use of a three-valued logic. Such propositions as " There are living things on Mars", for example, would be given a value of \ in this logic, as would the propositions " I shall get up at about 7.30 to-morrow morning ", or " This stranger is honest ".
A four-valued logic has also been attempted, but introduces too many complexities to be shortly explained. The next real resting point
is multi-valued logic.
This is statistical in its outlook, and treats logic empirically. Thus the truth of the statement " This card which I have picked from an ordinary pack of cards belongs to a red suit" his a value, before the card is inspected, of 0.5. Under similar circumstances, the statement " This card is a King " has a truth value of
076923.
Further than this it is difficult to go, in the direction of exact and objective delineation of Truth. And yet even this much is pitiably inadequate for handling the events of the real world.
10.7.1 DIALECTICAL LOGIC
In the real world, things are never just true or simply false. Their truth value is contingsent on circumstances. Thus I sit in my room with the door closed, and write " The-proposition that the door is shut has the value 1 ". But my enemy who pumps poison gas/through the cracks disproves my point and kills me in the process. Such mistakes are dangerous. While the statement would be true for cats and dogs it would be false for gases or liquids, and only partly true for light, which can get
in at the lower edge of the door, and also through the keyhole
Any logic, then which attempts to be purely objective, with no trace of subjective elements such as purposes, and attempts to deal with things " as they really are in themselves " must fall to the ground. All the types of logic we have mentioned so far suffer from this defect, though some try to escape from it by quite elaborate means.
The only type of logic which can deal with the real world is dialectical logic. What does this have to say about truth, then? IT SAYS THAT IF A STATEMENT IS TRUE, THEN IT MUST BE FALSE. This is only to say, in a rather dramatic form, that any statement is only true within limits. Take away those limits, and it becomes false.
Now, in real life the limits are environmental circumstances. For example, 2 plus 2 equals four is only true in day-to-day existence when certain environmental conditions are left out of the question. Two rabbits plus two rabbits equals four rabbits. But given time, the answer is somewhat different—perhaps 22 rabbits, Two sacks of wheat plus two sacks of wheat equals four sacks of wheat. But given time, the sacks rot, the mice get in, and the wheat goes musty—the answer is perhaps 0 sacks of wheat. Or pouring water into a 3-gallon bucket—two gallons plus two gallons equals three gallons. Or joining two telephone wires together—2 decibels plus 2 decibels equals 2.301 decibels!
We know that environmental conditions are changing and evolving all the time, without ever reaching any permanent state of rest. Therefore the limits of any statement are also changing. And therefore the truth of any statement is changing, too.
Not only subjectively, then, must absolute truth be denied, but cbiectivelv as well. The statement that MY WINDOW IS OPEN is not only (subjectively) true for a bluebottle and (subjectively) false for a cart-horse, but
also( objectively) more or less true depending on the season of the year, because the wood warps in the summer and it won't open so wide.
10.7.2 THE SYLLOGISM
Having seen so much, let us go back to our old friend the syllogism, raised from its dusty bed by Horatio (FORUM, March issue).
Study of the syllogism is really of very little use to socialists; almost the only use for it is in naming obvious fallacies in the arguments of one's opponents, and it really doesn't cut much ice with them when one does us it in that way.
For example, Horatio says: "The Socialist Party's claim that the road to Socialism is through Parliament is such a valid hypothesis. It follows rigorously from the major premiss that Socialism is democratic; minor premiss, democracy operates through Parliament; conclusion, therefore Socialism is Parliamentary." Now one can dismiss this, if one has studied the syllogism, by naming it as an example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But it is equally good logically, and far more effective, to construct an exactly similar syllogism with different terms, to show its absurdity. Thus, in this case: " Horatio is a member of the S.P.G.B. Members of the S.P.G.B. have died in the past. Therefore, Horatio has died in the past."
Or again, when Horatio says: " Tories and Labour are bad. Liberals are not Tory or Labour. Therefore, Vote Liberal; It is Good." (His comment on this is: " We see, therefore, that thinkers can draw opposing conclusions from the same accepted premisses.") We can-simplv retort with this: " Turner and Wilmott are alive. Horatio is not Turner or Wilmott. Therefore, Bury Horatio; He is Dead."
The study of dialectics, on the other hand, is full of use for socialists, since it is a valuable weapon in the struggle against fixed ways of thought and outdated metaphysical argument.
J. C. ROWAN.

11. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 11
AUGUST 1953

11.1 THE SOCIALIST IDEA
In the June issue a distinction was made (not for the first time) between Socialism as a system of society—Socialism(l)—and Socialism as a body of theory—Socialism(2).
Let us now go on to consider a third use of the word Socialism, and call it Socialism(3). This is what is sometime covered under the terms " The Socialist Attitude ", or " Socialist Understanding", or "The Socialist Idea". A thorough analysis of these terms, and the way they are used, reveals that the most adequate way of looking at Socialism(3) is to all it an attitude. We shall define an attitude (following ordinary textbook usage) as " an endurlng organisation of motivational, emotional, perceptual and cognitive processes with respect to some aspect of the individual's world ". We can say at once that Socialism(3) is a rather special kind of attitude, because it usually covers more than one aspect of the individual's world. The attitude of party members not only covers the political field, but also extends to the religious field, for example.
Having made that clear, we should then note that an attitude is not only cognitive—it does not only consist of knowledge of facts. It also includes motivation—it makes those who have it want to do something, to take some action. It includes emotion—it leads to feelings of liking for some people, institutions, actions, etc., and distaste for others. And it includes perception—it makes one see some things very clearly, and ignore others completely, and interpret events one way rather than another. From our own experience, each one of us knows that all these things are true ::' Socialising), especially under its title of " Socialist understanding".
And it is equally obvious that this is what is meant by the " Socialist idea ". This, again, an attitude. When we say of a new member " He's got the idea; now it's only a matter of filling in the details ", we should rather say " He's got the attitude; now it's only a matter of getting the facts and arguments to back it up ". And it should be thoroughly understood that this is the only thing that the Socialist
idea can be. It can't be Socialism(l), because everybody's idea of this is different; in fact, even the same person's ideas about it change
over the years. If the Socialist Idea is common to all Socialists (and this is the usual meaning of such a term) we can easily see that it can't be Socialism(l), which is different for all Socialists. And it can't be Socialism(2), which again is different for. all Socialists. Probably no two people would agree what to include and what to exclude from this mass of material. And in fact the amount of it which is valid actually changes with time; also new material is added. It must, then, be Socialism(3). This is an attitude which can be common to all Socialists.
It is the attitude which enabled Marx to write " Capital " and Engels to write " Ludwig Feuerbach ". It is the attitude which enables our own comrades to write in the S.S. every month—often about things never mentioned before in the traditional body of Socialist theory. It's the attitude of mind which enables party members to see the world's events through Socialist eyes, penetrating beneath the tinsel and the glitter to the hard economic realities lying beneath. It's the attitude which enables comrades to add to the theory of Socialism and continually to recreate it for the current age.
And this is the attitude which the majority of the world's inhabitants have got to adopt before we can have Socialism—that is, Socialism). They have got to get the Socialist attitude, This is the underlying meaning behind the phrase which is bandied about so unthinkingly about understanding and wanting Socialism. When you've got Socialising) you
want to understand Soeialism(2) and you want to attain Socialism(1)—and you want to get i of all that stands in the way as soon as possible.
But, of course, this isn't as easy as handing somebody the Socialist Idea like a brick— " Somebody gave it to me: I can give it to somebody else "—it means long, hard work for many years to come. It means that the idea of fighting elections now is, as Comrade Evans has well said, " a piece of sympathetic magic ". It means that things are not now ripe for Socialism(1). It means that .we won't have Socialism(1) until attitudes have changed institutions and institutions have changed institutions, etc., etc., to the point where only one more change of attitude is necessary for the institutions of Socialism to take over from the institutions of Capitalism. At that point it will still be necessary for us, as it has always been, to point out that Socialism(l) is there for the taking. Only this time it will be true. And because it is true, and can be clearly seen to be true, people will believe us; and because they act on their beliefs and find their actions successful, their attitudes will change; and because their attitudes have changed, they will co-operate to set up new institutions. And because of this speech, this belief, this action. these attitudes and these institutions, we shall have Socialism.
J. C. ROWAN.
11.2 EDITORIAL
There is a false, but apparently widely-held belief that a small circle of contributors writes most of the articles in FORUM. That certain members contribute regularly has perhaps overshadowed the fact that new writers have come forward and are continuing to do so. The 76 items published in the first ten issue (to July) were written by 38 different members, and 6 groups, branches and committees wrote 8 further items.
There are no grounds then for the assertion that FORUM is monopolised by a small group of writers. Members who have never previously written for the Party are moved to send in contributions on questions in which they are particularly interested. And it is doubtless an advantage to the Party that the opportunity to gain experience in the exacting business of crystalising ideas into the written word is widened by FORUM. Many are gaining this experience, and, we are certain, others will make the effort to become contributors in the future. There are some who say, “Yes, I thought of writing something about that, but …”
It is our concern, as editors of FORUM, which exists for members and is written by members of all the companion parties, to assist in removing the last " but " and all that comes before it. True, it may take time to produce ind article or even a short letter worth reading, yet if you have something that you feel ought to be said, then you are already more than half way towards the production of an item for FORUM. Concentration and effort will do the rest, and when it is done you will have gained by the experience and derive great satisfaction from it. There are perhaps more potential writers in the Party than is apparent.
Sometimes the doleful opinion is expressed that as the first enthusiasms of some of the earlier issues abate the usefulness of FORUM munst decline. We do not hold this view. On the contrary, we believe FORUM can have a much wider usefulness than has so far been evident", Much more can be done to widen our understanding of Socialism. There are some members who have not yet written for FORUM who have something worthwhile to wtite about, who will, we are sure, produce useful, critical writing. Others who are planning are doing research in particular subjects. It is unfortunately true that the main difficulty these comrades labour under is that they are already committed to other Party work. It is not a new experience in the Party to discover what little time one has only when an extra task is attempted. A task some comrades have on hand is to review some of the Socialist classics in the light of modern criticism and development.
With patience and hard work we are certain that the future of FORUM is assured.
11.3 CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE EDITORS
Comrades,
In an article entitled " People of the World —Unite " (April FORUM), the viewpoint was expressed that the establishment of Socialism was in the interest of all mankind, irrespective of class. The writer analysed the consequences cf this on a number of socialist arguments, and then went on to suggest amendments to the D. of P. to bring it into line with his analysis.
Quite rightly he did not argue, in an opportunist fashion, that this analysis should be considered because it would make socialist propaganda more appealing to most people. However, this position that he advocates does have important practical propaganda implications. One that leaps to mind is that if The Socialist Party is not opposed to the capitalist class, it should not be opposed to advertisements in The Socialist Standard, as long as they are not of an anti-socialist type. In this way, the S.S. would cost the party less, and so ease our financial position.
To those who ask " What sort of advertisements?" I would suggest books, radiograms, notepaper, cigarettes, chocolates, notices of political organisations, etc. Some may suggest that the firms concerned would not be interested, but to them I would say that as a journal like " History To-day" can get plenty of advertisements, it seems likely that we have a chance.
This is not a reason for rejecting, or accepting the views put forward in the article by S.R.P. They must be accepted or rejected on their merits. This is merely a logical step that we might advantageously take if such views are held by a majority of the membership. Even if such views are held, nothing short of a party poll on this specific issue should be made before any action is taken. Yours fraternally,
ROBERT.
11.4 THE S.P. OF IRELAND
Comrade Harry Berry, Kingston Branch. took advantage of his annual holiday to visit our comrades of the Socialist Party of Ireland.
A representative of the S.P.I, welcomed Comrade Berry at the Air Terminal and from then on every moment of his short stay in Dublin was made pleasant instructive, and interesting. Comrade Berry was considerably impressed by the enthusiasm of the Irish comrades and their magnificent efforts to spread our message and make Socialist ideas better known in Ireland. And make them known they certainly appear to succeed ht doing. Their resourcefulness in finding means to provoke discussion around Socialist principles in public, displays skill as well as zeaL By comparison with England, the conditions ht Ireland are semi-fuedal and present enormous difficulties for the Socialist propagandist. Outdoor meetings are difficult and sometimes impossible, and there is no doubt that the means pursued by the Dublin comrades are, in the circumstances, effective. On all possible pubBc occasions, they appear to group together, and exude studied friendliness the better to provoke discussion on Socialist principle. Politically, the S.P.I, is succeeding in making a mark in Ireland which is creditable for its size.
Comrade Berry derived great pleasure from his all-too-short stay. The contrasts between industrial England and Ireland, where the peasantry and the influence of the Catholic Church permeate the political and social life of the people, present an interesting social study.
Irish comrades derive much stimulation and gratification from such visits, and if British comrades are interested in paying a visit, the Secretary of the Kingston Branch can provide the name and address of a lady sympathiser who can offer limited but pleasant accommodation in a new Dublin suburb. Please therefore, write to the Secretary of the Kingston Branch if interested.
Arising out of this visit, the Kingston Branch has started a fund to assist the S.P.I. to send fraternal delegates to our Annual Conference next year. The financial position of the S.P.I, reflects the low standard of living and the considerable unemployment whim prevails in Ireland at the present time, The thoughtfulness of the members of the Kingston Branch in their efforts to give fraternal encouragement to our Irish comrades deserves widespread support.
11.5 SOCIALISM WILL BENEFIT ALL
Recently I submitted an article for the S.S, which explained that Socialism will be in the
interest of all mankind. To my astonishment I was told that some members would disagree with this view, and that since it was controversial it could not appear in the S.S. I must, Therefore, present the propositions in the article as if they need to be proved to members, and not (as I thought) as if they were the views of the Party.
My starting point is Socialism, as defined the Party's object. There can only be common ownership provided that people's ideas are in line with it. Our critics will not let us depart from this standpoint even if, for some reason, we wish to do so. They say, for example: " But suppose everyone wants to do one job and no one will do another". We reply that such a situation will not arise or alternatively, that if that is the case then we. cannot have Socialism. Whichever way we answer, we imply that Socialism pre-supposes attitude of social-mindedness in the people are to participate in it, as opposed to one individual- or group-mindedness.
Since all will stand equal to the means of production and all will draw upon the products of labour according to their needs, it follows that all must permit others to stand equal and to draw freely. In fact, it is misleading even to use the word ' permit', because it implies that permission could, under certain circumstances, be refused. Let us grant that a section of society may not be persuaded that Socialism is in its interest, and may object to it on those grounds. What are the rest of the people to if about that? They can either admit that the basis of the objection is correct, i.e., that Socialism does, in fact, only operate in the interest of most, not of all, people (which will encourage the minority to go on thinking as they do)—or they can prove the basis of the objection false by a fuller application of the socialist idea.
Those who have, been educated for the community will take an interest in all the problems that affect humanity and will adjust their standpoint and their behaviour to its welfare. Their life in the community will always be marked by goodwill and a feeling of oneness with the rest of society—not with 90% or 99.9% of it, but with all of it. Now,
I am not saying that Socialism depends upon everyone having perfectly developed social feeling, nor am I denying that people will ever have disagreements or personal dislikes. The point is that Socialism, by very definition, cannot make social provision for treating some people differently from others—it cannot meet an anti-social act on the part of an individual by an anti-individual act on the part of society.
Now we approach the question of whether people benefit or not. If it is true that a section of society (the ex-capitalists) will not benefit, then that means they have something to lose. Comrade Hayden put it like this (April FORUM): "... it is true that those who are now the employing class would gain something in the new society. But they stand to lose something in the process, luxury resulting from property and their exploiting of the workers."
My dictionary defines luxury as " gratification of the senses, desirable thing that can be done without.' Of course, Socialism will not be without luxury in those senses. What it will be without is the sort of luxury that is associated by contrast with poverty and is, in fact, its complement. Will the absence of this sort of luxury be looked upon as a loss? If it were possible for the present enjoyers of luxury to be transferred (with their capitalist ideas) to live in socialist society, it is quite possible that they would deny they had benefited. But what will they think if they absorb the ideas that will be all around them under Socialism (in concretised as well as theoretical form)—if, in short, they accept Socialism as most people to-day accept Capitalism?
We must be very careful when we speak of what people will gain and lose with Socialism. Let us not delude ourselves that it is only capitalists who can see no advantage in it. We often state that 90% own 10% and 10% own 90%, as though it were a magical formula that automatically makes the 90% turn a deaf ear, while occasionally one of the 10% resolves to get rid of the system.
The fallacy of trying to compare one individual's life under Capitalism with how people will live under Socialism should be apparent. There is no valid yardstick which can measure respective " standards of living ". What is the equivalent of free access in terms of hard cash? Can you compare the luxury of a millionaire who has ulcers with someone
in socialist society without millions or ulcers? We can say this about how people compare Socialism with the present. Those who glimpse an understanding (for that is all we car. i of what it means in terms of a way of living., are conscious of a tremendous loss in not having it. On the other hand, those who do not accept the possibility of social change, and who therefore do not work for it, consequently regard any assessment of gain or loss as idle speculation. It is not what they think they will personally gain or lose by it that determines their attitude to Socialism, but that they think it is something outside the range of practical life.
To deal now with a few paints that arise in opposition. Why do Hayden and other comrades assert that even at the eleventh hour a majority of capitalists will not support Socialism? I readily concede that if car propaganda is to be based only on the need for expropriation and the use of such language as "\ vote to strike fear into the hearts of our exploiters" (Socialism, p.50), then Hayden could be right—this won't make capitalists into socialists. But then I don't believe it makes workers into socialists either! It seems to me 'a peculiar " eleventh hour " that prepares to usher in classless society on such a bellicose note.
In my view the Party's literature (and in particular our older pamphlets) does not adequately explain what we mean by Socialism In some cases it positively conspires at error. Thus in Socialism (1941, p. 13) we find the following under the sub-heading " The Possibility of Leisure ": " The human intelligence which accomplishes this (ending of poverty and drudgery), since it can only do it by dislodging the rich from their position of idle luxury and privilege, must necessarily come from the working class ". It will be noticed that ' human intelligence ' excludes ' the rich', who are to be dislodged. The logical deduction is then made that the dislodging must then be done by the working class. But it is the major premise that is at fault. Socialism is not the triumph of the non-rich over the rich—it i the triumph of equality over both. The passage quoted is merely the complement and net the opposite of the reformist view: " The human intelligence which ends poverty, since it can
only do so by dislodging the poor from their present position, must necessarily come from the ruling class ".
Then on p.36 there appears this statement about the expropriated owners of wealth:
There would be nothing left for them but to work for their living like the rest." This odd choice of language implies a reduction in status for the ex-capitalist instead of a change in status for all people. The writer of this pamphlet obviously did not have such a clear grasp of socialist principles as Marx, who spoke of work under Socialism as not merely a means to live, but as itself the primary necessity of life. All men, in short, will live to work, not work " for their living".
The following paragraphs are the conclusion to my article submitted for the S.S., and sum up the arguments that I think can usefully be placed before non-socialists.
"... the sort of life we envisage will be possible under Socialism is not tinged with envy of, or retribution against, capitalists. It has no greater connection with how the rich live now than with how the poor do— it seeks a standard superior to both.
Capitalists are no more the special creatures of Capitalism than are workers. The one class cannot exist apart from the other. Quite apart from the uselessness of holding one class responsible for the social consequences of class struggle, there is a positive danger of doing so. If the proposed improvement in the conditions of the mass of people is to be based only on making the few disgorge what they possess, then it is merely a capitalist revolution, such as in Russia in 1917. The void left by such an
" expropriation of the ruling class" can only be filled by another ruling class. Until workers are socialists, they will continue to carry exploiters on their backs and fail to see that everyone can walk upright.
Socialists advocate classless society because it provides the opportunity for the fuller development of all human personalities. Freed from class antagonisms, men can cooperate freely with each other to benefit society (and themselves as part of it). Those who support Capitalism are not only the ones who seek to hold what they have, bat also the ones who seek to have what sememe else holds—both groups accept the rights o property. The only way to end social antagonisms is to establish social harmony, which is what. Socialism means."
S.R-P.
11.6 A POSITIVE CASE
When discussing our ideas with non-Socialists ather with friends or as propagandists from the platform) we are often accused of being merely destructive and iconaclastic. We condemn capitalism for causing wars, giving rise to unemployment and slumps, and perpetuating poverty, malnutrition and hunger, and we say that it must be abolished. " But what is your alternative?" we are asked. "Socialism", we reply.
Yet when attempting to define Socialism, many of us still tend to be too negative. I am not suggesting that we should prophesy, I do not know whether we will travel by horse, bicycle, automobile, helicopter or jet-plane, or all the lot, or some other form of transportation not yet developed: or whether there will be mass production, or if we will live in blocks of flats or chalets; and neither does any other comrade.
But many speakers on the outdoor platform reel off almost in parrot fashion: "Socialism does not exist in the Soviet Union; Nationalisation is not Socialism; under Socialism there will be no state, no government, no money, no armies, navies or air forces, no coppers," Correct as these statements are, the approac is not only too negative but has an adverse effect on those members of the audience who do not know our case.
Although we cannot give a detailed blueprint of socialism we can present our point of view in a more positive form. Some speakers do, but many do not.
It is the aim of this article to suggest means of propagating socialism from a positive not negative, point of view—without being too controversial.
11.6.1 WHAT WILL SOCIALISM BE LIKE ?
With the establishment of Socialism, the means of living—the factories, mines, etc.— will be the common property of all mankind regardless or race or sex; and production and distribution will be democratically administered by all the people.
With the abolition of capitalism, and with it the wages system, things will be produced solely for use. This will mean that a means of exchange—money—will no longer be necessary. Barter, either in simple or complex form, will disappear. Because, with production for use, people will have access to what they need, each determining his or her own needs (needs and wants being synonymous), all will give to society according to their varying abilities.
Socialism will be based not on coercion but co-operation. In the words of Marx: " In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Communist Manifesto.) Society will not be divided, as in the past, into master and slave, ruler and ruled, governor and governed, but will be a classless world, where governments of people—or rather over people —will be replaced by a democratic administration of things.
11.6.2 THE STATE
As I mentioned earlier, the state and its coercive forces are often dealt with in a negative way. When told by speakers that there will be no state machine, no army, navy, air or police forces, many members of the audience are amused. So conditioned are they to our capitalist way of life that they react in das manner. Therefore, although it may be more difficult and take a little longer, it is imperative that speakers briefly—but not too brief. — trace the history of the state and its coercive forces. It could be presented somewhat as follows: —
The state has not, as many people think. existed in all human society. It rose with the beginning of property society, from the need to keep class antagonisms in check. Many thousands of years ago, before the advent of civilisation, the state did not exist
Mankind as homo sapiens—true man— has existed for probably half a million years, most of the time in savagery and barbarism. The earliest form of society, which existed throughout savagery and continued into barbarism, we call Primitive Communism—. because, in the words of Kropotkin: "Within the tribe everything is shared in common every morsel of food is divided among a present ... In short, within the tribe the rule ' each for all' is supreme, so long as the separate family has not yet broken up the tribal unity." (Mutual Aid). During the long period there was no state.
The state is a bureaucratic and coercive apparatus, necessary in a society divided into property owners and non-owners and designed to keep an oppressesed property-less class in subjection. It will be unnecessary in a classless socialist society. After the seizure of the means of production by the majority of mankind—the working class— and the conversion of these means of production into common property, the working dass puts and end to itself as a class. It puts and end to class society altogether, with its class differences, hatreds and struggles.
A socialist society will have no need for a state. Unlike Anarchists, socialists do not advocate the abolition of the state; this would result in chaos. What socialists do advocate is the abolition of a system of society that gives rise to, and necessitates the use of, this coercive instrument. It is
not abolished or overthrown. It just becomes superfluous and withers away.
Although it is impossible here to deal with all the aspects of Socialism, it can be seen that the society we all desire and are working for can be presented in a much more positive manner than is done by many members at present. Such aspects as marriage, morals and the like, can be dealt with from a historical and positive point of view from our platforms. This may be more difficult in front of an audience than just saying there will be no this, no that and no the other thing, but it must be done.
It will always be necessary for us to analyse capitalism and to discuss its varying problems for humanity. But I think most people these days are more concerned with what the world could be like, rather than to hear our speaker; attack the Labour, Conservative or Communist Parties.
I hope the above suggestions will stimulate comrades to discuss the POSITIVE case for presenting socialism; particularly those whs are wary of " crystal-ball gazing", and who are loath to mention future socialist socier all, but just continue attacking capitalism and capitalist-reform parties.
PETER E. NEWELL.
11.7 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
5 — The Social Superstructure (contd.)
Before beginning his analysis of the commodity as the ' cell-unit' of capitalism, Marx earned us in the preface that the analysis must Bam upon minutiae and that the force of abstraction must replace the apparatus of the laboratory. This difficulty in economics is magnified in general sociology which deals, not with solid wealth, but with airy institutions, acrd where there is no comparable cell unit, no "20 yards linen or one coat", to eke out abstraction, where description is beggared and metaphor must be worked to death.
For unity of social forms and processes is a?t sufficiently expressed when we describe rasritutions as being geared together, because geared to the labour which is what society is for or when we describe them as interdependent like the organs of the body. These analogies fall short, for the institutions of a society are each the whole, turned to catch the mind's light this way or that.
Likewise the elements, which are conceived as making up the separately distinguished institutions, have an indivisibility of existence (and therefore of development). "Democracy is quite sensibly regarded as a thing of " franchise, checks and balances", supremacy of legislature. ' independence of Judiciary", " rule of law ", " presumption of innocence ", right of appeal", "freedom of association", Habeus Corpus and Hyde Park, these being the things thrown into relief when we look at society from a particular angle. But held another way they become "consideration", “contract” " guarantee". "inheritance", "purchase ~. " affidavit ", : ruling ", " entailment ", " reversion", which belong to " Property ". And each of the particles which make up these parts—" keep out", " dial O ", " week 3 "—is a microcosm carrying the genes and chromosomes of the society which bodies it forth, and each particle is a part of every part, for the institutional molecules is no mol— cule but society writ small enough for thinking. They, too, have no local habitation: it is the mind that sunders and rejoins and names Law or Property.
11.7.1 Permutation of Artifacts
Social evolutions is the continuous accumulation of artifacts, of means and products. Quality is the outcome of quantity, because each social molecule is " permed " with every other, and each particle a function of every other, that is, of society as a whole, for society is not the sum of its parts but the permutation of them. The character of property is related directly to the size of the productive forces; democracy is affected directly by the mass of statutory can'ts and musts to which everybody is subject, and the mass of legislation which Parliaments cannot cope with themselves;1 the quality of law changes with the emergence of additional law-making and judgment-giving bodies outside Parliament and the Courts; social assistance, as a result of the former trickle of haphazard rescue work having become a regulated river, differs as cheese to chalk from the brutal stigmatised charity which affected only the few only occasionally. There is a world of difference (as ' fundamental' as that between Feudalism and Merchant Capitalism, or bet—ren that and industrial
capitalism) between the intensely personal powers of a Pitt or a Grenvill to determine policies and appointments and the comparatively mechanical character of Government to-day.
There is a world of difference between those who ran the East India Company for the Whig and Tory intriguers and to-day's permanent departmental secretaries, where civil head or titled nob may alike be dismissed or unfrocked for an illicit pound of sausages or a currency offence. There is a world of difference between Tolpuddle and the regional joint advisor council penny an hour rotary shift Mowbray scale P54 what no tea break all out boys.
But there is a world of difference only if the parts are added together. Although ie qualitative difference in each case given is directly related to a change in quantity, ana the regularisation which quantity imposes, each changes also by virtue of changes in the others. And a particular change has no social signifance if obsession with our hardly-learned 'separate categories' allows us to think that " other things remain the same ", for the mind is then not keyed to sift out a common motion from the social molecular variations of it, as a uniform current in a unitary field of force. The progressive depersonalising of property, the increasing vicariousness of power, the widening delegation of responsibility, the relation of the State from primarily coercive to predominantly administrative—none of these is really credible until it is seen that each is the other, that it is society which becomes more impersonal, under the weight of human artifacts as the productive instruments. and their cognate propeny, power and politics, become more and more beyond personal appropriation and control.
The various ' institutions' appear to have a life and locus of their own, distinguishable like the branches of a tree. There is an obvious sense in which education is not industry and Church is not State. But it is not enough to recognise that the branches have a common item and are nourished by-a common sap; nor it is enough to add that the branches grow into one another to form a solid mass. The analogy is more fundamentally faulty in that it ascribes to social phenomena a spatial quality, locus, which they do not have. It is only men, and the things men make and enjoy, which have these physical qualities of space and place: the institution( and the sum of institutions—society) has no locus, although it is associated functionally with men and their artifacts, as thought is associated functionally with the spatial brain. We go astray, therefore, even when we call society a " structure". Society, rather, is the artifact thinking.
11.7.2 Social Growth
The difference between a wasp's thoughts and ours is based on the difference between ten thousand and two billion brain cells (or on the permutations of these two numbers). The issue is a difference of quality because it is the whole brain which thinks. Social evolution issues from the daily and hourly accumulation of artifacts, permuted each with all. The defect in our materialism is that our concept of society is not sufficiently social-— we don't " perm " enough—and is therefore not sufficiently determinist, that is, it is not determinist at all. The creation of history in me " daily and hourly fulfilment" of human needs remains too much a fine Marxian phrase and not enough a recognition that social growth takes place spontaneously at the molecular level, unhonoured and unseen, each added molecule the addition of a thonsand permutations. But it is only by the bucketful that social change becomes perceptible to the gross human eye, retrospectively (and this encourages the notion that men can change society by the bucketful).
Health, Welfare, and Children's services, for instance, are bundles of molecules which by accretion become in relation to each other first complementary, then supplementary, then supernumerary, become ripe for the great statesmanship which unites them in a single Min. of Soc. Serv. and stamps " Le Roi le Veult" on the social fact. Or again, the various kinds of taxation (income tax, rates, national insurance, W.D. contributions) on the one hand, and on the other hand the various kinds of positive allowances (family allowances, pensions, health benefits) and negative allowances (personal, earned income, expenses, house
maintenance) must sooner or later be unified.
Their unification—and their extension to other " free " services (transport, power, etc.)—are perhaps only a matter of another war, and have social and ideological implications far beyond the mere saving of administrative man-hours.
Again, the general levelling up and down of standards of living, the taming of the jungle of primitive " incentives", is tilting the problem of production to,another angle: what makes people willing to work well without the destitution stick at one end or the ' higher standard' carrot at the other? At the same time, the more deliberate adjustment of education to industrial and social needs (Act 1944, comprehensive schools, Youth Employment Bureaux) places more emphasis on finding out what a child's leanings are and on giving him a better idea of what different jobs involve before his schooling finishes. At the same time also, the higher organic composition of capital—the new phase of "cybernetics" which takes the toil and dirt out of work (and replaces it by boredom)—prepares the ground for the practical dovetailing of schooling with employment. These things again have implications beyond the partial and fumbling answers to immediate problems of incentives or vocational grading to get the best of of people notwithstanding equality of poverty. Briefly, capital's necesary concern with quantity of output generates problems which lead to concern with attitude towards work, which in turn lead to concern with the quality (enjoyment) of work —which is the kernel of the socialist outlook, and the mainspring of socialist society.
11.7.3 Concept of Revolution
The view that the idea is the agent of social change is no departure from our materialism, it inheres in the materialism we inherited from Marx, and has recently become more vociferous and more blatant only because it is being challenged, If Hegel has been much misunderstood, so has Marx. The former has more to say about the material conditioning of ideas is commonly acknowledged, and the latter, having thrown idealism out of the window, fetched it back by the door by dedicating his materialism to political service (in a society where property, power and politics were much smaller and more personal than they are to-day): our materialism remains still suborned to the idealism of a single, sudden, separate political act.
This concept of the revolution, and the concepts that material conditions are ripe for socialism, that (short of this revolutionary act) no significant social change takes place, that the " socialist idea " is complete, and that this idea is now the agent of social development— these concepts are mutually dependent and logically consistent. And it is a logical step from the idea as the agent of social change to the concept of the idea as independent of time and place (and which therefore permits us to scorn the "mechanical" laws of history and economics) to claim that the " socialis idea suitably expressed, is meaningful to anyone in any part of the world, or that " society in the Middle Ages once came within an ace of establishing socialism ". These claims are not renegade departures from the Party outlook, but extensions of it, grown bolder by the boldness of the Party's own criticism of its own position.
This criticism is made by different members from different angles. It is made by Canter, who dares to suggest that our certainty on a point of political detail may be unnecessarily dogmatic; by Turner who (perceiving that the social character of the revolution transcends all class origin) dares the challenge the possibility of violence; by Lake who dares to doubt the ripeness of the socialist movement for political participation; by McClatchie who insists thai anti-capitalism is not enough; by Trotman, consistently determinist, who sees the revolutionary act is a mirage because he sees the revolution as an historically necessary process.
This summary does not pretend to exhaust the currents of controversy, much less to do justice to those named or unnamed, but it serves to show that we all have a foot in each other's camps (there is no " line-up", no cleavage), and that our controversies all converge on the nature of the revolution. But while it is the concept of revolution which is under cross-examination, it is the concept of history which is on trial. It is the Socialist movement (substantially, the Party), developing its materialist outlook, on the shoulders of the dialectical form in which Marx re-wrote Hegel's dualism, and because this is a change on the philosophical level, it signifies social change for a fundamental nature.
" Idealism " and " materialism " stand out ideally as opposites, but materialism evolves. Historical materialism was neither begun dim ended by Marx, and from Rousseau to ourselves there has been continuous development of the revolutionary formula which is the business end of the materialism. The more integrative hypotheses which in the past half-century have developed in the physical and biological sciences (concurrently with the actual social integrations which are capital expanding) have developed also in the social science. The mind is less in tune with the old descriptive classifications, the old divisions and separation and discontinuities, in a society in which everything is more anonymous and more " total " the total war of a world in which an Eden discovers that " peace is indivisible" and a Vishinsky that " war is indivisible" just too late to observe that peace and war are indistinguishable; the total State which merges political and economic functions: the total poverty of gas-mask and insurance card which dissolves distinction of status and prestige.
The old certitudes of an expanding colonial economy (the concepts of progress and perfectibility by the progressive emancipate of women, the unskilled, and the destitute) cannot survive the absolute uncertainty of tomorrow week. Religious fervour cannot outlast the passing of squirearchical capital, nor political fervour the lack of meaningful issue and distinguishable programme and both kinds of messianic message are equally suspect. Within the Party there appears a lack of enthusiasm for the platform, for the " Standard " and for classes, countered by shots of electrical benzedrine to revive the militant ecstasies of a phase which culminated in June 1904; but this indifference is not simply a reaction to the " political doldrums" outside the Party, for back of it lies an unease not wholly canalised or conscious, feeling its way towards a further development of the revolutionary attitude. The single, simultaneous, universal act of revolution is a product of a society which no longer exists.
Most of the criticism so far offered in these articles of the concept of revolution has been negative. We still want to know what alternative there may be, what else the revolutionary might do than we do now. Before my own approach to this re-statement can be set down. in summing up, one other matter must be touched on—what is called " the problem of communicating " socialist ideas.
F. EVANS
11.8 NOTES ON FUEL AND POWER SOURCES (continued)
Wind and water power were the prime movers in the early years of capitalist society, Today, hydro-electric power is still important, for it provides roughly a third of the electric power used in the U.S.A. today. This power is derived from sunshine, the energy radiated from the sun to the earth, which is immense. Thus, although the electric power used in the U.S.A. each year is about 120,000,000,000 kilowatt hours, during that time slightly more solar energy than that falls on every square mile of that country. Here is a virtually inexhaustible supply of energy, the only problem is how to harness it. We will now consider a number of methods that have been suggested and tried out experimentally, and in this way we shall learn the limitations of this source of power for both a capitalist and a socialist society.
The sunshine could be used directly to light lamps, drive machines and heat homes. Experiments have been made in a number of countries to utilise it directly in these ways. For example,
In Israel, where sunshine is abundant for nine months of the year, a simple device, which may be installed on the roof of a normal dwelling house, is being developed to use the sunbeams to charge up an electric battery, and so provide nome lighting for the nights. While Science Digest, February 1950, reports that in Dover Mass. U.S.A.) a solar-heated house was competed in 1948 and that experiments carried oat in February 1949 indicated that nearly a half (41% to be exact) of the solar radiation was collected, and used to heat the house. In me summer the processes may be reversed and the " night cooling " stored and then used to pool the house in the daytime. The advantages of such a method of home heating are the low temperatures of operation, which precludes the fire hazards of present-day central heating
(this is important in the U.S.A. for meteor-logical reasons), no troublesome smoke or ashes, and the small running costs, once the units have been installed.
Because the tropics receive more heat from the sun than the regions nearer to the poles, air currents are set up. These constitute the weather. Windmills are an old and obvious way of utilising the energy of these currents. In recent years, research has been carried out in a number of countries on windmills as sources of electrical power. In France, for example, plants developing up to 40 kilowatts have been built, and in Denmark in 1944, 88 wind-driven generators produced 3 million kilowatt - hours of electric power (roughly 1/40,000 of the electric power used in the U.S.A.), while in the early years of electric lighting, small windmills were installed on housetops, in isolated regions, to provide light. These small generators worked well, but when cables were laid to these regions from the power stations, the firms refused to supply power to any houses that continued to use this cheap form of lighting. Such is the scope capitalism offers to the inventive!
11.8.1 ATMOSPHERIC POWER
Hydro-electric power is derived from solar energy. Heat from, the sun evaporates water from the surface of land and sea, and this later falls as rain, snow and sleet, etc., which flows, back to the sea, and the process is repeated. In the last stage of this hydrological cycle we tap the energy by using a water wheel, and so obtain the hydro-electric power. The Niagara Power Stations is a powerful example.
Just as in the temperate zones of the middle latitudes (in which most of Europe and the U.S.A. are situated) " cold waves' of air come from the artic regions, so " warm waves" of air from these regions flow into the arctic region. In these situations the air is markedly warmer than the snow or sea surface. This phenomena could also be utilised to generate electric power, for in Science Digest (April 1950) it is reported that a plant in Abidjan (Africa) has been built to generate electric power, using the temperature difference that exists between the surface waters of a tropical lagoon (at temperature 82°F) and the waters at a depth of 16,000 feet, 3 miles offshore (at temperature 46 °F). A steel and rubber pipe is used to carry the deep ocean water to the power plant onshore. By-products of this power station supplying 7,000 kws. (roughlv 1/10,000 of that used in the U.S.A.) will be tens of thousands of fishes caught in the water intake each year, and plenty of table salt.
A fundamental feature of thes sources of energy is that, like the weather, they are seasonal and irregular. Drought dries up rivers, calms stop windmill blades turning, and clouds cut off the sunshine. A striking example of the fickle nature of these phenomena was provided recently by the Lynmouth disaster of last August (1952), while every year appreciable damage is done and people killed by tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods in the U.S.A. However, in some places, certain of these phenomena are fairly regular. Thus, the sun shines fairly steadily for nine months of the year in Israel, a windmill on Ben Nevis will experience few calms, and Niagara Falls have not yet been known to dry up. Also, in recent years, we have seen the first systematic attempt to control these weather processes. As yet, only very crude small scale experiments have been done, using lumps of 'dryice', silver iodine smokes, and fine sprays of water, but some successes have been recorded, and, according to a correspondent writing in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1951, some farmers in the U.S.A. nnd these crude methods of producing rain artificially are profitable.
The irregularities of these sources of atmospheric power could be smoothed out by using a power storehouse, which would collect the enrgy when it was abundant, store it, and pass it on to machines, etc., when it was required. In principle, this is what coal and oil have done to the sunshine of past ages. As yet, only small power storage plants, like those used in motor cars have been built. Another approach to the problem is to transmit the power from areas of favourable weather to those less favoured regions of calms and overcast. This would necessitate transmission, in emergencies, over distances of 1,000 miles, while present-power lines are only suitable for distances up to 300 miles. However, future power trans--mission may be by powerful rays, like radar beams, and in that way the problem of long distance transmission may be solved.
11.8.2 TRANSMISSION
As such power with long distance transmission would be very vulnerable in time of war, it is unlikely that capitalist society would ever rely on such methods. Small powerful power packs will always be needed, so mineral sources of power will only be replaced by small storage batteries, in this society. Socialism, with its premium on unpleasant, unsightly and tedious tasks, will probably develop these power plants drawing on solar energy. Small plants will be adequate to provide the needs of the socialist craftsmen, and with no markets to grab, or rivals to beat, the irregularities of weather will merely provide variety. It goes without saying that 24 hours per day production will no longer be considered—work may be done when the opportunity arises.
Another interesting source of power tapped in recent years is that of volcanoes, and hot springs, or geysers, that derive their power from the hot inner core of the earth. In Larderello (Italy) bore holes have been sunk over an area of 45 square miles and steam is ejected at high pressure by the volcano. This steam is used to produce 1,000 million kilowatt hours of electric power each year (roughly 1/100 of the electric power used in the U.S.A.). Tides, which are caused by the
gravitational pull of the Moon may also be a source of power in the future. Animal power will not only provide a useful reserve source of power, which needs feeding and the daylight hours, but will also provide a| useful manure, not the odious refuse that present-day matchines produce. Also the heat of animals can be used for central heating. Recently it has been reported that the body heat of cows, while in the cowshed has been used to heat nearby houses. It becomes obvious that once the fetters of capitalist society are removed, there is really no knowing what neat devices will be developed in this and other fields.
This brings us to the obvious conclusion that socialist society will never depend for its existence, as does the capitalist one, on men and wasting their lives in underground prisons. Perhaps, in the near future, even the capitalist society, with its need for 'Atom Bomb Fodder' will soon end such a waste of human beings but even it will only bring in its place another waste! But such is the inevitability of capitalism. Socialism merely offers people a full and happy life, performing useful-interesting work in enjoyable surroundings.
ROBERT.
11.9 BIOSOPHY
Biosophy is a new term which I have coined to mean the science or art of living well (as distinct from managing to survive) in an environment which appears to be against one's health and happiness, and which threatens to exterminate the human race. It is the art of making oneself adaptable, of living in harmony with nature and evolution instead of against it.
Biosophy studies habits and social conditions which control mankind completely. It is far more than Nature Cure, which in effect is the curing of illness by natural methods, although :: embraces the Nature Cure way of life from the dietetic and health aspect. Biosophy realises that there are other factors such as economic conditions, political, religious, and psychological, to be taken into consideration. Nature Cure has no direction on these points, nor has Socialism any direction on health. Where Narureopaths do proffer views on social and economic problems, they are the usual half-baked ideas which have been exploded a century ago. So, too, it is when Socialists offer views on health matters in the main, although some are enlightened. Those who, with childlike ignorance, proclaim that economics has nothing to do with health had better knock their heads against those who say, if only we had socialism there would be no health problems.
Why does the baker bake bread, we ask those who support Nature Cure without any ideas of economics. We know that the profit motive governs all production, including food production. Why does the socialist eat white bread and fall for all the diabolical contradictory advertising that capitalists put out to sell their worthless foods? A change from capitalism to socialism is essential if we expect to have pure natural foods, unadulterated, unrefined, unbleached or coloured, and not preserved with harmful chemicals. But if the majority of the workers under socialism wanted white bread bleached with agene, and sweets in all the colours of the rainbow, and their " sausage and trash", etc., the food sophisication ideas of capitalism might well be carried on, to the detriment of those who are health conscious.
Biosophy can only be developed into a science by those who seek to apply it, and learn from their surrounding how best to stand to the welter of adverse circumstances, to be healthy when all around you is diseased; how to be happy when surrounded by misery, gloom and pessimism; how to suffer fools gladly without being all things to all men, and so be able to retain individuality and independence of thought until we can get socialism and put the basis right. In fact, how to be sane and remain sane in a world fast going insane!
The very soil we grow our food in is being systematically poisoned with artificial fertilisers. Our food is being treated with all manner of harmful chemicals to enhance sale value. Our bodies, full of disease all this brings about, are being more and more subjected to injections of harmful toxins and pills of the National Health (so-called) Service. No wonder "Man is born crying, lives complaining, and dies disappointed”. Biosophy seeks to put right not only the social but also health by understanding.
H. JARVIS

12. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 12
SEPTEMBER 1953

12.1 SPEAKERS AND PROPAGANDA
It is often been asked why it is that there is a shortage of speakers for outdoor propaganda, in view of the number that pass the speakers test? This question recurs so frequently that, after careful consideration, I now offer a reason and a possible solution. It seems that there is not a shortage of official speakers, but of ACTIVE speakers. During the war, when we were all acutely aware of the horrors' of capitalism, our propaganda nourished. The Party flourished also, doubled its membership, and there seemed to be no scarcity of speakers, although they were often exposed to danger from both above and below.
This suggests that one of the factors responsible for a member's desire to speak is some form of crisis. In other words, when we were daily and nightly in danger of our lives we were more eager to condemn the system that produces war. The people to whom we spoke were more eager to listen for precisely the same reason.
When the war finished and life returned to the usual monotonous routine, the incentive to renounce capitalism was reduced. It is almost certain that the next crisis, i.e. mass unemployment, will produce a similar enthusiasm, and if the present handful of speakers can keep the Party's propaganda ticking over until then, we may expect to see another upsurge of energy.
The apparent contradiction regarding the speakers' test and the active speakers may be explained as follows.
The test was introduced for the purpose of assuring that every speaker had an elementary knowledge of Marxist economics and a nodding acquaintance with, the materialist conception of history.
The method of applying the test is eccentric, to say the least. There are about six examiners, who are A,. B and C and X, Y and Z, and the order in which they forgather is usally the same. For this reason, examinees are apt to hope that they will be quizzed by A,. B and C in preference to- X, ,Y and Z, who are known to be more searching than their colleagues.
The test is carried out—and another member has the E.C.'s blessing to dispense the Party's case. It usually requires considerable study to prepare for the test, but once it is taken, study very often ceases. Some successful examinees have expressed the view that were they to take the test again they would probably fail.
Members of the E.C. wish to know why Comrade So-and-so has not mentioned, say, the Berlin riots or the Korean armistice. The answer is simply that he is unable to relate his Marxist knowledge to everyday events. The champions of the test think that this is odd. Because a member has passed a test set by the E.C., he is expected to range far and wide, speaking with authority on every aspect of capitalism.
The fact that E.C. members think like this is the fault of the speakers' test itself. Before the test was introduced, a member with the desire to speak, and therefore with some ability in that direction, mounted the platform and spoke. The outstanding speakers of the Party learned by this method and did not pass a test.
Many members regard the speakers' test as a convenient means to test their own knowledge, without any serious intention of becoming speakers. In other words, the speakers about whom the E.C. is so much concerned do not exist, except on paper.
If a member is to be a useful he must have the desire to speak. There is an old superstition in the Party to the effect that merely by forcing any nervous and tongue-tied member on to an outdoor platform he can turned into a Demosthenes. It is more likely that he will turn into a dithering neurotic.
The mention of outdoor platforms raises another point which may be connected to our slow rate of growth. Perhaps the Party could conserve some of its energy and its membership by partly dispensing with a form of propaganda which reached the peak of its popularity in the days of horse-buses and elastic-sided boots. Leather-lunged barkers no longer have the appeal to audience they once had.
We have been told that we should bring our propaganda into line with that of other organisations. If this is so, our first move should be to cut down outdoor meetings and hire halls where people could sit and listen without difficulty.
It is seldom easy to acquire an audience by present methods. Speakers plug away to a few members of the branch for perhaps an hour before getting under way. When they get their audience, it very often consists of a
few hoodlums bent on enjoying themselves or some caning couples who stand for a few minutes and gaze at the speaker with half-baked grins. There is nothing more discouraging to an inexperienced speaker than to see a collection of vacant faces.
Indoor meetings, publicised with posters, handbills and loudspeakers, would probably do more to promote the growth of the Party than
the present technique of standing on draughty street corners bawling at a handful of morons.
There is no reason why the well-established meeting places should not continue to function. With fewer stations, there would be more speakers available, even allowing for those who concentrate at Hyde Park and Lincoln's Inn Fields to jostle for the privilege of speaking.
We should discourage minute, single-handed
efforts by individual branches, and concentrate on indoor and outdoor mass-meetings in various areas run by branches working together. It is obvious that a drastic reorganisarion of propaganda technique is essential if the S.P.G.B. is to hold the interest of its members and to become a political force that its opponents will be unable to ignore.
Louis Cox
12.2 ON VIOLENCE
and Minority Opposition
What is the Party's attitude to the use of "violence in connection with the establishment of Socialism? According to Hayden (May Forum) it is " that we would wish to attain our objective by peaceful means if we may, but by force if we must, the assumption being that the use of force would result only from the violent resistance of a capitalist class in defeat." An Ed. Comm, reply to a correspondent to the S.S. (Aug. 1936) illustrates this: " When such control (of the machinery of government) has been achieved, the working class will know how to use the armed forces for so long as it may be necessary to defend socialism against an insurrectionary minority or an undefeated foreign group of capitalists." Without doubt it is the Party's equivocation on this issue that led Rowan to question (April Forum) the idea "that the socialist revolution will necessarily be homogeneously violent or non-violent".
On the other hand, there have been statements in the S.S. which,made no qualification about our opposition to violence. One such was the article "Socialism or Barbarism"
Gilmac, April, 1948), which aroused some controversy among members at the time:
“ Socialism cannot be obtained by war, nor by armed resistance to oppression, nor can it be helped on by either. Socialism signifies the acceptance of majority decisions, freedom to form and express opinions, rivalry without rancour, peaceful discussion and the amicable solution of differneces, and the absence of violence in any form".
In America a similar controversy has been going on, ' and it has been touched upon in -Forum in connection" with the Ballot dispute. Canter wrote (Oct, 1952 Forum) that " history has taught that the violence always arises from the other side, from the side in power, and
that the workers are forced to defend themselves physically ". Rab, seeking to settle the issue by claiming that no one could disagree with his view of it, then asked: " Should some strange quirk of unforeseeable events compel the socialist majority to utilise violence, how can we, in advance, say ' No?' " (July Forum).
He received his answer in the W.S. (Harmo, Nov.-Dec. 1952): "Are we opposed to the advocacy of violence as a means of accomplishing the socialist revolution? Most assuredly we are, but without the qualifications and reservations made by those 20th century radicals with 19th century theories ". It is quite clear that Canter is included among these radicals, because Harmo specifically referred in his article to the Trotzkyite viewpoint: " While we certainly do not advocate the use of violence, history has taught us that it is the ruling class that always instigates the violence and therefore the workers must expect and be prepared to meet any physical onslaught brought on by the capitalists ". The similarity between this and Canter's statement (above) is obvious.
So much for the background to the dispute. Now to argue the case.
Whatever members may conceive to be the measures taken to introduce Socialism, all are agreed that our abject is a society in - which interests will be harmonious and violence absent. I don't think that even the most open-minded of what I shall call the " qualified-violence-reservationists" would disagree that all the representative measure which they fear will be necessary in the early stages of Socialism will ULTIMATELY disappear. The question that concerns all of us is—by what means is society to achieve this goal? What happens bringing about the desired change?
The S.P.G.B. has correctly answered this in its most outstanding contribution to socialist thought: understanding by the vast mass of people of Socialism and what it involves. Compared to the theories of intellectual minor-it'es and Dictatoriship of the Proletariat, this represents a gigantic step forward. And wet here (as in so many other things) the full development of the idea is scarcely perceived Those who can see the rationality of mass understanding stop short before the logical consequences of this idea in practice. The reef upon which they founder is the concept o:
12.2.1 MINORITY OPPOSITION.
When our " open-minded " comrades speak of minority opposition, they do not mean people who may oppose the coming of Socialism in the way that the S.P.G.B. opposes Capitalism. i.e. by the spread of ideas. (Incidentally, it is not vital to the argument that the recalcitrant minority is conceived to be ' capitalist'—it might just as well be Jewish or negro or female.) No, what they mean is a minority who are in a position to throw a spanner into the otherwise smoothly-running works—in fact. an ORGANISED minority.
But what will this minority be organised for? It is easy to say that the capitalists will fight to retain Capitalism, but it is not so easy to understand the circumstances in which this fight would be feasible. The object of the opposition would presumably be the preservation of Capitalism. There is no question of a mere intellectual opposition to Socialism— our qualified-violence-reservationists are too good materialists to fall for that. Nor is there any question of a mere intellectual desire to preserve Capitalism. The only reason that the privileged minority has for supporting Capital-ism is that there is a majority willing to remain unprivileged.
When the majority decides that it's not going to be unprivileged any more, what reason can the capitalists have for wanting to oppose the inevitable? All the gilt will have been taken off the gingerbread as far as " their" system is concerned. The growth of rational thought concomitant with the spread of socialist ideas will ensure that even the most dim-witted capitalist will see that there's no fun in having Capitalism without a working class. Perhaps a few awkward people will rage against the new society (and there is no reason why some shouldn't be workers). But it will only be left for them to try to convert the majority back to Capitalism—by ideas, as we do now to achieve our object. Now for the arguments against the position outlined above. Most of these rest on other false arguments, and, for the most part, the qualified-violence-reservationists reason quite logically from them. In the discussion on the S.S. article, " Socialism or Barbarism ", Lake made the point that the political aspect of the class struggle expresses itself in the fight for and against the establishment of Socialism. I dealt with this in the July Forum. Suffice it to say that if you hold this view then you are quite consistent in forecasting violence from your opposition. Then it can be held that after gaining control of the state machinery the socialist majority may use the armed forces to compel an oppossing minority to accept the decision of the majority. But hold on a minute—what is this decision? Why, to have a society in which everyone will co-operate. The reasoning, then, is that you may have to force a minority to cooperate! If you take this, seriously, it sounds dangerously like " the end justifies the means ". In another light it is reminiscent of the comic orator—everyone will do as he likes, and if he doesn't, he'll be made to. Another argument often used is the 'pacifist' one. Lake (Socialism and Violence, 25.9.48, Statement B) said that the fact that socialists have control of the state machinery "may be sufficient to overcome any opposition. On the other hand, it may be necessary to take more positive action ... To attempt to draw a distinction in socialist principle between the two brands one as a pacifist." The Party apparently supported this view in its statement on " Socialists and War " in 1942. "The S.P.G.B. is, however, not a pacifist body in the sense of excluding the use of force on some overriding principle. It has never been questioned that after a socialist
working class have democratically obtained control of the machinery of government for the
achievement of Socialism a theoretically possible attempt at armed resistance by some small recalcitrant minority would be repressed by force."
Even if we accept the hypothesis that a recalcitrant minority could offer armed resistance to Socialism (presumably by wrecking or terrorist activities) what guarantee is there that repression would solve the problem? It the minority is to be repressed by force, then force will have to be kept handy in case of another attempt. Instead of the minority not resorting to force because there is no MAJORITY expression of " forceful " values, they will not resort to it because it will be held in greater quantity by the majority! Such is the anomalous position envisaged by those who refuse to divest themselves of power thinking.
If the S.P.G.B. does not exclude the use of force on some overriding principle, then what are the principles which can override its exclusion of force? -My standpoint is to oppose, on principle, force, violence and coercive authority because they are harmful to people and because, in expressing group interests, they militate against the human interests which Socialism represents. There are no consequences arising out of the thoughts and actions of socialists which need call for the abandonment of the principle.
If you want to trace the qualified-violence-reservation line of thought back to its source, you will find it in Marx and Engels' mis-statement of the position, perpeuated and accentuated by Lenin in " State and Revolution ". In the " Communist Manifesto ", Marx and Engles wrote: " The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class ..."
In its preface to the Party's Centenary Edition of the pamphlet, the Executive Committee (1948) courageously expressed the conviction " that political and economic development since their day would have caused Marx and Engels to reconsider their attitude on this question"—and were disarmingly. vague and negative about what replaces this attitude. Yet the way out of the dilemma is simple, as I have already suggested. Socialism is not the work of the proletariat organised as the ruling class—it is the work of socialists end all classes.
If you adhere to the Manifesto statement above, then you logically can't rule out the development that Lenin forecast, though you may protest that you only hold them to be possibilities and not certitudes: " The overthrow of the bourgeoisie can be achieved only by the proletariat becoming transformed into the ruling class, capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie ..." (" State and Revolution ", Little Lenin Library, p.22). Then " the substitution of the proletarian state for the bourgeois state is impossible without a violent revolution" (p. 10). And the "special repressive force,; for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (p. 16).
Now let us leave our " means " and see how our " end " is going along; Lenin had at least one over Lake here, for he knew( or at least reasoned as if he knew) that the means must always be in harmony with the end or object. Lenin's object was along the following lines "All citizens are transformed into the salaried employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens become employees and workers of a single national state " syndicate ". All that is required is that they should work equally—do their proper share of work —and get paid equally." (p.77).
It is useless for the qualified-violence-reserv-ationists to protest that Lenin's object is not theirs. Means and ends (objects) are two names for the same reality. " End " is a name for a series of acts taken collectively—like the term army. " Means " is a name for the same series taken distributively—like this soldier, that officer. To attain a remote end, e.g. Socialism, involves treating the end as a series of means. As soon as we have projected it, we must begin to work backward in thought. We must change WHAT is to be done into a HOW, the means whereby.
The point to observe is that the conditions of violence which some are willing to exclude as a possibility are such that whatever follows cannot be Socialism. We are obliged to hoM that the socialist revolution will be homogeneously non-violent, because Socialism itself is non-violent. It is just as simple as that.
S.R.P.
12.3 CORRESPONDENCE TO THE EDITORS.
Comrades,
The indoor propaganda season is now approaching and branches will be thinking about organising lectures and discussions. Would it not, therefore, be helpful if a list could be compiled of members willing to address other branches on certain subjects— and another list of branches who wish to be addressed and their preferences for subjects? Such information would enable branches » have a full programme of lectures and discussions, producing good attendances, and heightening interest in this important field of Party activity.
Yours fraternally.
L.S.
12.4 ENGELS ON AUTHORITY
S.W. London Branch has suggested that Engels' essay " Oh Authority" would be a useful contribution to the discussion in Forum on this subject. It is reproduced below almost in full: —
" A number of socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. .This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely. Authority, in die sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two •vords sound bad and the relationship which ihey represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether—given the conditions of present-day society—we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer and would consequently have to disappear.
On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis :: present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modem industry, with its big factories and mills where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate rproducers . . . Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?
Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority rver the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared or will it have only .ccanged its form? Let us see.
Let us take by way of example a cotton spinning mill ... All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter, particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of materials, etc., which must be settled at once on pain of seeing all production immediately stopped; whether they are settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way.
The automatic machinery of a big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers have ever been ... If man, by dint of knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel,
Let us take another example—the railway. Here, too, the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a. dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persons interested. In either case there is very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train despatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?
But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but here it is not a case of authority which we confer on our
delegates, but of a commission entrusted These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things, they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
.... it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the vari: phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying tha: the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other: but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the word.
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution; that is, that public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the authoritarian political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social co-iditons that gave birth to it have bee-destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.
A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon—authoritarian means, if such there b at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not. on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of "two things: eirl the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do knci and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."
F. Engels
12.5 SOCIALISM & LOGIC (2)
Another aspect of logic which suggests examanination is the concept. This the basic counter which logic manipulates. Ordinary formal logic, and the modem algebraic logic which stems directly from it, treat any concept in the same way as a number is treated, and indeed the same fundamental law applies both ed logic and in arithmetic.
This is the Law of Identity. Here are a few of the better-known formulations of this law: 1 = 1, A = A. A thing is what it is. That which is, is. A thing is identical with itself. A thing is a thing. Or it can be put negatively: A cannot at the same time be A and not-A. As Russell has shown, the whole of arithmetic can soon be built up if this one assumption be rriven. And indeed, how can it be questioned? It seems ludicrously obvious.
Yet geology tells us that the coal of to-day i i fundamentally different from the wavy green fronds from which it is formed. Slate has completely different properties from the ooze of its origin. And radium is on its way from uranium to lead. When we look at the rocks 10-day, we are looking at something which was utterly different centuries ago and will be utterly different again centuries hence. We me looking at one short stage in an immense
journey from about 1,200 million years ago to perhaps 1,200 million years hence. We ourselves occupy an almost imperceptible speck in that.vast panorama. Man has existed for less than a million years. The dinosaurs dominated the earth for seventy million.
In the face of all this change, even in the " evelasting hills ", we cannot be quite sure of cur A = A. For if a chicken is a chicken, how did the first chicken get there? To the metaphysician who really bellieved in the Law of Identity, there was only one possible answer —God put it there. And indeed it is difficult to see how the Law of Identity can be separated from the theistic view of Special Creation. We know now, of course, that a chicken is not simply a chicken. It evolved from a reptile and it can be bred into some very strange shapes and sizes, taking advantage of naturally-occurring mutaations. The chicken we see is one stage on the journey.
At this point we link up with what was said in the last article about taking things to their limit. A concept can retain its identity over quite a large range, and when it reaches the limit it undergoes a sudden change to a different concept, which again then retains its identity up to its limit. As long as we consider only the single concept out of relation, we shall bellieve in the Law of Identity and make all sorts of other errors. But as soon as we turn our attention instead to the process of which this particular stage is but a part, we are able to understand the concept in its relation, in its change and development.
As with all other dialectical formulations. this does not only apply to the world of concepts—it applies in the concrete realities c the world in which we live. We probably know the traditional examples of dialectics change, but a recent book by Eric Ashby. called " Design for a Brain" shows clearly how the process takes place in the workings of the brain itself, and in animal and other adaptation. Modern science is more and more being forced to adopt dialectical formulations and take over ideas with which we have long been familiar.
This seems to be no time, therefore, to start flirting with Logical Positivism and other products of the outlook of formal logic. Let us stick to our materialist dialectics and get them securely in our heads, in the full knowledge that scientific thought will follow in due time.
J. C. ROWAN
12.6 DOES HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?
There is an obvious sense in which situations recur, or ideas or inventions reappear, after decades or centuries. But this is not history repeating itself. In any real sense it cannot, because it is cumulative. The mediaeval submarine, or flying machine, was no such thing. However ingenious the drawing or the model, it remained a clever or crackpot fantasy, socially useless. The invention is invented, not when .: is produced, but when it is reproduced because it is socially necessary. Ideas, too, may be bom (or stillborn) before they are socially necssary—perhaps. " Perhaps ", because an idea from, say, the Greeks or Romans which (as we say) could go straight in the " Standard", may well have meant something very different n its time and place, or have been repeatedly : demised by successive translations. If a bright idea of a former time is relevant to our own, this may only mean that it relates to some aspect of society which is common to both times. Regularised commerce and exchange for instance, go back many thousands of years, and relevant generalisations about equality or subjection of women, or democracy, may be found in Greek writings or among the much earlier Chinese. Nearer our own time, the situations being in some respects substantially similar, these repetitions of history" may occur in greater detail, and all sorts of writings which to-day appear to be " bang on " may be dug up from the archives referring to some long forgotten political pamphleteer.
12.6.1 WHAT REVOLUTION?
Nearly 150 years ago a pamphleteer named Evers pontificated gliby about the effects of the accumulating industrial wealth. " We can hold it to be hardly in doubt," he said, " that the great power of Wealth which is now accrued through the skill and thrift of our Nation must soon also change what now seems a Giant of industry into what to-morrow will seem a mere Pygmie. The new power of Steam is a Revolutionary not to be put down by laws, but rather to be aided and abetted by new laws and new Ways of men. The Newcomen Pump is a Revolution begun, to which the French is but a fart to a gale, or I'm nuts". He was. Perhaps stung by the unintended affront to his country, Ardi, the economist, affectionately known to his compatriots as " Le Beau Statistique", showed that the cost of " these unreliable steam contraptions" was almost as great as their increased production, and crushingiy concluded: " The Evers revolutionary pump is not a chamber of hot water,
but a case of hot air ". M'Klashi also pointed out (" Ritual Dances of the M'Cancan ") that steam power was no new thing at all, having been used by the ancient Chinese to roast pork lambs' tails, etc., by "... water heated in a great bowl closed in, which (being) confined in small space, begat great strength, with fire and smoke as of many dragons toiling together ". Particularly caustic was Turner, painter of incredible sunsets and of the romantic picture, " Steam and Speed ", wf: described Evers as " that man who would have our workmen give up the skill of their hands to a wheezing piston, and exchange their manhood for a mechanical monster, feverishly keeping pace with wheels and levers, to make things for many others, and nothing for themselves ". And it appears to have been Evers" own lifelong friend, Groove, who took him one day to a window and told him to look out and to say what he saw. And he saw a windrriifl, its silver sails smiling in the sun which warmed the green and gentle fields of Camberwelf w-i-n-d-m-i-1-1", said Groove, very distincdy. and said it again.
Eventually, in response to popular demarrd. Evers took a running jump.
F E
12.7 Notes PRODUCTION AND WELFARE
Early in the nineteenth century, Robert Owen suggested that it would be profitable to consider the welfare of factory workers; but it was not until a hundred years later, in the
twenttieth century, that industrial welfare was introduced to any extent. The purpose of this contribution is to explain why.
12.7.1 19th CENTURY PRODUCTION.
While Robert Owen managed a factory at New Lanark that was driven by water power, it was the steam engine with mechanical couplings that was the basis of nineteenth century production. Marx has described that machinery 25 follows:
"All fully developed machinery consists of three essentially different parts, the motor mechanism, the transmitting mechanism, and finally the tool or working machine. The motor mechanism is that which puts the whole into motion. . . . The transmitting mechanism, composed of flywheels, shafting, toothed weels, pullies, straps, ropes, bands, pinions, and gearing of the most varied kinds, regulates the motion, changes its form where necessary, as for instance, from linear to circular, and divides and distributes it among the working machines. . . . The tool or working-machine is that part of the machinery with which the industrial revolution of the 18th century started." Section 1, Chapter 15, Capital, Vo. 1.
In these factories, the main problem at first was to make the machinery work at all. (See, for example, p.74, " The Industrial and Commercial Revolutions" by Knowles.) Then, after this, the mechanical type transmission mechanisms, of complex overhead shafting and belts, etc., limited the layout of the factory and dictated factory design. In this latter period, accuracy was increased and precision machinery produced.
In this era it proved profitable for the capitalists to turn their backs on the views of Owen and others, extend the working day, employ women and young children, work them all in unpleasant and injurious conditions, so sending them to an early grave.
12.7.2 ELECTRICITY.
While precision mechanisms were being developed in the workshops for the factories, in the laboratories scientists were discovering the electrical properties of matter. Using this knowledge, inventors had by the close of the century developed many useful electrical devices. Of the useful properties of electricity, it was the ease of transmission of electrical power that was to cause major changes in the layout of factories. The electric motor is very efficient in small sizes, so that using it, each machine could have its own motor, power being brought to it very efficiently by wires, which need not be rigid as were the old shaftings. Amongst other advantages of electrical transmission in factories, the Encyclopedia Britannica lists the following:
1.The factory is made more fit to work in; it has gained greatly in cleanliness, whole-someness, safety, illumination and consequently in the standard of work that can be turned out in it.
2.Belt troubles are done away with.
3.The difficulties of installing line shafting are avoided.
4.Factory transport is very much facilitated by the possibility of installing overhead cranes wherever required.
5.With individual drive, only those machines actually required are actuated. (Section
on Electrification of Industry, 1947 Edition.) Remembering the small hand tools, such as the power drills that resemble pistols, we realise some of the potentialities of electric power in factories.
With mechanical problems no longer dictating the layout of the factory, the question of the most: efficient arrangement takes on a new aspect in. many industries. The detailed nature of the tasks performed by the workman becomes the major factor in the rate of production.
12.7.3 MODERN FACTORY PRACTICE.
The new mode of factory organisation is usually associated with the names of Henry Ford, who introduced the modern conveyor belt system into the motor-car industry in 1913, and Frederick Taylor, who initiated the practice of time and motion study or scientific management, towards the close of the nineteenth century.
In the straight line, or conveyor belt system, the whole factory is highly organised in such a way that each piece of work passes successively through a series of stations, at each of which one of a few operations are performed on it. The whole factory becomes a single highly organised entity, in which raw materials flow in at several points, and the work in various stages of manufacture flows along
several streams which gradually come together, producing at the end the finished object. This method of quantity production has been applied to many industries since 1913.
While the conveyor belt system is a very suitable, particular method of quantity production, time and motion study is a general method of analysis of the methods of performing any task, so that the quickest may be found It can be applied to any task and is essentially the science of treating man as a mere cog in a machine.
Both are methods of increasing the exploitation of the worker that are suited to this technological era, based on the flexibility of electric power.
12.7.4 PRODUCTION AND " SWEATING ".
Productivity can be increased in three ways:
6.Through the introduction of new machinery:
7.Through better organisation of the production process;
8.Through spec-ding up the work that the worker has to perform. In this way the worker must expend more energy per hoar; he is " sweated ".
Not only is electrical power suitable for improvements in organisation (2), but is very suitable for speeding up (3). Taylor, in fact. was one of the first to match one man against another in industry, and compare all of thea with the most efficient producer. Since then this method has been used in Russia, and h now usually called ' Stakhanovism!
To oppose the new organisation of production, refusing to do things in the easiest and most efficient way, is the same as refusing to use an improved tool, or to sharpen a drill when it is blunt. In both cases, you make the task take longer. However, when we remember how easy it is to increase the speed of a conveyor belt, for example, we realise why the workers oppose these new methods of production. To oppose the method, and not the abuse is modern Luddism. But what is abuse?
12.7.5 INDUSTRIAL WELFARE.
Before World War I, these new methods of production had been developed in America, hot
hardly adopted at all in Europe. But durinr. that war it was necessary to increase production and so a number of studies of methods of doing this were made. It was found that other factors besides the working operations were ; important.

It was found in an investigation made in some munition factories that more was produced in a 10-hour working day that a 12-hour one. In the latter case there were also more people absent sick, of course. It was also found that short breaks, or rest, of 10 to 15 minutes' duration did not result in less production but more, because as a result of the break the worker tended to work harder for the rest of the time. Therefore they found that indefinite extension of the working day was not always profitable, more subtle methods often paid better, and so industrial psychology was established.
It was realised that the health of the worker was important, and in 1916 an Act of Parliament made it necessary for all factory owners to make " arrangements for preparing or heating and taking meals; the supply of drinking water; the supply of protective clothing; ambulance and first-aid arrangements ; the supply and use of seats in workrooms; facilities for washing ; accommodation for clothing." From this step forward in factory legislation, industrial medicine and welfare (in a limited sense) have grown.
The whole concept of accident liabilities of a working man was changed between 1910 and 1930, Before this, employers, on the whole, raid little attention to accident prevention, and if an employee was injured, that was usually attributed to his own carelessness. If he Htempted to sue the employer in the courts, he stood little chance, as it was usually said to be his own fault, and at best the case would drag on for years. After 1930, the employer became responsible for any accidents that arose out of and in the course of his duties, and had to pay for medical attention, and compensate the wrokman for any loss of facilities. Besides this direct benefit, many employers have found it profitable to consider accident prevention.
I do not think that the discontent of the workers was not a factor making these changes necessary. On the contrary, it was his discontent, passive as well as active, that made them essential.
Industrial Welfare is the necessary adjunct to the intensive use of modern methods of production. It originated in wartime, because then the shortage of manpower lead to a need for higher productive efficiency. In this way, warfare tends to bring productive effiiciency up to the optimum for that system of society, which is set by the technical knowledge of that time.
12.7.6 COSTS.
In England, social workers are cheap. Historically, ,this is because they originate from young members of wealthy families that desired to help the poor. It is likely that by ironing out grievances, and so blunting trade union agitations in some cases, generally keeping the workers contented with their lousy lot by, for example, persuading them to go for holidays when otherwise they would stay at home, have less fun, and therefore to return to work not so fit, or so poor, they return good dividends
to the employers. We find that although 1913 only 13 employers maintained welfare departments, by 1928 more than 1,000 had them, arid it is doubtful that they would make such, innovations if they would lose by it.
There is an old metaphor that describes the capitalists as riding on the backs of the workers. We may compare the 19th and 20th centuries in terms of this metaphor as follows. In the 19th century he rode the worker to death and then jumped on to the next worker and rode him to death, and so on. Now by considering the nature of his supporter, allowing for some of his fads, and so keeping him more content he gets a better speed from him for longer periods, It is the nature of the productive processes that dictates the most profitable method.
12.7.7 THE FUTURE.
The method of production that is rapidly gaining ground is that of automatically controlled machinery, using electronic controls. With such equipment, most of the work necessary is of the supervisory, push button type where alertness is main essential. Any mistakes on such work could be very costly, so welfare to minimise mental strain will be ever more necessary.
NOTE.—-Most of the information on welfare (in the broad sense) was obtained from a 1946 Edition of Enicycloperia Britannica.
ROBERT.
12.8 EXTRACTS FROM THE GOVT'S "ECONOMIC SURVEY FOR 1953"
Boom "Flattened Out" "... A still greater effort will therefore be needed to expand exports in the future, and this is much the most important task facing British industry today, There was a rapid rise in exports during the years 1947 to 1950 when world trade generally was picking up after the war, but this flattened out in 1951, and in 1952 the volume of exports shipped actually fell. Over nearly the whole range of exports seller's markets have now dis- appeared, and this country is faced with keen competition, particularly from the United States. Germany and Japan, in markets which are no longer able or willing to absorb goods at such an rapidly increasing rate . . ."
12.8.1 Recession and Import Restrictions Followed
. . the exhaustion of the boom . . . which had followed the outbreak of war in Korea . . . was accompanied by a fairly widespread recession in demand for consumer's goods . . .
Many non-dollar countries had been importing much more than they could afford, and in face of mounting balance of payments deficits they were compelled to impose restrictions on imports and to take internal measures to check the inflationary pressure generated during 1951.. These restrictions reacted on other countries and forced them to take similar action ... At the same time the continued high level of activity in the United States prevented any serious decline in total world production and trade; there was relatively little increase in unemployment in the world, and there was no general onset of depression such as has so often followed booms in the past ... ."
However, referring to " the present sterling areas import restrictions" it is said in the Survey that " there is no indication of any major relaxation yet, nor is there any immediate likelihood of restrictions being lifted in those non-sterling markets where they have been imposed for balance of payments reasons during the past year."
" Full employment " and Re-armament-
The question of continued " full-employment" must be seen against the high level of employment and resources going to armament and military purposes on which the Survey comments: "... Defence expenditure will continue during 1953 to be a major constituent of total home demand. The cost of the defence programme is expected to rise from £1,513 million in 1952-53 to £1,637 million in 1953-54 ... If to those actually serving with the Forces are added the men and womes employed by the Services or on their behalf, there will be approaching 2 million persons u the Forces or otherwise directly engaged on defence work during 1953. This is about 9 per cent of the working population.'
12.8.2 Prices, Wages, Profits and Unemployment
"... the level of prices of final products of
all kinds averaged some 7 per cent higher is
1952 than in 1951 , . ." " . . . The index of wage rates in December
1952 was about 6 per cent above December 1951 against a rise of nearly II per cent
during 1951. The fall of employment, and an
increase in short-time working which accom-
panied the fall in production, tended to keep down - the amount paid out as wages ..."
~... In most post-war years the a aggregate profits and other income of companies,
together with provision for depreciation, more
than covered disbursements in the shape of
dividends and interest, tax payments,, and
investment in fixed and working capital ..."
"... unemployment in Great Britain
--cited 468,000 in April (1952) ... at the December count unemployment was accom-panied by a rise in the amount of short-time
working which by May affected nearly 5.5 per cent of the operatives in manufacturing industry, compared with on about 0.5 per cent in June 1951 ... "
12.8.3 Business People's Assessments
" It is very much more difficult to give any indicaation of the probable trend in the general level of home demand. The experience of 1952 has shown how unpredictable this is, and how rapidly it, can change. Now that total demand is no longer excessive, economic activity has become more directly dependent on the assessment made by business people of economic prospects, for changes in business expectations can have far-reaching effects on stocks, and through stocks on production".
12.8.4 More Exports, Fewer Imports
" We must continue to concentrate on increasing exports and saving imports. The driving force behind our exports expansion can come only from industry, but it is the government's duty to create and maintain economic conditions favourable to such an expansion. Inflation must continue to be held in check. Costs and prices at home must he kept in line with those of our competitors. The re-equipment of industry and the maintenance of full efficiency is of real importance. The policies of the Government will continue to be directed to achieving these ends."
12.9 EXTRACTS FROM THE LABOUR PARTY PROGRAMME 1953
These quotations and those from the Govt's Economic Survey" run practically parallel.
12.9.1 More Exports
"... Our standard of living is based on foreign trade to an extent unknown by any ether major country. Here lies our wealth and cur weakness . . . the world's manufacturing capacity has been greatly increased. Not only ire the industrialised countries producing more but the primary producing countries have started up manufacturing as well. But there ras not been a corresponding increase in the rreduction of food and raw materials ... we shall, therefore, have to export more and more in the years ahead."
12.9.2 More Competition
"... At the same time we can expect increasingly difficulty in selling many of our traditional exports. The post-war days of pent-up demand for everything are gone, and Germany and Japan are getting back into their stride in world markets. Moreover, all countries are tending to become increasingly self-sufficient in manufactures of the kinds which are simplest to produce. Some of our eldest exports lines, particularly textiles, have been hit by this trend . . . Therefore, if we ire able to achieve independence of American aid, and this is one of Labour's major objectives, it must be through joint planning with the rest of the Sterling Area and in co-operation with Western Europe ..." Import Restrictions
"... these (European Payments Union credit arrangements) ought to be revised to avoid the necessity for sharp and sudden import restrictions by one European country against another, as a result of events the other side of the Atlantic ..."
12.9.3 The " Dollar Gap"—where Britain and U.S.A. clash
"... We bellieve that Britain and the rest of the Sterling Area can earn more dollars by exports. But, unlike the Tories, we believe in being realists about how much more we can expect to do through increased exports to close the dollar gap, and by what methods. Under the Labour Government great progress was made. With a continued drive we should be able to do better. More still could be done if the Americans gave up using high tariffs and other protective devices to limit competition from abroad. Unfortunately, the new American Government is giving signs that earlier progress in reducing tariffs and other restrictions may not continue.
12.9.4 The Labour Party and crises
"... Although there have been ups and downs in import prices—in 1951 they soared sky-high; in 1952 they dropped again—the long-term trend is likely to be for our import prices to increase more than our export prices."
12.9.5 " Plan to avoid crises "
" Firstly, the Americans are cutting aid to Britain. Secondly, a slight slackening in American business sharply reduces American demand for imports, and specially for Sterling Area imports, and so reduces earnings. At such moments a crisis can blow up with hurricane speed. It is in the nature of American business that such moments will recur. We can expect a recurrence at any time ... A Labour Government in this country has something unique to offer to other countries. Britain and America are the two largest buyers in the world. In providing a great stable market based on planning and full employment we can hold out something which the dollar
area does not offer. All exporting countries fear the uncertain rhythm of demand in great capitalist markets. As every farmer knows, fluctuations in demand bring ruin to the primary producer. He must reap what he has sown. He must sell quickly what he has reaped ..."
12.9.6 Education
"... There is a special reason, too, why a radical reform of education is an integral part of Labour's new plan. One of our main handicaps in keeping abreast of Germany and the U.S.A., our principal competitors in export markets, is the disastrous shortage of scientists, technicians and engineers.
Thanks to the Labour Government's effort-we are now training twice as many technical students as in pre-war days. But we need far mere, and we must also pay far more attention to technology the application of science to industry ..."
12.9.7 Social Security
"... Our first aim will be to hold the test of living steady. But, in view of our dependence on world prices, this cannot be guaranteed. If prices rise, the standard of living of those in greatest need, must be protected.
There will be an annual review of the cost of living, and in any year in which there has been an increase, immediate steps will be taken to ensure that the real value of benent: pensions, or allowances is restored . . .
Whatever the conclusions that may be drawn from this review, it is in the national interest to encourage men and women to remain at wotk as long as possible.
Labour will encourage employers to give greater opportunities for older people to remain at work."

13. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 13
OCTOBER 1953

13.1 PRESENTING THE POSITIVE CASE
In "A Positive Case" (August FORUM) Comrade Newell has touched upon an interesting problem concerning our propaganda.
Before dealing with the main idea of the subject, however, I must say that I think he is being a little harsh towards speakers. The aspects of Capitalism— Soviet Union, nationalisation, etc.—must be explained in OPENING propaganda and, as is more often the case, to answer questions put to the speaker. To party members it must seem wearisome—but it must be done.
There is no harm done by the negative approach, provided that the positive case is presented in a more explanatory vein. And this is where I join issue with our comrade. I, too, "think most people these days are more concerned with what the world could be like. . ."
Audiences have shown more attentiveness and interest lately. At a recent meeting half a dozen people personally commended the speaker for a lively and interesting approach to matter-of-fact, everyday problems. I think that reaction to the Tory and Labour Parties, because of their inability to really get down to major problems, is one of the main causes of this trend. Here again, though, the negative approach in 'holding up the mirror' is a necessary prerequisite to the constructive ideas of the speaker.
I suggest that the questions of travel,
"Mass production, places of residence, and so on, ARE important aspects of our case. The ideas of these things, though diversely held, can be proposed and dis-russed without fear of suggesting that iwe are "prophesying". We do not "know"—but this does not prevent us from examining and explaining the reasons for this, or that form of travel; why mass production, so necessary- under Capitalism, can "be dispensed with under -Socialism; why it is supposed that we should live in huge blocks of flats, in fact, why should flats be built at all ?
When we advocate the abolition of a system of society that gives rise to war, poverty, the use of coercion, etc., we affirm with conviction that under the alternative we propose these things will not exist. But let some aspect of how we can conduct our lives with a view to happiness arise, then at once it becomes "too controversial", "futuristic", "utopian" or "idle speculation".
Yet these aspects of life under Capitalism, along with marriage, morals, etc., ARE contributory causes (flowing from the main causes) that result in the repression, suppression, unhappiness and frustration of humanity.
The increasing numbers of nervous breakdowns and neuroses, the 10 million aspirins a day, the "need" for such stimulants as phenol barbitone and benzedrine, are evidence that there is a crying need for a vastly different way of life.
Mass Observation records the apathy and disinterest of most people in "politics," i.e. dissatisfaction with the policies, and mistrust in the promises of political parties. "It doesn't mean that they are apathetic in their minds, that they don't care wdiat happens. Probably more people care more to-day than ever before. But they feel they're out of the picture, that all the great hierarchies of organisation by which lives are increasingly ordained aren't really CONCERNED with them and their wants and needs. Leadership in general is becoming suspect, and with it the elaborate established machinery which leadership controls. This applies to the Churches as it does to the political parties." ("Puzzled People", Mass Observation, p. 151).
Religion can no longer supply any consolation. Then, with the growing influx of women- into industry and the Armed Forces, and the consequent partial neglect of children, the family, as it was formerly known, is breaking up. What is to take its place is of keen interest to socialist and non-socialist alike.
On the sex aspect the raid on the polygamous community at Short Creek, Arizona in July was noteworthy. It is food for thought when we hear that a com-
munity earning its Jiving from the land condemned as "sinful" by the authori:::-can gain much sympathy from peop-'e and admiration from doctors because c the wellbeing of its children, the absence of jealousy and (most important) the happiness that prevails. Even assuming that all their sympathisers looked upon polygamy as wrong, it is heartening : know that it was not prejudicial to their tolerance.
It is my belief, then, that what some consider "crystal ball gazing" is not so. Modern problems fairly bristle with ideas for their solution.
We can, in our propaganda, deal with these ideas, both in writing and orally The greater part of our audiences are composed of those who can accept lucid ideas regarding their problems. It : therefore necessary that comrades should come down sometimes from the "intellectual plane" and "meet the people," to explain and discuss in ways that they can understand. The need, nay, the demand that exists to-day for a change, however vague it may be in people's minds, is the cue for us. to penetrate the apathy with ideas, to stimulate discussion.
Whilst people in the main are clear about the NEGATIVE side of Capitalism, they are still in the exploring stage regarding POSITIVE REMEDIES. They know the spirit in which the search for new remedies should be undertaken— working for the common good instead o individual profit. In their conception of Nationalisation as Socialists, they reckon that a man who does not "pull his weight" is working against "Socialism (This, Comrade Newell, shows the primacy of the negative case). Then if we assist in the'"exploring" we are conscious that we are on their path, and that we and they are groping in the same direction. And so we cannot be "loath & discuss future ""socialist society'".
With the broadening conception of what we mean by Socialism, and at the
same time anchored firmly to our principles and policy, is it not possible that we can "come down to earth" in discussion with those whose aspirations at least are parallel to ours? Instead of regarding the "socialist as a special kind of man," we may see every man as a special kind of socialist.
G. HILBINGEK.
13.2 CORRESPONDENCE To the Editors.
Comrades:
I was amused (1 have not yet reached the point of being alarmed) at the letter in the August issue, suggesting the possibility of allowing Capitalist adverts in the 'S.S.'
I am not quite sure whether the comrade really is serious or whether he is out simply to create further discussion and argument for the cussedness of it. If he is serious, then I am equally as serious. If not, then I suggest he devotes his time to more fruitful forms of writing.
He assumes as his premise that socialists are not against the capitalists as a class. The fact is that we are against the capitalists ONLY as a class.
He is probably quite correct in saving that adverts, would bring in a little money to the party—but at what cost, comrades ? It is surely negative to boost capitalist enterprise for the sake of immediate gains and, in the process, lose all that we have stood for.
The so-called socialist press-is a perfect example of advertising, e.g. 'Reynlolds News', 'Daily Herald' and 'Daily Worker', whose columns advise the workers how to invest with profit, irrigate their intestinal colons, acquire perfect busts, find 'soul mates' etc. This may indeed provide some measure of amusing. reading.
Seriously, comrade, we can always turn to the above newspapers if we have need for any of the things they advertise. In the 'S S ' we fine food for thought and socialist guidance.
I suggest that a poll be made on the topic and am prepared to believe that the party will provide the answer in no uncertain terms. I also believe that should, quite mad and accept the view suggested
Comrade Robert, then there would be a decrease in membership as a result.
Yours fraternally,
BRAIN;
Swansea Branch.
13.3 SHOULD SOCIALISTS BE BIOSOPHISTS?
In the August FORUM H. Jarvis introduces a new study known as Biosophy. He defines it as "the science or art of living well in an environment which appears to be against one's health and happiness . . . the art of making oneself adaptable, of living in harmony with nature and evolution instead of against it." (emphasis mine).
Use of the word 'appears' always allows for a certain amount of doubt. As far as socialists are concerned, there is NO doubt that capitalism is against one's health and happiness.
Whether one is a socialist or not, one has to comply with the demand and supply conditions of capitalism. If those conditions mean, for example, that a worker can only earn a livelihood in the catering trade, then he must produce and sell tea,, cola drinks, white bread, cakes, tinned foods—or get out! —
Jarvis then talks about 'adapting oneself to ..nature instead of living against it. Does he mean this to apply to present day conditions or to socialism ? Under capitalism we do not merely 'adapt' ourselves to conditions the working class are COERCED. As Marx stated, "what we have to do is not to talk about the will of the capitalist, but to enquire into his power, the limits of that power."
This condition equally applies to the worker, whether he be a socialist or, in H. Jarvis's case, a 'biosophist'.
Then he refers to the question of being against nature. Surely, since the beginning of human history man has always had to ARREST the forces of nature ; to grapple with nature, i.e. to build dams, bridges, EXCAVATE (a word which Jarvis must detest) the soil in order to find various metals and minerals to make tools and other products; to fell trees in order to make shelter, furniture, sea and river vehicles which bring those prec;ous fruits and nuts which the nature curists, cum socialists, cum (bio)sophists treasure so muchi
Assuming that Comrade Jarvis's proposition of adapting and harmonising oneself to nature is neccessary, this does not tell us how it should be done. The forces of nature are destructive, as well as providing sufficient food and shelter,
etc. for all. It is therefore not a question of being against nature, but of counteracting the forces of nature as well, using the sources which nature provides.
Then he talks about socialists falling' for advertisements urging people to eat white bread. This is not true. M people to-day eat white bread because they like it and find it palatable. Whereas they find that whole-meal bread i more highly starched and, owing to over-rawness, they cannot assimilate I so easily. This rawness is broken d>:~~ : in white bread.
Men and women engaged full-time a5 chemists, dieticians, and others allied in this type of work state that white breac has no serious or harmful effects on health. For example, in a recent test, ; child fed over a considerable period with white bread was just as healthy as th« child fed on whole-meal bread.
In recent reports it was stated that tht agene which is used in the production < white bread caused frenziedness in dogs. But is it correct for nature-cure-socia ists (biosophists) to claim that it wi have the same effects on humans ?
Towards the end of his article Comrade Jarvis remarks about the harmful toxins. No substantial proof is given to support this statement—only assertions made in "Health For All" magazine.
Comrade Jarvis's difficulty is that he is trying, to run socialogically in boll directions at the same time, i.e., socialism and nature-cure. This is clearly shown when he refers to the need to "get socialism and put the basis right". . e further on he claims that "biosophy seek: to put right not only the social svstem mut also health by understanding."
Understanding what ? Is socialism or biosophy that will put things right Comrade Jarvis ?
In summarising his article it can onb be stated that most of his remarks contain assertions, but not proof. If a person claims that eating meat causes ingrowing toenails then he or she must show substantial proof that this is th« efficient cause.
I think it would be more reasonable for Comrade Jarvis to say that it is not any one cause that gives rise to social evils existing to-day. but a concurrent of causes.
D. Brooks
(ex-Central Branch)
13.4 WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF SEX
The 4th clause of our D. of P. refersto the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex. Fairly frequent statements on our attitude to the theories of racism are contained in our literature—in fact a whole pamphlet has been published on this subject. By comparison, however, the amount of space : we devote to explaining " without distinction of sex" is, to say the least, meagre. Yet it is equally obvious that socialism will be brought about by men AND women as by white and black people. It is just as inconceivable that property society prejudices will continue to exist in the one sphere as it will on the other.
Perhaps it will be said that the distinction of sex does not have the same political significance as that of race. True, our critics less often question the ability of romen to understand Socialism than the ability of negroes, for example. But we must not imagine, because race prejudice may be more often brought into discussions about Socialism than sex prejudice, that the latter is less worthy of being dealt with in our propaganda. On the contrary, it is just because prejudices such as the innate inferiority of women are more deeply rooted that they are taken for granted and not seriously challenged by the arguments of socialists, who may themselves be not completely rid of them.
It seems that the whole question of socialist views on sex. matters is at present controversial. Some members think that the monogamic family will continue under Socialism, and others have different views on the association of the sexes.
It is not, however, a mere matter of speculation and cannot always be dismissed quoting Engels "what we can now
conjecture. . . is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear."
The sex relations of people in any society-at least in their social aspect, are an integral part of the framework of that society. They must be a concern of those wish to bring about social change.
They are part of our object, Socialism. And they are also entitled to be discussed in our propaganda, if for no other reason than that the solution of their sex problems looms larger in the mind of our audiences than do many other of the problems that we claim Socialism will solve.
The following notes can no doubt be amplified by member better qualified to discuss this subject than I.
Men and women are biologically equivalent and psychologically equivalent. Each contributes equally to the chromosomes of the child they produce. in primitive communism the matriarchal principle applied: all human beings are equal, since they are all the children of mothers and each one a child of Mother Earth. With the rise of private property, and the change from an agricultural, communal society to a herding, individualistic one, this unity was dissolved and superseded by the patriarchal family, which subordinated woman to man.
It is characteristic of any society in which one sex is dominant and the other subordinate, that all the useful virtues are arrogated to the dominant sex. History and anthropology show, however, that there is no such thing as a masculine trait or a feminine trait, as such, because the roles have been completely reversed in different societies.
" Few people realise that in ancient Egypt the child derived its name from its mother rather than from its father, that older women married younger men, that men had to be chaste before marriage, whereas women were allowed a double standard; that a man had to bring a dowry to a marriage, and a woman had to swear to support her aged parents and those of her husband ; that men used cosmetics, changed their fashions every season, and remained at home to watch the pots and pans, while their woman-folk were out running the business of the day, wearing the same tunic year in and year out, abjuring cosmetics as inferior, and even laughing at their husbands for their gossip and pettiness." (W. Beran Wolfe, "How To Be Happy Though Human") As far as Socialism is concerned, we can say that in general it will bring a return to the old matriarchal relations of equality, on a higher level. The present marriage institution is based on the economic independence of the woman on the man. This basis will disappear, and no binding contract will be necessary between the parties as regards livelihood. Children will no longer be regarded as the property of their fathers, and every infant that comes into the world will enjoy all the advantages on equal terms with all others.
The dissolution of the patriarchal family will bring a form of association between the sexes based on competition but on co-operation. A great deal of unhap-piness is caused to-day by conditions in which men seek to avoid the financial responsibilities of marriage and women seek to enforce their legal rights to maintenance or alimony. Sexual competition is a feature of property society, and produces many harmful results which a socialist society will avoid.
The tendency within Capitalism is towards the emancipation of woman in the limited sense of enabling her to compete successfully with men in more spheres of the production of wealth. This will lay the foundation for their equal participation in socialist society. Education and environment in general will erase those undesirable distinctions between men and women which constitute the battle of the sexes instead of their harmonious co-operation.
This is not to suggest that women will become more masculine and men more effieminate. It is the distinctions which are harmful to the development of human personality that will go. The prejudices about "a woman's work" or "a man's job" are doomed, nor is there any reason why the initial sexual approach should be considered the prerogative of the man while the woman "waits to be asked." In short, men and women, by exercising freely their physical and mental faculties, will participate equally in every aspect of society.
That is a tentative outline of what I think we should mean when we say "without distinction of sex". It would be interesting to hear the views of other members on this question. Not as an interesting diversion from the accepted Party case, but as part of what should be accepted AS the Party case.
STAN.
13.5 ARE THE WORKERS BETTER OFF?
A simple question, you think? Most people would at once answer "Yes" and pass on to the next business. Then there are those who say this question does not matter, because it is "irrelevant."
This will not do. This question must be answered, not evaded. Evasion or acceptance of the popular view ("Yes") is fatal to the socialist case. Socialism is based on Marx's analysis of Capitalism, from which the following conclusions are drawn:
First, that Capitalism paves the way for Socialism, objectively, by the centralisation of capital—"one capitalist always kills many" and the
(1) introduction of the co-operative form of labour-process.
(2) conscious application of science to production.
(3) transformation of the instruments of production into instruments only usable in common.
(4) entanglement of the peoples of the world in the market.
C.f. of Capital, Vol. 1. Kerr edition, p. 836 (summarised). Subjectively, Socialism is pioneered by "the growth of the revolt of the working class; always increasing in numbers disciplined, united and organised. . . by capitalist production itself." (ibid. p. 837). Why did Mark expect the revolt of the working class to grow ? His answer is plain and straight, quite clear, and the only one that makes sense:
"As capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse."
(ibid p. 709). As we know (from a glance through "Capital" or even "Value, Price and Profit") that Marx regarded the accumulation of capital as the chief law of Capitalism, it follows that he held that "the lot of the labourer must grow worse." He also evidently held that the labourer could get high pay and still be worse oft. The motive for the growing revolt is, therefore, bitter discontent with things as they are, NOT the attainment of what might be. It is when workers learn that their lives must get worse under Capitalism that they turn to Socialism, because there is nowhere else to turn to. To make himself perfectly clear, Marx explicitly enumerated those factors making the working class revolt:
"Along with the constantly diminishing number of magnates of capital . . . grows the mass of misery, oppres
sion, slavery, degradation and exploitation."
— (ibid. p. 836).
This statement has been referred to as "The theory of Increasing Misery". According to Professor G. D. H. Cole, Laski, Bernard Shaw, & Co., Marx has been proved wrong because the workers are better, not worse off to-day.
Marx gave the following evidence for his contentions. Under Capitalism
(a) "All methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are bought at the cost of the individual labourer."
(b) "All means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over and exploitation of the producers."
1. They mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man,.degrading him to the level of an appendage of a mach ine.

1.They estrange him from the intellectual potentialities of the labour process.
2.They distort the conditions under which he works.
3.They subject him to despotism.
4.They transform his life-time int<,< working time.
5.They drag his wife and child beneath the juggernaut of capital.
(ibid. p. 708) Having these points clearly in mind, we can now proceed to put Marx to the test, and answer the question "Have workers' conditions improved?" Facing up squarely to the fact that if the answer is "Yes" he and Socialism are OUT.
13.5.1 THE "IMPROVEMENTS'
What are the data usually advanced in favour of the Labour-Fabian view ? The following are typical, collected mainly at public meetings:
6.Shorter hours.
7.Greater mobility (transportation).
8.Consultation (joint committees and factory welfare).
9.Paid holidays.
10.Education.
11.Medical attention, and milk and meals in schools.
12.Unemployment insurance.
13.Retirement pensions.
14.Better housing.
In addition it is claimed that working-class people live longer and that working-class children are taller and heavier than previous generations of corresponding age.
Every one of these so-called "improvements" of the workers is an investment by the capitalists to increase workers' efficiency. So far from making their lives easier they make them work harder than ever before—for less.
The paid holiday, the medical attention and pensions are bought at a very heavy price of decimation and suffering. So intense is the speed of work today that three-quarters of a million physically fit workers were receiving mental treatment in 1952 (British Medical Association).
According to Ur. Bicknell, vice-chairman of the Food Education Society, the people of this country take 10 million aspirins daily, making a picture (in his words) of a nation tired and sick. The patent medicine advertisements sh that occupational diseases like indige--tion, constipation, "tiredness," influenza and cancer are universal and increasing. In the U.S.A. 100 million dollars worth of laxatives are swallowed yearly. The British Cancer Research Association claims that one person in every six is a victim.
One fairly reliable index of the social position of the workers is the official returns of the Inland Revenue office. Using these returns the S.S. was able to show that the position of the workers after the Second World War was the same as after the first, "so that thirty years of change has produced no result whatever.
90 per cent of the wealth was owned by 10 per cent of the population in 1918, and still is.
A further index of the British workers' present economic position is the number of old-age pensioners. Four and a quarter million retired workers now draw 32/6d weekly. So inadequate is this pittance that two million have successfully passed a stringent Means Test for supplementary benefit" to: keep them alive. Two and a quarter million are subisting on "public assistance" while Great Britain is enjoying the greatest industrial boom of this century.
"The shorter hours are nullified by the more intense pace. The workers' greater mobility gets them to the factory more quickly. The joint committee helps the employer to produce and export more profitably. The holidays are paid for, to recreate the exhausted worker for more work for the employer. The so-called education, for the great majority, is training for paid work.
The State distribution of milk to the children of the workers is the clearest evidence that their parents have neither means nor opportunity of supplying their own offspring with the . Greatest need regularly themselves. Workers' children to-day are larger and heavier than their grandfathers were. So are and sheep, pigs, eggs and tomatoes - and for the same reason—they are are valuable that way.
workers DO live longer lives today of more years of grinding poverty. On 32/6d weekly they enjoy more misery longer.
Fetid, verminous slums have been knocked down (where they have not fallen first) and replaced by blocks of flats or buildings" because those living in the rpoperty could not be efficient workers in such "housing" conditions, which also expose other workers to disease. June 2nd the Economist published a Coronation Supplement" on the economic position of Great Britain for the last 50 years. These tables and graphs showed that, during this period, the productivity of the British working class doubled and the profits of the employers rose.
Where are the improvements ? In 1900 the consumption of meat per head was 133 lbs.; in 1951, 75 lbs. In 1900 no margarine was produced—it was one of the "improvements" yet to be invented. In 1900 14 lbs. of butter per head were consumed; in 1934, 25 lbs. In 1951, 15 lbs. of butter and 18 lbs. of margarine.
In May this year the Minister of Food informed the House that one and three quarter millions were refusing to take their butter ration. When it is realised that this ration is less than | oz. daily, then it simply means that nearly two million "improved" workers cannot afford the amount the Economist says their fathers at in 1900 (14 lbs. per annum)
Research was undertaken recently the standard loaf. Evidence was adduced that agene gas being pumped into to increase oxidisation in the digestive process to give workers "increased energy." The Canine Defence League warned members that dogs fed on this bread would develop hysteria. Rats fed on this workers' diet in the zoo in 1952 died before others given nothing.
Some economists (hypnotists would be nearer) claim that because the amount spent on cosmetics and tobacco have increased enormously, the workers' conditions
have improved correspondingly.
Since when has consumption or cigarettes and lipsticks been evidence of prosperity? Tobacco is mainly an unsatisfactory substitute for nourishing food—digestion requires leisure and comfort.
Cosmetics are make-believe for real health.
Today the workers eat more adulterted food and substitutes than ever.
“Plastics" are worn instead of wool and leather. Rayons from corn-husks have ousted flannel and linen. Unhealthy rubber and jute, shoddy but gaudy rubbish-, is replaced the sturdy, lasting workmen's clothes of fifty years ago. The workers are not better dressed-they are showily dressed in pathetically cheap finery.
How is a working man, buried in twenty miles of filthy bricks and mortar likeLondon or Manchester, "better off", if is only chance of a sight of the sea or country is to pledge his entire credit on television set or small car?
A further case quoted is the millions gambled on football pools. No clearer evidence of the poverty of the workers today is needed. Popular bets are PENNY points, against odds of millions to one.
If the American worker is prosperous because millions are spent on cosmetics there, then the people of Australia, where 9,000,000 buy 7,000,000 sets of false teeth a year (National Dental Congress) must be the most fortunate on earth.
Another favourite is house purchase. So far from indicating modern workers' prosperity, it shows the reverse. So desperate is the housing position of many workers to-day that they are ready to gamble their lives on endowment policies to get a place for their children to sleep and play in. The worker mortgages his life, gives up his pleasures and spends his paid holiday bricklaying or painting "his" mortgaged house.
In 1863 there existed a somewhat similar sintuation 'to that of to-day. As a period of staggering expansion of trade and industry it has never been equalled. The railways were being completed, and the world was opening up then. Gladstone, the Chancellor, referred in his budget speech to "the intoxicating augmentation of wealth, confined almost entirely to classes of property." Fabulous fortunes had been made in double-quick time. "The rich have been growing richer, and the poor have been growing poor," he said, adding "that whether the extremes of poverty are less I do no presume to say".
What was the standpoint of Marx." What did he reply at a time when almost every speech and publication confidently predicted 'increasing, boundless prosperity ? In Volume 1 of "Capital" (p.716) and subsequently in the Inaugural Address of the International, he wrote:
"If the working class has remained 'poor', only 'less poor' in proportion as it produces for the wealthy class an 'intoxicating augmentation of wealth", then it has remained relatively just as poor ... If the extremes of poverty have not lessened they have increased, because the extremes of wealth have." The workers cannot be "better off They can either be slaves or free.
HORATIO.

13.6 MIND – SOCIAL PHENOMENON
As the title suggests, the main thesis of this book is that mind is an expression of brain function, and that its contents are largely determined by social forces. Dr. Doran uses the growth of medical knowledge from ancient Egypt to the present as his main illustration; other chapters are devoted to the nature, content and development of the mind.
The author notes that recent advances in physics, such as the "wave theory" of matter, have helped to break down the old dualistic concept of mind and matter. Biological and physiological research has shown the unsoundness of the orthodox view of a spirit-mind. For example, spatial patterns in the outside world are connected with the spatial representation of that world in the human brain, which is compared to a vast telephone exchange.
Dr. Doran traces the history of religious beliefs to illustrate the fact that other men's fears, hopes, beliefs, prejudices and values largely determine the content of the mind. The creation of Christianity is shown to have been only a reshaping of ideas inherited from the past. So great was the power of tradition in preserving the Christian-Aristotelean concept of the cosmos that it was not until 1822 that the Pope gave to the sun "formal sanction to become the centre of the planetary system."
Analysis of medical theory at different periods supports the view that the content of man's mind is determined mainly by his contact with other men, and not by spontaneous generation of ideas. This view has, of course, always been held by socialists, since the Marxian theory of materialism is based upon the reversal of the Hegelian dialectic of the unfolding of the Idea to account for the real world. Among many interesting points made in this chapter is that the early Christian
view of disease ( "sent by God punishment for sin" ) constituted a retrograde step in the history of medicine.
The chapter on the development mind is rather technical, but it puts forward the idea that creation of thought is achieved by allowing the mind to brood over facts; man cannot see the cerebral process, but he can see the product. Perhaps this will help to answer the old objection "if Socialism is so good why haven't others seen it: - they haven't brooded long over facts, ; and they expect to be given a process which cannot be explained except in terms of the product Socialism.
The author concludes by the growth of mind—defined as the interaction of material brains linked with the transmission of cultural patterns by tradition. His final blow at the Church is "in the Christian world which believes in a God who loves Man - it is hard to understand why the minds of his chosen representatives the leaders of the Church—should have been permitted to harbour such false belief s about the true nature of the physical universe."
In the restrained language typical of the true scientist, Dr. Doran remarks that "the main purpose of this essay is to try to demonstrate that if the mind is regarded as a social phenomena materialistic hypothesis is strengthened perhaps to the point where it does deserve the serious consideration of its opponents."
This book is one of-many benig written on subjects closely allied to the case for Socialism. It is obtainable through Head Office Library, which offers a wide scope of new and secondhand books for the deepening of members and sympathisers knowledge.

13.7 PROBLEMS OF PROPAGANDA - I
This is the first of a series of four short articles on questions of propaganda that affect the Party. No claim is made that the examination is anything more than cursory, and the object is mainly to stimulate further discussion and criticism of the points raised and suggestions made.
First, what is propaganda ? It is a special form of persuasion as a means of social control. According to Brembeck and Howell (" Persuasion ") it comprises four general stages, which may occur in the following order.,
15.to gain and maintain attention.
16.to arouse desires.
tc) to demonstrate how these desires
can be satisfied. (d) to produce a specific response. These steps are often telescoped and interrelated. This particular sequence nay not be applicable to Socialism, but it can help us to distinguish the various elements in our propaganda, so that we can gain a greater insight into how it has its effect. As far as we are concerned, stage (a) may involve the Party's literature and meetings, (b) is, broadly speaking, the desire to solve social problems, (c) is Socialism, the system of society and (d) may be the auditor's acceptance of socialist ideas, signified by his application for membership. FORUM has already discussed what is socialist (Rab, June issue), but not the
question of what MAKES a socialist. A common answer is that this the result of a socialist analysis of Capitalism. But that begs the question — how does a "socialist analysis" differ from any other ? An answer that seems to offer greater scope for fruitful discussion is Rowan's concept of a socialist ATTITUDE.
What are the ingredients of this socialist attitude ? Ideally, they are the sum of all the ideas that the Party propagates. In fact, however, they are a number of responses in a given set of circumstances. This is implicit in the Party's examination of applicants for membership. Certain more or less stock questions are asked, and the applicant replies along the lines that his experience of socialist propaganda has taught him. This propaganda, then, is not only instrumental in making socialists, but is also responsible for the kind of socialists that are made.
Let us look at S.P.G.B., propaganda as we know it today. To some members it constitutes the analysis of Capitalism and the call to establish a new society. A few put it that " you cannot analyse Capitalism without implicity calling for a new society." To Trotman, for example, Socialism IS the class struggle (Delegate meeting discussion). Now, it is my contention that these are immature concepts—symptomatic of an early stage in
the growth of socialist ideas. A better way of understanding the matter is to regard propaganda as the means which advance the object (provided that we do not overlook the continuity of means and object) and to assess the value of propaganda in terms of closer approximation of people's ideas to ideas which belong to Socialism.
It is a popular view among members that the Party should in its propaganda first attempt to clear away incorrect ideas about Capitalism AND THEN proceed to talk about Socialism. This :• based on a false separation—it ignores the unity of criticism and construction—. It is precisely the presence of soci: ideas (i.e. discussion of Socialism) tha breaks down prejudice in ways he^: t i to the advancement of Socialism. Analysi -of Capitalism BY ITSELF is nei e: socialist propaganda. It is never the analysis of the past or present that is the dynamic or revolutionary element—it i the concept of the object, pertaining to the future.
This is not to say that an understanding of Capitalism is not necessary to socialist. But much more is also necessary. Everything that is controversial in the realm of Socialism (i.e. every attempted elaboration of 'common ownership etc.") must be freely and openlv discussed at all levels of understanding. This is in order that general political controversy may centre around not Capitalism (1) versus Capitalism (2) but Capitalism versus Socialism. In short, everything that gets people talking about Socialism is useful to us.
There is a curious prejudice in the party that discussion about issues upon which these is disagreement among members is " confusing" to non-members. This doubtless arises-because non-members, on hearing such controversy, may be uncertain about what is or should be the Party " line " on it. However, it should be clear that it is not more confusing to discuss controversial issues than either of the alternatives, i.e. silence, or pretending that these is no controversy.
We have seen that both the propaganda and the type of socialist it makes are the product of certain conditions. Why, then, is the attempt sometimes made to narrow these conditions by a censorship on controversy ? If there are two views 'among members on, say, mass production under Socialism, why shouldn't non-
members discuss them ? It is more than likely that in examining the reasons for these views the non-members will learn more about Socialism than by listening to the sterile recitation of agreed platitudes which many members think of a Socialism.
We cannot produce the specific : .
response we desire in our audiences (work
for Socialism) unless we demonstrate
how their desires can be satisfied (social
problems can be solved). Necessary ;
it is to EXPLAIN Capitalism, it
incumbent upon us always to PROPA
GATE Socialism.
S. R. P.
13.8 EFFICIENCY - OUR GREAT NEED
Out of about 1100 members of our Small party of good boys, 1000 are little more than passengers or inefficient mutts who contribute nothing to laying the foundations of Socialism. Few will like these harsh words, but fine words butter r.o parsnips, and the Party has never been . mutual admiration society, so let's face it. We have been correctly called " armchair philosophers"—quite a good term n my opinion, and still applicable.
F. A. Ridley (of late I.L.P fame,) once : ted that a real socialist party would have to combine the correct scientific doctrines of the S.P.G.B., with the enthusiasm of the Communist Party, plus the organising power of the Labour Party. Whatever we think about Ridley, or the Communist and Labour Parties, is neither here nor there. The Communist Party from time to time indulges in a little self-crticism—providing it has little to do with Socialism, as we know full well-but we need to indulge in a lot of criticism which should have a direct bearing on achieving Socialism. Our idea that racialism will be obtained when the workers understand and want it can be a great impediment to Socialism, and lead many to accept the idea that we can do nothing, and must wait until the masses of the workers get moving. Consider our own meetings—so regularly do they commence half an hour late that nobody wants to come punctually, party comrade who has been abroad lor 17 years turned up at a branch meeting an hour late quite recently, and frankly confessed that he knew from experience that it was never any good doing otherwise. He had "learnt that 17 years ago, and assumed that it was still so". Members can't get to meetings early as they have to work late." We have all heard it — an empty excuse. What about Sundays, for the same applies? The few non-party members we have who attend our meetings are usually those who are punctual. Does
this point matter ? It would be very bad psychology to ignore it. .'We "have all heard the challenge " You couldn't run a fried fish shop—how do you expect to run Socialism " The honest answer is that we could not run Socialism, we would make an unholy mess of it if we tried, because we are a party full of inefficient and impracticable dreamers. The few efficient ones who do all the work are a drop in the socialist ocean!
One swallow doesn't make a summer anyway. What else can't we do? Well, we can't run a decent magazine and work up a circulation that will influence people after 50 years, and we don't look like doing it for the next 500 years. Is there anything else ? Yes certainly—we can't run H.O. We decided to purchase premises and now find that it has nearly sent the party broke, and instead of these premises being a foundation stone on which to build a real, influential party, we find that they are a liability. They are as much good to us as a church is to its local members who make use of it one day a week. I know that one per cent of the Party helps to keep H.O. going, while 99 per cent do nothing.
What's the next grouse? Look at the audience of the average propaganda meeting and what do we find? Nearly all are party members — the converted preaching to the converted. How long will it take us to get Socialism that way ? Our job, if we are to run meetings, is to get non-party members there. But how many of us ever try to. thatch the hedge' for the speaker? Goto any .branch lecture and consider the composition of the audience. We can't all be speakers, or give magnificent propaganda.orations, but we ought to be'able" ".to get a few outsiders to our meetings now and then. Listen to the way in which certain, party members shout their heads off at one another and display in public for all to hear what bad psychologists they arc. Watch how scientific many members of
the party are when they come to hal i of living. Look how they who think that they have learnt how capitalism works, fall for its propaganda in other fields which happen to be outside th« party's scope (i.e. in the direction of health).
The eyes of the world are upon us. We create our reputation in society by the way we behave and act. We build the type of socialist party of to-morrow b our acts and behaviour to-day. Those who scoff ' rubbish, capitalism determines it all' had better get up to date. History makes men, and men make history. Capitalism may produce the conditions whereby Socialism can be introduced— but we've got to know those conditons and be ready to act upon them, or capitalism will produce conditions which give it a new lease of life.
Behind all this is the fact that we must become far more efficient or we shall get nowhere, and our efforts will be like th« seeds which fell on stony ground. If opportunity knocks once at the door, we've got to be ready to open it.
No offence comrades, no harm meant to those who have a dermis or epider: whose average thickness is below w it should be for this integument.
H. Jarvis
13.8.1 INEFFICIENCY
' I suppose I must be the most Inefficient Mutt of all," he confessed, idly making a paper dart out of a freshly filled-in Form E. "I always seem to get lumbered with some Party job I haven't the slightest intention of doing for more than the first week—if at all. It is extremely annoying to have to think up an excuse for backing out that sounds convincing and won't spoil my chances of getting my name put down for something else I can't do either."
" It's the meetings that really get me down,"he continued, tearing up a collecting bag and gently polishing his party badge with it. "I know they always start half-an-hour late, but you must leave it even later if you are going to dodge that first half-an-hour or so when practically no one's there." The recollection of many too-early arrivals seemed to depress him. Absentmindedly he peeled off a leaflet from a pile he had forgotten to distribute, and started to write a reply to a member on the back -until he suddenly remembered that, after all, it was only that member's sixth
unanswered letter to him.
"I have made such a wide study of inefficiency that with very little effort I can fail to do almost anything," he said, with a note of pride. "Not content with simple omissions and delaying tactics, I have now reached a stage when I feel I can undertake wholesale errors of a more or less gross and preferably irremediable character. Such as . . ."
He was about to elaborate on this when he suddenly stopped, turning deathly
white. " My goodness," he faltered, reaching for an adjacent Guinness ; upsetting it over the Branch books, nearly did it that time. If I were to tell all the secrets of inefficiency it could help the efficient enemy to take counter-measures. And that would really be mv lot."
With that he lit up a fag, threw the match over his shoulder, and set fire to the entire stock of Branch literature.
P.R. S.
13.9 ACCURATE THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION
The Declaration of Principles, upon which our Party was founded half a century ago, is an example of clear and easily understood English that have would been very hard to excel. As Capitalism is basically the same now as then, and it is the basis of Capitalism about which we are mainly concerned, we can hardly do better than model our propaganda on the English of the Declaration.
A man mixes with society for two reasons only—what he can give and what he can take. As a taker, i.e. consumer, he requires that GENERAL education common to all society, the ability to understand and express nimself in the language of his fellows, together with in understanding of such means of measuring and calculating as are commonly used. As a giver, i.e. producer, he requires a SPECIAL knowledge of particular processes; e.g. an electrician needs to know all the implications of Ohm's law, a physician the mechanics of digestion, and so on.
Pick up a medical text-book and you will find it full of technical terms understood by very few laymen. Yet there is no problem in medical science, nor any science, beyond the grasp of the average worker who learns the elementary steps, one by one, which leads up to it. Medical science deals with conditions, and processes often lengthy and involved, which are the direct concern of a few specialised workers having their own terminology—a verbal shorthand based on a few Greek and Lation roots—and only because it is a verbal shorthand is it used. Those who are acquainted with these physical conditions and processes, and who also know certain Greek and Latin roots, usually find medical jargon self-explanatory. Similar comments can be made about a text-book on radio-servicing or boot-repairing.
On the question of Socialism, however, we leave the spheres of specialist knowledge and enter one common to all men.
No one yet has any knowledge of Socialism except that it is a social system wherein the means of living are the property of society and democratically controlled, wherein each exercises his particular abilities for the common good, wherein all dwell in abundance, and the evils we know to be the direct result of Capitalism will not exist. Any- attempt to describe Socialism beyond the foregoing will tell an enquirer less about Socialism than about us, and he ought not to be encouraged. We can only assure him that he will have an equal voice in the direction of affairs.
The Socialist Party aims at converting the workers to our view of present-day society, which view is well summed up in the Declaration, and of making certain special political knowledge generally known. We have to use terms to which precise meanings are given : e.g. 'Capital', 'Value', exchange and use, necessary and surplus ; ' Money '; ' Price '; ' The State '; ' Political Party '; ' Class ', working and capitalist; etc., etc. These terms and their definitions are within the understanding of any worker, and ought not to be forgotten.
* * *
What then is a socialist? A socialist is a worker who is :—
17.Politically intelligent enough to understand the Declaration of Principles.
18.Emotionally constituted to desire Socialism as indicated in the Object the Party.
19.Militant enough to enrol in the Party and see about getting it.
This is the triad, and only this, which marks off a Socialist from his fellow workers. It seems that the architects of our Declaration have done their work very well.
Such a Socialist would be expected to have a very decided attitude towards all the important happenings of present day life. Nevertheless, one cannot help being somewhat taken aback by the definition of " attitude " given by one writer in the
August FORUM as "an enduring organisation of motivational, emotional, perceptual and cognitive processes with respect to some aspect of the individual's world", which definition is; further enlarged upon. Surely every member of the working-class knows that an attitude is a position adopted; a positive attitude exists when some action is being contemplated, sake, but if we must then it is just as essential to define with commonly understood terms as it is to identify * person with the name by which he is habitually known. Another recently mentioned "empirically observable facts'. There cannot be many workers who would not understand the phrase " first hand evidence" (i.e. evidence of our senses and not that communicated brothers) if such a phrase were used.
The first use of language is an instrument of our own- thought. Defining a thing, or a process, with precision enables us to focus attention directly upon it to the exclusion of all other things and processes with which it may be related. We can then consider its relationship, if any, with other thi near at hand and also clearly defined; and finally, by marshalling all in their order of appearance, can the better detect cause and effect, and so arrive at a conclusion, i.e. a description embodying if possible cause and effect.
The second use of language is communicating our conclusions to others. The English language is rich in words having more than one meaning. We should always use the simple word of only one generally understood meaning— the one we intend—rather than ponderous verbiage which the reader will have to translate into his own simple language, and which he may mistranslate. Let us at all times do our thinking accurately by using the clear and easily understood terms of everyday, life, and clearness expression will naturally follow.
E. CARNELL

14. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 14
NOVEMBER 1953

14.1 ARE THE WORKERS BETTER OFF?
Notes on Horatios Article
1. These notes are not offered as a reply to all of the large number of points made by Horatio, but as a contribution to discussion on some of them, and also as a plea that the question itself be divided into more easily handled sections. As it stands, Horatio's article sets out to answer one question but in fact introduces "some material that properly belongs to different questions.
For example, some of the material is designed only to show how bad are the workers' conditions now. This would be quite sufficient to answer some defender of capitalism who maintained that conditions now are not bad at all, but it does not answer someone who admits that conditions are bad now but claims that they used to be worse. To show that conditions 50 or 100 years ago were better than, or not worse than, they are now we need to be told something about these conditions, and on some points Horatio fails to do this.
Also it seems somewhat confusing to introduce into an article on the condiion of the workers some, material which deals with questions that are not specifically working class ones. It may be that he use of chemically treated foods, tobacco, plastics, cosmetics, rayon, etc., is bad for the human race and that this is a legitimate ground on which to condemn capitalism, but these are things that affect capitalists as well as workers; they do not mark a class division.
2. Horatio makes some effective points against those who say sweepingly that workers are better off than they used be. but it is hard to say from the article what summary answer he would give to the question himself. Its general tone might indicate that he would say that they are worse off: but he makes no specific statement to that effect.
This suggests as a reasonable possibility that Horatio sees the difficulty of giving a useful general answer at all to so sweeping a question. The question itself means different things to different people and to each one it covers a number of distinct and not very closely related factors. Some- sort of answer can be given to each of the separate parts of the question but when you try to lump them all together it is like being asked something very nebulous such as " Do the workers get more or less out of life in 1953 than in 1853 ? "
Some of the separate questions deal with aspects that can be measured with at least a certain amount of accuracy. It is, for example, possible to form a rough idea of the movement of wages and prices and the division of the national income, but others are not measurable in that way. It may be argued with some evidence that the workers as a whole are and feel more insecure in their jobs and are more harassed by fear of war at the present time than they were 50 or 100 years ago, but to prove this is another matter.
3. Dealing with some of the measurable aspects, Horatio goes to the " Economist " Coronation number, but he has not always been accurate in reproducing what the " Economist " says. (There is some excuse for this, as the material is presented by the " Economist " with an inexcusable paucity of explanation about terms and sources.)
Horatio attributes to the " Economist " responsibility for the statement that in the past 50 years " the productivity of the British working class doubled and the profits cf the employers rose." The first statement appears to be a misreading of the "Economist" graph (in the section " Self-Protection and Progress ") which
shows real national income per head the population as having increased by 75 per cent since 1900.
Horatio's reference to profits is more seriously misleading. It is correct that the " Economist " graph (" Division the Home Matronal Income ") shows that profits; have risen since 1900 as expressed in money terms, but it also shows that wages and salaries have each risen much more than profits. The result is that whereas in 1900 wages and salaries (the latter largely made up of the pay of Clerks and Shop Assistants) represented about 54 per cent of National income, by 1952 the percentage had increased to 74 per cent. Profits and rent, which in 1900 represented 46 per cent had by 1952 fallen to 26 per cent.
-For various reasons these percentage figures of the total wages and salaries bill of the whole working class do not in fact support the rosy interpretation put on them by the " Economist," but it seems a very inadequate way of answering the'" Economist" for Horatio to quote half their statement and ignore the rest.
A more useful indication of changes since 1900 affecting the economic position of the workers is the movement of real wages (money wage rates adjusted for changes of prices) ; and the division of the product of manufacturing industry as shown by census of production returns. Real wages have risen since 1850 and' since 1900, though not by as much as the increase since 1900 shown in " Economist " graph, the basis of which is unexplained. As regards the census of production figures, these indicate that the " workers' share " increased slightly between 1905 and 1948.
4. This brings us to what is perhaps most important aspect of the whole question. Horatio says that if in some respect or other " workers' conditions improved " that is fatal to the Socialist case. In line with this view he seeks to show that any apparent improvement is fraud, and also presents it as if it were simply the result of shrewd calculation by the employers. He leaves out of account entirely the struggles of the workers and the part they have played in this. He says for example that " shorter hours " so far from being an improvement" is an investment by the capitalists to increase workers' efficiency. So far from making their lives easier they make them work harder than ever before for less. This is overstatement to the point of being more wrong than right. Workers have not been in error in fighting for shorter hours, and employers have not been wrong from their point of view in resisting such demands. As official inquiries have shown, reduced hours of work have frequently reduced production in spite of employers' efforts. The Australian employers now demanding longer hours are not necessarily blind to their own interest.
Marx and Engels did not think it futile for the workers to struggle and they were right. Marx and Engels did not think that if the workers fought and gained some improvement, that ruled out Socialism. Marx (see Chapter XIV of " Value Price and Profit ") did not think that the workers' struggles could play no part in the division of the product to the detriment of the employers, and when Engels, having in mind living standards and ability to put up organised resistance to the employers, wrote in 1885 that " the factory hands . . . are undoubtedly better off than before 1848 " and that the conditions of the engineers, carpenters, and bricklayers had " remarkably improved since 1848," he did not go on to say that this ended Socialism, as Ploratio would
have it. (For Engels' statement see 1 preface to "Condition of the Working Class in 1844," pages XIV and XV).
Marx and Engels said, as we can today, that workers' struggles under capitalism are necessary and can produce certai results even though they cannot end exploitation and the subject position of the workers.
5. Limitations on space preclude dealing" with a number of other points, but i would be a pity to leave without coi mcnt on the ingenious argument that it is no use living longer because it is all so miserable anyway.
Just to cheer Horatio up, here is an amended version of W. S. Gilbert's famous lines:—
Is Death a boon ?
If so it must befall
That Death when'er he call
Can't call too soon!
14.2 ON GETTING WORSE OFF AND SOCIALISM
The article in Forum (October) entitled "Are the Workers Better Off?" asserts
(1) That the answer " YES " to the question rules out both Marx and Socialism.
(2) That the answer "NO ' is a sound one, in harmony with Socialism. The writer mentions a number of Features of Capitalism which, he maintains, constitute evidence in favour of Marx's theory of increasing misery:—
(b) 'All means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over and exploitation of the producers.'
1. They mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrading him to the level of an appendage of a machine.
2. They estrange him from the intellectual potentialities of the labour progress.
3. They distort the conditions under which he works.
4. They subject him to despotism.
5. They transform his life-time into working time.
6. They drag his wife and child beneath the juggernaut of capital."

Now, although I agree that Marx and Engels did think along the lines of increasing misery, I find it quite impossible to believe that the worker—mutilated into a fragment of a man, degraded to the level of an appendage of a nachine, subject to despotism, growing misery, oppression, slavery and exploitation. under the juggernaut of capital, as detailed in Horatio's article—could, under those conditions, understand and want Socialism.
A starving man in the kind of society Horatio describes wants half a dollar for a square meal, not Socialism — and rightly so. Under such conditions of millions of unemployed, half-starved and embittered wretches, a mass socialist response involving the rejection of both leadership and the idealistic mode of thought is not possible. One might note here that Marx and Engels, holding the increasing misery theory, did not reject leadership; further, that their idea of the revolution was much more gradual than that of the Party (see Communist Manifesto).
If Horatio's (and Marx's) views of the workers' future under Capitalism are correct, a much more likely outcome of mass misery will be the rise once again of leader-dictators, with all the intolerance of opposition and irrational adulation such regimes bring with them— hardly conducive to socialist reflection. Broadly speaking, the desperate conditions Horatio envisages (requiring, as they would, immediate " solution ") are not so conducive to reflective judgment, calm, sober appraisal, as to highly emotional, subjective judgments, the general renunciation of reason as " all talk and no action," coupled with a greater tendency to acts of violence, theft, plunder, and personal, non-social solutions of the " I'm all right, — you, Jack " variety.
Moreover, if Horatio thinks that a working class faced with catastrophic conditions, downtrodden, etc., etc., is capable of a socialistic response, it is very difficult to see why it should ever I driven to that position in the first place-It is surely reasonable to suppose that sight into social problems will be growth, a development, reflecting itself in changes in institutions and improvements in material well-being and socia status. Or are we to assume the growth of logic and reason in a social situation which generates and perpetuates slavery. degradation and oppression, and all the mental attitudes which are an essentia condition of such a society ? Gentlemen. be reasonable !
Horatio's earlier quotation from Marx about " the growth of the revolt of the working class;. always increasing numbers, disciplined, united and organised ... by capitalist production itself " is only part of the story, as the facts of experience show. Under Capitalism interests of members of the working class are not identical—they are often bitterly opposed, individual against indvidual, group against group. This is much a functional feature of capitalist society as the existence of the working' class itself.
The aims of the unemployed and the employed are sufficiently different to produce different organisational and, in many cases, open hostility. Similarly, black-coated workers versus industrial workers, one nationality against another. These differences, backed by prejudices (particularly snobbishness) are even more deeply entrenched in time of internal economic crisis. In an atmosphere of general insecurity, each tries to retain what he has, fearful of encroachments from above or below in the social scale, hoping and probably praying for better times and leaders in the near future.
So far from Capitalism unifying workers in revolt against their capitalist masters, war, and the threat of danger from outside the social group, unify and discipline vast masses of workers—to kill and maim each other.
Like the struggles between groups of workers, these wars have been a functional feature of competitive capitalist Society, disruptive of international organisation on the part of working party. I assume that not even the stout Horatio contends that class-conscious struggle against Capitalist masters is a more prominent feature of world Capitalism than the struggle between national groups.
When Horatio implies that the achievement of Socialism is compatible with the increasing misery theory, he is wrong. Socialism, as traditionally conceived by the Party, with on understanding and rejection of leadership, is out if the increasing misery theory is correct. But that doesn't make the theory wrong, though it does reveal some inconsistency on Horatio's part.
J. McGREGOR
(Next article: "Horatio's Increasing Misery—A Refutation.")
14.3 CORRESPONDENCE

Dear Sirs,
Anyone who had any illusions about the well-being of the Party should have ad them destroyed by the recent Delegate Meeting. Those who were present must have been driven to the conclusion that the Party is moribund, and is only kept going by good-natured habit and the absence of anything better for members to do. I should like to indicate some of the factors which I think have been responsible for this decline.
Firstly, the nature of the Party itself. This, despite the lip service we pay to such ideas as " delegation of function," the withering away of the state," etc., is shot through with authoritarian thinking.
Organisation in a socialist party, as in socialist society, should be the minimum necessary to co-ordinate activity. But examine the Party in the light of this argument! Permission of the E.C. is necessary before any of us can chalk on a wall. stick up a poster or publish any written matter. Surely if any of us utters anything contrary to the socialist case the proper thing for the Party to do is insist on a recantation or our resignation - but not to set up a censorship.
The rule obliging members to undergo a test before they can start a meeting – betrays the same mentality. In fact, one almost finds that the ukase of the" E.C. Is required before one can do anything at all. The result is that an enormous amount of goodwill and energy is lost in the toils of the Party bureaucracy. The illusion that decisions at Head Office beget activity dies hard. Another factor making for inertia is the bloody minded or dog-in-the-manger attitude of many members. Any suggestion for the improvement of propaganda is met with "We've tried it before" or similar arguments. Typical of this is some comrades' unwillingness to do anything about the state of the S.S. and their determination that nobody else shall. Put the worst expression of this attitude is where members support one form of activity and oppose all others. They support election campaigns, for example, and oppose the retention of 52 Clapham High Street, or vice versa.
Again, with fifty years of history behind it, the Party, an allegedly internationalist organisation, can do no better than leave all foreign relations in the hands of one member, while foreign organisations with whom we might have useful contact go crying in the wilderness, or their literature is left unopened and gathering dust in the pigeon-holes at H.O, Yet none of us dare do anything about organising a bureau of people with knowledge of foreign countries. That would be presumptuous. Meanwhile we attend the E.C.'s pleasure.
What can we do about it ? I really don't know. The habits of half a century are not shaken off easily, and the E.C., with its committees, is jealous of its power, as those of us who have tried to do something have found out. Meanwhile we shall not have our weekly paper for those writers who, the Editorial Committee says, cannot write, and our speakers will continue to stay away from meeting's.
Yours faithfully,
K. R. SMITH.
14.4 " Forum," S.P.G.B.
Dear Comrades,
I have to inform you that at their meeting of October 9th, my branch decided by 8 votes to 5 to cancel their order for " Forum."
Purchases of further copies will be left to individual members.
Yours fraternallv, E. T. CRITCHFIELD. Ealing Branch Secretary.
14.4.1 REPLY TO EALING
In the past Ealing has distributed as many as three times the number of Forums as is represented by the votes cast at the branch meeting which made this decision. It appears now that Ealing members (or as many who cast the majority vote at this meeting) feel strongly that Forum cease publication. If this is true, what a pity it is if they keep the reasons to themselves. What better opportunity is there to make their views widely known than to have them published in Forum: putting their arguments before members whose numbers near enough reach the total membership of the Party. Ealing Branch is invited to consider the question and to depute one of its members to state a case in these columns. If it accepts the challenge the question might also be considered as to what sort of democracy it is when eight members of a branch decide that five other members (apart from others who might not have been in attendance at that meeting) who disagree with them should not have the facilities of the branch for obtainining matter published by the Party.
Ealing apart, if Forum can claim no merit beyond the fact that it reflects the Party and shows the streams of thought flowing among the members, then that reflection is illuminating and useful. Looking back on some of the bitter disputes of the past, it is evident despite "crystal clear" principles the application of them brings to the varying interpretations of them and different levels of understanding. Can it be said that if Forum had existed then that -the Party would have lost in tolerance and in understanding the contrary points of view:
It seems that Party- members want Forum and that it has come to stay. It. could reach distinction or it could peter out. Either would be a measure of the maturity of the membership.—Editors
14.5 ON CLASS STRUGGLE
Judging by the discussion at the Delgate Meeting on the item " Is it the Party's job to prosecute the class struggle? '" there is a considerable amount of confusion in members' minds about what - meant by "class struggle." It seems that a definition of this struggle in economic terms (" fought over division of wealth, conditions of employment, etc., within class society") is disputed by some. May I therefore give reasons for my supporting the contention that it is economic and not political.
The Party's leaflet " The Next Step for Trade Unionists " says this about class struggle: "It is only by waging the struggle on the political field for the re-placement of Capitalism by Socialism that the workers can free themselves from economic domination." Clearly, this political struggle concerns the replacement of one social system by another, and is not the same as the struggle of workers v. capitalists within Capitalism. However, since some members insist that " class struggle " assumes these two " aspects " we will get nowhere by arguing over definitions. Let us try to resolve the disagreement by referring to class struggle (1) economic or industrial, both sides " recognising" Capitalism, and class struggle (2) political, for and against the establishment of Socialism.
Now, the SPGB has as its object the successful prosecution of class struggle 2). In fact it is, as Groves put it, "the only Party that prosecutes that part of the class struggle.' But it doesn't prosecute class struggle (1).
Some members have argued that, although our aim is to abolish ourselves as the working class, this doesn't mean that we give up class struggle. Again, the confusion of meaning is apparent. The abolition of classes is NOT the same as, 'part of, or inseparably bound up with, fighting the boss. True, when a worker is a socialist he has no illusions about class struggle (1) and its inevitability under Capitalism. But other workers who :.re not socialists—and who even fight class struggle (2) against socialists (i.e. ":-rk actively for capitalist political parties)—they also fight the boss. Thus we see that directing our efforts towards Abolishing ourselves as the working class really means not giving up class struggle, but changing it from (1) to (2).
The same conclusion may be reached in answering those who say " then that means you reject class struggle? " No, it doesn't. It means that we prosecute (2) with the object of ending (1) and (2).
Since (1) goes on indefinitely, it is not possible to speak of it as having any object—certainly it has no such object as that of the SPGB. The main reason for not making an object out of prosecuting (1) is that it diverts us from (2) ; whereas of we concern ourselves only with (2) we are doing the best that can be done about (1). In other words, working to get rid of the boss is the best way of fighting him. He is not worried about (1)—he can handle that all right—but once
attention is concentrated on (2) he's had it.
14.5.1 SOCIALISM A CLASS ISSUE?
It will be said that, in arguing as above, I refuse to see the relationship between (1) and (2). My answer to this is that as a socialist I am concerned primarily with (2).
The ideas of the participants in (1) are not necessarily socialist. True, socialists and non-socialists alike are involved in (1), but it is only in reference to (2) that they are distinguished from each other. Each side participating in (1) " recognises " the other side, and frames its actions on the assumption that class society will continue. A striking example of this was given by Walter Stevens, E.T.U. secretary, who went out of his way to state that " we don't .want the employers' association to disintegrate." This pinpoints the difference between trade union ideas and socialist ideas—since the latter ARE aimed at the disintegration of the employers' associations and hence of the workers' associations also.
There is no doubt about who's who in class struggle (1). Workers are on one side and capitalists on the other. Let us be equally clear about who's who in class struggle (2). On the one side are those who want and work for Socialism, and they are opposed by all others. This latter division cuts across all other divisions. A worker comes into the SPGB, not as a worker, but as a socialist. A capitalist stays outside, not because he is a capitalist, but because he is not a socialist—en the other hand, another capitalist comes in because he is a socialist.
The function of the SPGB is SOLELY to express the interests of socialists. No justification for this statement is needed other than our much-misunderstood " hostility clause," which simply means that we are opposed to all organisations whose object conflicts with ours. There are, however, a number of further reasons for taking up this position :

1The strength of the Party depend-upon the energies of its members-The more these energies are diverted to the day-to-day struggle, the less i s available for propagating Socialism.
2There is a danger in "broadenir our case to achieve objects other than Socialism. If, for example, we have a special message for trade unoinists, then we may attract people into the Party, who join because they agree with this message and not necessarily with the Party's object, which they may relegate to the future (as some members do now).
3We invite misunderstanding if allow ourselves to be diverted fron advocating Socialism. If our " policy " on strikes, for instance, attacked, then the audience may associate their acceptance or rejection of this policy with acceptance or rejection of the case for Socialism.
14.5.2 TRADE UNIONISM
We turn now from the general question of class struggle to the particular one of trade unionism. There has been nothing in Forum about this since Waters' contribution in October, 1952. In that article he quoted an ex-member's statement that the Party had an attitude to things but not a policy. The ex-member's point was a good one. If the Party says it has an attitude to something in theory, then it is expected to have a policy in practice. That is why I have come to the conclusion that it is better for the Party to explain, rather than have an attitude towards, features of Capitalism. When someone asks "what's your attitude to this?" " what's your policy on that ? " he usually wants our support for this or that —and Socialism doesn't really come into it. And if he gets our verbal support, he will feel justified in asking for tangible evidence of it. If the Party supp striking workers, for example, then why shouldn't it contribute to strike fund? The view that the Party's policy concerns only Socialism is an extreme one —though it must be remembered that only the extreme view is destined to prevail. Where members confuse themselves (and others) is that they think the Party must have an attitude of either support or opposition to everything. If some of us say that we cannot agree that the Party should support strikes, that doesn't mean that we think it should oppose them. What we oppose is the system that gives rise to strikes. Statements such as we support trade union activity that is genuinely in the interests of the working class (S.S., July, 1952) are made as a sop to those who clamour for a positive attitude to the day-to-day struggle, but who are negative about Socialism. Members, by contrast, should be positive about -Socialism, and need not be embarrassed in saying " the Party does not support trade union activity, neither does it oppose it."
The only thing the SPGB should advocate is Socialism, and nothing should be allowed to overshadow this object. Thus in " Questions of the Day " we find the following statement on trade unionism (p. 37) :—
"The SPGB, while recommending trade unionists to offer their utmost resistance to the worsening of conditions, never fails to point out that under Capitalism the pressure upon the workers is inevitable. It is insufficient, therefore, merely to apply the brake to these worsening conditions. The system that gives rise to them must be abolished."
The' recommendation—a rather gratuitous one—to trade unionists is in the subsidiary clause, and the emphasis is correctly laid on the object of the Party. By contrast, however, the editorial on "The Strikes in France " (Sept. S.S.) does not do this :—
"The real tragedy of the trade union movement in France and in the world generally is that most trade unionists allow themselves to be diverted from single-minded concentration on working class unity because of their attachment to nationalism and to support of one or other forms of Government of Capitalism." and, in the final paragraph :—
"It is of great importance, especially in a more or less general strike, that there should be common action not only to come out on strike but to go back as a united body."
The objection to these statements is not so much to what is said as to what is left unsaid. The above, and a further reference to " world working class unity " make no mention of what this unity should be for. The real tragedy of the trade union movement, as far as socialists are concerned, is that it has got nothing to do with the socialist movement, and I don't see what is to be gained by pretending otherwise. The following commentary on trade unionism in America, by Krech and Crutchfield, illustrates my point:—
"The care taken by labor unions to assign a maintenance crew to keep furnaces and pumps in working order during a strike or the cases where labor unions make money loans to employers in order to tide
them over temporary economic difficulties or the instances where labor unions and industry both support the same tariff legislation—all testify dramatically to labor's concern for maintaining the status quo. Labor may regard management as class conscious ; management may regard labor as class conscious, but neither labour itself but neither labor itself nor management itself is radical or Fascist in the sense of wanting to make fundamental changes in the economic pattern of the country. The militant striking worker will usually reject, with honest and righteous indignation, the proferred helping hand of the radical. Such group feelings as may exist: among members of a given union are usually centered around immediate and specified objectives and very rarely around a ' revolutionary program and purpose.' "
(Theory and Problems of Social Psychology, p. 556.)
For "management" read "the capitalists " and for "radical " read " socialist and you have quite a fair statement of the position. By all means, therefore, let the Party explain the class struggle that goes on within Capitalism. But when ever its speakers and writers find themselves talking about conditions that they say " should be " (as in the editorial on strikes) let them never forget that these are socialist conditions.
S.R.P.
14.6 SOCIALISM, VIOLENCE AND AUTHORITY
S.R.P. (Sept. Forum) asks: What is the Party's attitude to the use of violence in connection with the establishment of socialism ?
Karl Marx once stated that a revolutionary party' does not make a revolution. A revolution occurs _ when an old society is pregnant with the new; a revolutionary party is only the midwife. This wise remark is just as true of a socialist revolution, which Marx never saw, as of' social revolutions of which he knew so much.
A socialist majority in Parliament, elected for Socialism alone, will have very opportunity for giving this" socialist child an independent existence. The initial steps are three in number :
1 Arrangements for supplying every one with the essentials of life with out the necessity of money. These arrangements determined by the then prevailing conditions, will have been already formulated.
2 Requisitioning the powers of production. This step, a logical corollary of the first, automatically extinguishes the capitalist class as an economic category.
3 Abolition of money and its allied instruments. The abolition of money means the abolition of buying and selling, which means the cessation of stealing. No one steals the things he needs if he is adequately supplied through legitimate channels; no one steals the things he does not need if he cannot sell them. Also, any hoard of money in the possession of an ex-capitalist will be useless for buying the services of any individual to throw any kind of spanner into the works.
These three initial steps should be taken immediately a socialist party achieves political power.
* * *
An intelligent capitalist, seeing a socialist majority in the House of Commons, will accept the inevitable and behave himself. Unfortunately, the capitalist class is not very intelligent as a class, even if it does have some intelligent individuals in it. Attempts at sabotage by
dispossessed and short-sighted indivi duals might well occur here and there I will be very surprising if they do not) but such individuals will have only their own energies and small-scale weapons. Long before the Socialist Party was born, or even Karl Marx was heard of society developed within itself all necessary forces for " keeping the peace"" They are:
4. A police force with very wide powers for maintaining public order, even to the extent of calling upon the nearest military depot for assistance.
5. Magistrates' courts, prisons, lunatic asylums; and there has lately been added the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, under which, if certain conditions fulfilled, a person convicted can be certified as insane.
Electing a socialist party for Socialism merely authorises that party establish the common ownership and democratic control of the means of for the benefit of all, and does not necessarily authorise the party to disband immediately those forces which has built up for maintaing the peace,nor to repeal those laws under which those forces act. The Party's attitude on this matter is well summed up in the Declaration of Principles, which speaks of converting those forces from instruments of oppression to agents of emancipation, not of immediately disbanding them. The emergencies of childbirth know only one law—anything is right if it saves life.
-Police, magistrates and prison officials are people intelligent enough to safeguard themselves by doing just their duty and always obeying the last order without bothering about changes in the House of Commons. They all know that the House of Commons is representative of the community as a whole, and they all know that the community as a whole is a very powerful thing. Any laxity in their part can soon be dealt with by means which already exist; if there is no laxity they can be left alone.
When Socialism is well under way and there is a big drop in the incidence of crime, it will be the time to find new uses for redundant magistrates and empty prisons. There is, of course, nothing to stop a Socialist Home Secretary from reviewing the cases of those sentenced under Capitalism and, where it appears that the delinquent is solely a victim of Capitalism, release him forthwith, and give him a fair chance. To be humane when it can be afforded, without being humane when it cannot be afforded, is a very good watchword for those who have powerful forces at their disposal.
14.6.1 AUTHORITY
Engels' essay " On Authority," which S.W. London Branch wishes discussed in Forum, arose from his meeting, to quote his own words, a number of socialists who had launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. In this essay Engels defines authority as " the imposition of the will of another upon ours,'' and, after examining the social arrangements, demonstrates that there must be some sort of authority in any organisation, and comes down hard on to anti-authoritarians.
The views expressed by Engels are sound enough, but he overlooks one vital joint. Subordinating ourselves to the will of another for the good of all, ourselves included, is one thing; but subordinating ourselves to the will of another for his aggrandisement and our disadvantage is mother entirely. I have yet to meet a • erson crusading against the principle of authority, though I have met many who have raged against a particular authority in a particular set of circumstances.
The man who rejects all authority all we time may be expressing an unconscious desire to exercise his own judg-
ment or some creative talent, either or I) )th of which may have been suppressed too 1 ng by an overbearing authority. One often meets an individual who is a far better asset to the community for being left alone.
Nevertheless, when a number of people are organised for any one purpose, rules are imperative, more so if they are or organised for more than one purpose. Such rules inevitably impose specified responsibilities upon particular individuals.
Where there is a responsibility there must also be an authority for discharging it.
The millions who will be organised in the future Socialist Society of Great Britain, a very complex society, will not dispense with rules ; nor will these millions legislate on the thousand and one little matters constantly arising. They will do much as they do today. They will elect 600 gentlemen to the House of Commons but, in this case, charged with the responsibility of organising production and distribution for the benefit of all, which responsibility involves the authority to enact such laws as changing conditions warrant.
If a particular set of conditions is likely to vary suddenly in unf reseen ways, the House of Commons will legislate on general lines and delegate the responsibility of dealing with these variations to the appropriate Minister, who will discharge his responsibilities by Ministerial Order, leaving the House to sit back and collect the growls which come up the usual pipeline- just as things are done today. A very good illustration is the rationing laws of the last 14 years; Ministerial Orders (a few hundreds) all arising from the Minister having delegated to him the responsibility of "maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community." Ministers have much responsibility delegated to them, and a great deal of that is delegated still further, all of which is inevitable in any complex society.
* * *
There is nothing wrong with the political machinery of today except that it is in the hands of the capitalist class and is used for capitalist purposes. The same machinery, by knocking off a few chunks here (the Lords and Monarchy, for example) and adding a chunk or two there (a Ministry of Production and Ministry of Fine Arts, for example) will do very well for a socialist commonwealth.
Even under Socialism there will have to be a constant collaboration between the executives of production, of transport and of supply, to whose collective decisions those who frame timetables will have to confirm. Then the driver of a goods train will have to conform to a timetable he has probably not had a voice in preparing—but he may be thankfu1, not sorrowful, at not having a voice.
The smooth running of a railway depends, not on the democratic votes of those who know nothing of the job, but on a few people, who have specialised knowledge and executive ability, pointed by a Minister who is appointed by Parliament and answerable to Parliament.
However, under Socialism there will room for advisory committees made up of representatives of different groups whose interests are affected, who meet executive authorities and advise where there is a choice of decisions, just what decision is acceptable to most: the representatives first meeting and ironing out differences among themselves.
Then what about the emergencies of life? A socialist society will not, because it is a socialist society, be free from railway accidents, colliery disasters, outbreaks of fire, shipwrecks at sea and other emergencies which threaten and call for teamwork. Time being the all-important factor, these things not leave much room for general debate but, instead, will call for prompt decisions from one man (the most experienced is usually the leader) and equally prompt compliance from the rest of the team.
Those charged with responsibilities of the common good must have the right issue instructions necessary, and only as far as is necessary, for the discharge of those responsibilities, and they are entitled to have those instructions obeyed. But there ought not to be any author beyond what is necessary for the common good. This will leave each one to the sole arbiter of his own sentiments a how they are to be shaped: while those with any creative talent should have room for self-expression, and room to be left alone if they so wish.
E. CARNELL.
14.7 WRITERS AND PROPAGANDA
Assuming that we are seriously concerned with the reorganisation of Party propaganda, we cannot leave the subject without turning our attention to writers and writing.
The complaints about writers are slightly different from those regarding speakers. According to the Editorial Committee the difficulty is not so much question of shortage as of quality. As with the question of speakers I would suggest that the fault lies not only with contributors, but also with the machinery set up by the Party to deal with them. Members of the Party who do not write and have not attended writers' classes do not appreciate the difficulties that confront writers who wish to contribute to the Socialist Standard.
Undoubtedly the Editorial Committee receives articles which are unsuitable for publication (as do all editorial bodies) but we have only the view of the Editorial Committee that these articles are unsuitable. I am not the only member who is critical of the methods adopted by them.
I suggest that if the Editorial Committee complains that it lacks articles suitable for publication it very largely has only itself to blame.
As the reader may already suspect, I am a malcontent who has frequently fallen foul of the Editorial Committee's restrictions. It may be due to my lack of knowledge, or lack of ability, or a combination of both. On the other hand, it may be due to a peculiar dogmatism for which the Editorial Committee is noted. It is a formidable body, and for a member to question its decisions is somewhat on a par with a Roman Catholic setting a booby-trap for the Pope. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that the Party is losing valuable propaganda material through insufficient control over its own Editorial Committee.
It is not only obscure writers who clash with the Editorial Committee. One writer in particular, whose knowledge and skill are beyond doubt and whose initials are well-known in the Socialist Standard, maintained a feud with the Editorial Committee for a considerable period because they would not accept an article under a particular title.
About three years ago, as a result of reading a newspaper report on a religious conference, I dashed off an article because I considered it to be important whilst the matter was still fresh in the public mind. The Editorial Committee on receipt of the article, placed it in cold storage for twelve months before publication, with the result that it was no longer topical. Topicality, you may remember, is one of the things upon which the Editorial Committee places considerable importance.
There is another discouraging aspect of the Committee's desire for perfection —the question of style. Every writer has, or should have, his own individual style. One cannot disagree with the Editorial Committee's insistence upon accuracy of information and reasonable English and composition, but it makes an attempt to eliminate, the writer's own style. He is told in the writers' class not to be humorous. Humour is frowned upon, particularly satire. The worker does not appreciate humour. He is humourless. He is regarded, apparently, as a grim and dull person immersed in his wage slavery.
My experience of non-socialist workers is completely different. They are just as appreciative of humour as anyone else. It is just possible that other members of the Party have a greater experience of the working class than that of the Editorial Committee, who appear to be an insular body, completely cut off from those people of whose appreciations they seem to have such a low opinion.
* * *
However enthusiastic a socialist may be there are very few who like economics. It is a dull and depressing subject which, unfortunately, must be studied and explained. If a writer can introduce a little satire into his explanations it is a great aid to digestion and improves the flavour.
At nearly every Annual Conference the same questions are put to the Editorial Committee in regard to the quality of articles in the Socialist Standard, and the answers are always accepted without much opposition. A non-Party listener at Conference might be excused for assuming that the Editorial Committee formulates the Party policy.
I return to my own experience again to illustrate another disagreement with the Committee's technique. I wrote an article during the war which showed the similarity between German and Allied propaganda, well laced with quotations from British and German newspapers. The article, although considered good, was turned down because the Committee thought that publication would prove dangerous to the continued activity of the Party. It seems that we must always forego the publicity that we so urgently require in order that we may not tread too heavily on the toes of the capitalist class.
Perhaps it would he a good thing if we did get into trouble occasionally. we could not incur the law's displeasure without a certain amount of commotion and if the cause of our chastisement were accurately stated we would gain rather than lose.
One cannot dispute the fact that the Editorial Committee carries out an arduous task very efficiently, but the extremely conservative policy which Party allows them to pursue is discouraging to writers and does not help accelerate our growth.
LOUIS COX
14.7.1 Reply By S.S. Ed. Comm
According to his opening paragraph Comrade Cox set out to show that, if the quality of articles submitted to the Editorial Committee is not what it should be, "the fault lies not only with contributors, but also with the machinery set up by the Party to deal with them. '
In view of this we were entitled to expect that Comrade Cox would try to be helpful by first showing that he had done his best to make use of the present machinery before becoming convinced that it is faulty, and that he would suggest some alteration to the machinery that would put the matter right.
But, reading on, we find neither these things. Instead, we get instance after instance to show that Comrade Cox never tried to make use of the prescribed machinery—indeed, he appears to not know what it is—and there is no further reference to the machinery and no mention whatever of any suggested alteration; that aspect seems to have been entirely forgotten.
He tells us that when the Editorial Committee rejects articles as unsuitable "we have only the view of the Editorial Committee that these articles are unsuitable." This is, of course, quite inaccurate. A member whose article is rejected and who is not satisfied with the reasons given by the Editorial Committee can write to the Committee and say so or can meet it and discuss the matter if he is still dissatisfied he can raise matter with the E.C.
Other writers do this, but not Comrade Cox. Or, to be more accurate whereas other writers ask for further explanation or make their complaint at the only time when it is useful to do so i.e. when the rejection takes place
Comrade Cox waits for 5 or 10 years by which time all the circumstances are likely to have been forgotten and the documents destroyed.
Also, other writers make their own complaints and tell us what it is they are complaining about, but Comrade Cox solemnly presents for consideration an article by an unnamed writer, written at a date not stated, with a title that is not dsclosed, and says that it was held up because of disagreement about the title. What is the Editorial Committee supposed to make of this ? We are then told about an article by Comrade Cox on religion that was, so he says, held up for 12 months, although it was topical. The article in question appears to be one published 5 years ago (September 1948). Why did not Comrade Cox ask for an explanation at the time ? There could have been various explanations ; but how are we to remember now what they were ? Good articles sometimes have to be left out because they are too long or too short to fit into the space available. Poorish but passable articles may be left out for months because there are better ones available; then a month may come when we have nothing else and must use them.
This kind of thing is very disappointing to writers but it is unavoidable. Incidentally, Comrade Cox has perhaps forgotten one point. He thinks that his article ought to have had priority over some other article, his to go in and that to come out. It is possible that the other writer might not see eye to eye with Comrade Cox, and whichever way the Editorial Committee decided the question, someone might not like it. Comrade Cox thinks his article deserved priority because it was " topical " ; but he has the wrong idea of what makes for topical importance. If some event happens that arouses keen and widespread interest, it may be important that the S.S. should have something to say about it in the next issue. But Comrade Cox's article dealt with an event that attracted only small and passing attention. It was about a newspaper's account a report on discipline in post-war factories. published by the Church of England Youth Society.
Comrade Cox tells us that at the writers' class the student is told "not to be humorous. Humour is frowned upon,
particularly satire. The worker does not appreciate humour. He is humourless. He is regarded, apparently, as a grim and dull person completely immersed in wage slavery."
We do not know whether Comrade Cox thinks he heard this at a writers' class or has been told that someone else heard it. Either way it is a masterpiece of muddle and misinformation. What is actually impressed on beginners is that they should concentrate first on putting over what they have to say accurately and in simple straightforward English and leave the difficulties of humour until later on. This advice is based on experience of many terrible, allegedly humorous articles received from new writers.
Humorous articles from writers who know how to handle them are welcome and have repeatedly been asked for by the Editorial Committee. Comrade Cox's account of the Editorial Committee's views of humorous articles is therefore a completely fictitious one, so we do not need to waste space replying to his further observations on that question.
However, he also refers particularly to satire. Here we are on different ground, one about which. Comrade Cox evidently has no experience. Not only in the " S.S." but in most journals subtly ironical remarks almost always manage to get themselves misunderstood by a number of readers. Any competent journalist or editor would confirm this.
It may be said that no particular harm is done by such misunderstanding, and this is often true, but in theoretical articles where the reader requires to concentrate and wants to be certain of the precise meaning of every word, subtleties of phrasing may defeat the object of the writer, which is to be understood without ambiguity.
If Comrade Cox doubts our statement about ironical phrases being misunderstood he might recall a very recent letter from a branch to the E.C., asking for an explanation of a sentence in the August 1953 " S.S." He will no doubt have seen this in E.C. Minutes.
Lastly, Comrade Cox, diligently pursuing his determined effort to show how little he knows about the machinery he criticises, takes the Editorial Committee to task for not publishing something that might get the Party into trouble. Perhaps," he writes, " it would be a good thing if we did get into trouble occasionally." It would, he says, cause a commotion and would be a gain rather than a loss to the Party.
We can assure Comrade Cox that it would be very easy indeed to get into trouble. What with wartime defence regulations and libel and contempt of court it could easily be arranged for the S-S. be suppressed in war-time, and for the Party now to have to foot big bills foi libel damages.
But what has Comrade Cox's personal preference for this course of action to do with his complaint that the machinery for handling articles is faulty ? In avoiding such trouble the Editorial Committee is acting on the instructions of the E.C, backed up by Conference decisions. Comrade Cox may think those decisions wrong but then his task should be to get them altered, not to complain because they are carried out.
If we may add a word in conclusion it is to refer to a legitimate complaint Comrade Cox could have made but didn't - that is the long delay that sometime takes place in returning articles. It happens partly because the Editorial Committee must give priority to the current work of getting the " S.S." out. Re-reading rejected articles, in order to draw up a statement of explanation, takes time and must often be allowed to get into arrears. Secondly, some articles are not rejected out-of-hand but are kept because they may be used in later months if occasion arises.

14.8 TALAKWA OF THE WORLD - UNITE
Before leaving London, Mallam Zukogi was invited to address the annual Summer School of the Independent Labour Party meeting at Exeter University College.
The Declaration of Principles which forms the aims and objects of the Northern Elements Progressive Union is considered the most dynamic of all the political organisations operating in the Northern Region of Nigeria.
It declares: "1. That the shocking state of social order as at present existing in Northern Nigeria is due to nothing but the ' family compact ' rule of the so-called Native Administration in their present form. "2. That owing to this unscrupulous and vicious system of administration by the family compact rulers, there is today in our society an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between the members of that vicious circle of Native Administrations on the one hand and the ordinary ' Talakwa ' peasants) on the other.
14.8.1 CLARION CALL
"3. That this antagonism can be a abolished only by the emancipation of the Talakwa (peasants) from the domination of these conduits, by the reform of the present political institutions into democratic institutions.
"4. That this needed reform must be the work of the peasants.
"5. That the NEPU calls upon all sons and daughters of Northern Nigeria to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to this vicious system of administration which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty-may give place to comfort, privilege equality, and political, social and economic slavery to freedom,"' concludes the manifesto of the Northern Elements Progressive Union.
—West African Pilot. 9.9.53

15. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
15
DECEMBER 1953

15.1 CLASS STRUGGLE & THE S.P.G.B
The men who couldn't quite
We have always been ready to tell our audiences that, whether they like it or not, there is a class struggle going on and that they are in the thick of it—either as workers or capitalists, or whatever they are pleased to call themselves.
In order to make the position clear (at least to ourselves) we have insisted that they fall into the categories that we have drawn up—again whether they like it or not. This article is an attempt to show that the SPGB, as a Party of propagandists who are trying to enlist the aid of the whole of mankind to change the basis of present society, should in its propaganda not participate in this class struggle.
It would seem that a myth has been nurtured within our ranks that, because the SPGB is composed of workers, our attitude should be one of the so-called Left Wing type. Let it be said that the SPGB is opposed to the capitalist class and there is no comment forthcoming. But let it be even hinted that we are also opposed to the working class—what then!
Why should this be so? Are we not seeking a new society? Do we not make the most critical indictment of the present one? Do we not deplore the fact that class struggle is inevitable under Capitalism and desire to end it? Why, then, do we insist in our propaganda that we represent the true interests of the workers as a class?
It is patently clear that the true interests of anybody within Capitalism are to acquire property. To disdain this first law of capitalist society is to ignore the very struggle for existence and privilege, since everyone must accept, willingly or not, the terms of reference with which the whole of society is aligned. The man in the street, to whom we address ourselves, prosecutes this struggle daily—so must we all. But to advocate a new society, a classless society, and then to foster a leaning towards one of the classes in the present one is, to say the least, rather absurd.
There is no gainsaying that we must, as workers, engage in the class struggle—but what has that to do with our propaganda as a Party? Socialism is in the interest of everyone; we have said it again and again. If the wording of our Object—" by and in the interest of the whole community "—does not make it clear, then in " Questions of the Day " we state (p. 9) that " social affairs of all kinds will be administered with the full participation of all for the mutual benefit of all." But maybe these things are not so apparent in our spoken word.
What is it that leads the newcomer to our case to confuse us with the Communist Party? What is it that makes the new listener suspect us of " sour grapes "? And, what is more important, what is it that often makes a speaker say he is a socialist because he " is not a member of the capitalist class," or " if I were a capitalist I should behave and think as such, but, being a worker, I behave and think thus . . . " ?
This may have a great effect on a member or sympathiser of the Communist Party, but I suggest that it is not the stuff that makes socialists. For us, the class struggle belongs to Capitalism, and the immediate job is to convince people of the benefits of Socialism, the need to assist in propagating the idea of it, and hence its eventual establishment.
Does our propaganda at present achieve this response from people ? The record of our activities shows that it does not.
The reason is perhaps to be found in the history of the Party and the lines upon which the Declaration of Principles decides it shall run. And—a very important factor—the interpretation which is placed on these principles. It is often said that they are explicit and that whenever we refer to them we shall find a sure guide. Unhappily, they are very often recoursed to in order to justify some action, not to facilitate the establishment of Socialism, but to grind a working class axe. Indeed, it would seem at times that the D. of P. is taken as something apart from our Object instead of in conjunction with it.
Because there are two classes in society and we must all belong to one or the other, it does not follow that we must speak in a manner that, by implication, excludes one or the other from understanding and agreeing with our ideas. Certainly the workers represent the large majority of people in the leading capitalist countries; certainly we shall address mainly workers. But if a note of exclusion is allowed to enter into our deliberations it will, if permitted to go unchecked, taint the whole of what we wish to say. Remember that the society we desire excludes nobody. It is too easy to detect in our propaganda that, far from advocating Socialism, the SPGB is the Champion of Working Class Interests, the custodians of Working Class Future, and the only real hater of the capitalist class. Yet only the latter statement is a correct one—and even that is only half the picture. The SPGB is the only real hater of all classes.
We have, during the past few years, been witnessing a lively controversy within the Party about why we do not get down to the task of formulating a general statement in reply to the question " What will Socialism be like? " Why has this controversy come about ? The two warring factions in the matter are those who want to say what it will be like (and who seek the sanction of the membership to speak and write accordingly) and those who consider that to deal with Socialism as a concrete subject would be something akin to fortune-telling and (horror of horrors) " unscientific."
But, in this striving to do everything according to the book of rules, it seems that we can at times be very unscientific. So it would not be out of place to consider what we mean when we say we are "scientific socialists."What do we say and do, and what have we said and done in the past, that can be said to se scientific? Have we made any great discoveries in social science? That much hard work has been done there can be no doubt. But to what purpose ?
Our sole aim is to arouse support and desire for socialism, and yet our efforts, at every turn, have been bent on a castigation of the present condition of human society, which, whilst our labours have been monumental, has been done in excellent style elsewhere and previously, and prior to Karl Marx. On every hand we can, and do, quote reliable authorities—indeed, we could be quite lost without them. But what of our objective?
Very often we have set out to give a scientific exposition of modern Capitalism and have blinded ourselves with somebody else's science. It is a sad reflection that, so threadbare do we consider our objective, we perforce seek to justify our political existence by laying on the misery thicker and heavier. In all this, never one word about the thing we desire. Never does it sound inviting or attractive; in fact, it appears that some of us deplore the idea that our Socialism is desirable—instead it must be necessary. And yet it is essential that what we propose is desirable.
Why is it necessary for propagandists to continue to deliver a criticism of the present system to the exclusion of putting the case for and about Socialism? Could it be that we consider our desires are " personal " and anything that touches upon our desires is purely emotional and therefore " unscientific "?
Surely we must consider what ingredients go to make a man. The emotions are part and parcel of the whole, and propertied society has done much to make man withdraw into himself. Today the show of emotion is a sign of weakness; it is the chink in our armour whereby our adversaries may gain advantage over us. It is the outcome of society with a property basis.
The acquisition of property overrides all other considerations, even those of our so-called " private lives," a phrase which is commonly used but rarely dissected and investigated. We understand that " private lives " have nothing to do with the outside world, yet we insist that all production and what springs from it is social and on a world-wide scale—so that in reality we are trying to proceed on what may excusably be called a " popular misconception." On the one hand we advocate a free society, and on the other we participate in actions which mean the continuance of ciass society. We advocate Socialism and prosecute the class struggle —a position which is at the same time difficult because it is contradictory and impossible because it is two positions.
We, who are opposed to the enormous breach in society, try to put an end to it by coming down on one particular side—the working-class side. This is as much a barrier to the propagation of socialist ideas as the ideas of the lordly ones, " our masters. Both the working class and the capitalist class are the bane of the socialist. Since we are out to abolish both economic categories, why support either? We want Socialism. Why do we not get up on the platform and explain this? Because it is " unscientific "? What utter nonsense! We are as that Socialism is desirable. What on earth prevents us from saying what it is we think desirable?
Moreover, what prevents us from getting down to the task of formulating what we consider Socialism will be like? Too much like hard work? Maybe, but that is the task that is incumbent upon us—after all, we are the people who want it. It is well past the time when questions such as " Why don't you co-operate with the Communist Party (Labour Party)? " should no longer be put to the platform. It is undeniably clear that our attitude to our own personal position in regard to propaganda inspires this question; predominantly we are in the state which dictates that as workers we put our own problems first and consideration of Socialism second. As socialists we are, and must be opposed to the class struggle, no matter what our status in society is. To attempt to prosecute it through socialist propaganda will be fatal to the spread of socialist ideas.
A.A.N.
15.2 IS PARLIAMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF EMANCIPATION?
What should be the Party's attitude towards the ballot box? Is it necessary for a socialist majority to capture the machinery of government in order to achieve the social revolution? Is our attitude in line with Marx, Engels, Morris and the other pioneers of socialist thought?
During the last hundred or so years, working men and women have spent much time and energy discussing the pros and cons of the ballot, universal suffrage and Parliament as a means of emacipation. During the early and middle part of the last century, socialist pioneers—both Utopian and scientific—do not seem to have given much thought to the subject. But non-and anti-socialists had for some time stated their views on whether the working class should participate in elections and stand for Parliament.
In this country, as early as 1837, the London Working Men's Association put forward a
6-point " People's Charter," which included Universal Manhood Suffrage (1), Vote by Ballot (3), Payment to Members (4) and Abolition of Property Qualifications (5). The Chartist Movement sent three petitions to the House of Commons (1839, 1842 and 1848). Although it was not until many years after that the workers achieved complete adult franchise, the Chartist Movement kept the idea of the ballot and Parliament to the fore in working class politics.
Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of gaining control of Parliament, the workers of this country have had during the last hundred years a tremendous fight for the right of expressing themselves . through the ballot, do say, as do the Anarchists, that the ballot and the right to send workers' representatives to Parliament is only a " bourgeois institution " is a complete travesty of the facts. That it is now
part and parcel of Capitalism no one denies-at least in this country.
15.2.1 MARX AND ENGELS
In his introduction to Marx's Class Struggles in France," and, to a lesser extent in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State," Engels puts clearly his attitude on the subject.
..
After admitting that he and Marx under the spell of the French bourgeoise revolution of 1789, and that they considered that the methods of social revolution by the proletariat would be similar in 1848 and after, Engels' says that history proved them wrong—that the views they held at the time were an illusion.

" The mode of struggle,'he writes, '" of 1848 is to-day obsolete from every point of view, and this is a point which deserves closer examination." The days of the barricade, of street ranting, were over. The power of the bourgeois state became greater with the development of Capitalism. The workers, armed with stones, bricks and small arms, were powerless against the police and the military.
Engels also saw that a socialist system of society based on harmony and co-operative planning could not be established by these methods. In the " Communist Manifesto," Marx and Engels pointed out that " all previous historical movements were movements of minorities or in the interests of minorities,'' whereas "" the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the majority, in the interest of the immense majority." But they did not at the time take this anti-Blanquist, anti-leadership idea to its logical conclusion—a democratic, non-violent and conscious revolution by the " immense majority." This was left to Engels to develop in his introduction to '" Class Struggles in France."
15.2.2 MINORITY AND MAJORITY REVOLUTIONS
In this introduction, the Leninist and Trotskyist arguments of armed insurrection, heavy civil war, and a coup d'etat during a revolutionary period by a class-conscious proletarian vanguard " leading the masses, are answered in advance by Engels. He proves to all who care to read it that the ideas of minority action advocated by the various Communist and Anarchist schools of thought are anti-socialist, and do not .sad to the emancipation of the workers and society as a whole. He shows that all previous revolutions (before 1895:—and we may include up to the present time) resulted in the displacement of one ruling class by another. On every occasion the minority who took power either received the active support of the majority (the workers and peasants) or the masses passively acquiesced in the rule of the revolutionary minority.
" Even where the majority took part, it did so—whether wittingly or not—only in the service of a minority; but because of this, or simply because of the passive, unresisting attitude of the majority, this minority acquired the appearance of being the representative of the whole people.'' (p. 15.) Classical examples of this are the English Revolution (1642-1660) with the overthrow of me English feudal aristocracy and the absolute monarchy, and the rise of the bourgeoisie; the French Revolution ( 1789) ; the various revolutions in Europe during the last century; the two Russian Revolutions (February and October, 1917); and the Chinese Revolution started by Sun Yat Sen (1911) and completed by Mao Tse Tung (1950). In all cases, by various methods (none of them democratic) one ruling class has been ousted by another; and all these revolutions accepted, without question, the idea of leadership (a) by a class, and (b) of leaders within the class.
Generally, after the overthrow of the old social class and the victory of the new ruling clique, the victorious minority became, divided. There was a struggle for power; a Bonapartist reaction set in.
" As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority became divided; one half was pleased with what it had gained, the other wanted to go further and put forward new demands which, to a certain extent at least, were also in the real or apparent interests of the great mass of the people. In individual cases these more radical demands were realised, but often only for a moment; the more moderate party again gained the upper hand ..." (ibid, p. 1 5.)
15.2.3 PARLIAMENT AND UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE
Also in this introduction, Engels says that " we," the " revolutionaries," are thriving (in the German Reichstag) far better on legal methods than on illegal. He points out that in Latin countries the revolutionary workers regarded universal suffrage as a snare, as an instrument of government trickery. We may add that this idea was, and still is, advanced by the Anarchists and Anarcho-syndicalists, who openly admit their support for minority action —action determined by their inability to win over a majority to their point of view.
In an important passage, Engels shows the use that the franchise can be to the working class: —
" And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in the number of votes it increased in equal measure the workers' certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda ; that it accurately informed us concerning our strength and that of all hostile parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion for our action second to none, safeguarding us from untimely tim-
idity as much as from untimely foolhardiness—if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, then it would still have been more than enough. Bui it has done more than this. In election agitation it provided us with a means, second to none, at getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us: of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people ..." (ibid, p. 22.)
" With this successful utilisation of universal suffrage, an entirely new mode of proletarian struggle came into force, and this quickly developed further. It was found that the state institutions, in which the rule of bourgeoisie is organised, offer still further opportunities for the working class to fight in these very state institutions." (ibid, In his " Origin of the Family," Engels writes of the ballot thus: —
. . . the possessing class rules directly by means of universal suffrage. As long as the oppressed class—in our case, therein the proletariat—is not ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognise the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tail of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures toward its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the guage of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modem state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand." (p. 197-8.)
To sum up Engels' position, we can say that he insisted that the working class must emancipate itself; that the socialist revolution must be a majority revolution; that universal suffrage far from being a snare, a " bourgeois : institution," is the only means of gauging the socialist maturity of the working class. But, at the a time, he points out that the ballot will never be anything more. Although he thinks that, at certain times, contesting Parliament is good propaganda, and that socialist representatives in Parliament have another plank on which to propagate their ideas, he does not say that, in order to get control of the state machine and to take over the means of production, it is necessary to capture Parliament.
PETER E. NEWELL. (To be continued.)

15.3 SOCIALISM IS NOTHING LIKE CAPITALISM

Perhaps you think this heading is a statement that must be so, obvious to readers of Forum that it is almost insulting to print it. Nevertheless, working on the assumption that Carnell's ideas (Nov. Forum) are not exclusive to Camell, I think it worth while to comment on them. His whole approach to Socialism, Violence and Authority (and presumably to other aspects of the socialist case) is based on something that the Party has persistently had to clear up in the minds of non-socialists. That fundamental misconception is the one of projecting into the socialist future conditions which are part of Capitalism to-day.
Apparently working from his statement (Oct. Forum) that " no. one yet has any knowledge of Socialism except . . . ", Carnell faces up to the problem of explaining Socialism to non-members. His method is to use as many familiar capitalist landmarks as he can, knocking out some, changing others around a bit, always being careful not to prophesy (except generalities of the " all dwell in abundance " variety) —and painting a picture about as believable as leprechauns and as attractive as leprosy.
" Those forces which society has built up for maintaining the peace," " laxity . . . dealt with by means which already exist," " big drop in the incidence of crime," " Socialist Home Secretary "—what sort of Socialism is this? To me, it sounds like a sort of regurgitated Capitalism. But perhaps Carnell only envisages these things in the early stages of the new society; in which case we are brought to the old problem of means and ends. If the end is an absence of crime, forces for maintaining the peace, etc., and the means are supposed to be the presence of these things, then when do we start work on our end? The fact is that once we have projected Socialism—have got the idea of it, if you like—then we have taken up an extreme position. If " helping to bring Socialism nearer " means anything at all, it means renouncing capitalist ideas and advocating the whole of what we really want—now. To the extent that we narrow our vision to the next step, we are spoiling our chances of getting across to the people that Socialism is a potential new society, and not Capitalism without knobs on.
There is another objection to describing Socialism in terms of the present. Great harm can be done to our case by hedging it round with qualifications and refusing to give up thinking in terms of power. I feel sure that Carnell doesn't really want to act as mentor to erring ex-capitalists, but he gives the impression of being on the look-out to see that others " behave themselves." Also, his approach seems strangely
lacking in social feeling—" anything is right if it saves life," " humane when it can be afforded." These are sentiments which I don't associate with socialists. Perhaps they sound a little too much like " the end justifies the means " of our opportunist opponents. Carnell seems to be so scared of being called Utopian that he concentrates his vision on the initial stages or " lower phase " of Socialism. Yet it is only the " lower phase " which Utopian, since it is an ideal compromise, or bits of Socialism within Capitalism. I would earn estly ask Carnell not to put forward his theories of the change-over as propaganda for Socialism, since they would only invite fruitless discussions about Socialist Home Secretaries, etc.,—and i the process we should lose sight of the nature of our object. Carnell's idea of it may sound more practical to non-socialists than the ideas of other members, but, speaking for myself just isn't what I came into the Party for. ' -" S.R.P.

15.4 EDITORIAL
With a year and a quarter of publication behind it, Forum prepares to go on into yet another year. That most members want it to go on seems fairly clear, despite the occasional — manifestations of apathy, and even opposition. With the membership as a whole behind it, Forum can overcome any technical difficulties in the coming year, as it has done in the past.
If Forum is to cease publication then it won't be because there is no discussion in the Party on topics that are dealt with in its pages : its cessation would mean that the oral discussion would not be committed to paper. We have said before, and we will say again, that the scope of Forum has not yet really been touched—not only the controversial side, but more so the instructive one. By the latter we do not necessarily mean the reproduction of material from other sources, but rather the critical commentary, survey and evaluation of such material in terms of socialist propaganda.
But, of course, it is of little avail to expect members to write freely for Forum if the impression (no matter how indefinite) is given that its contributors are " deviationists " taking time out from propagating Socialism. Here we may stress that effort put into Forum is not at the expense of other Party activity. If no other factor than mathematics entered into the question, then the critics would be right—one hour spent on Forum is not one hour spent on the S.S. But there's more to it than mere mathematics. A greater number of activities (provided they all have relevance to Socialism) doesn't mean less of each but, rather, more, since one has the effect of helping the others.
If Forum has not, in the past, been up to our expectations, then let's try to improve it. As socialists, we distinguish ourselves from other critics of Capitalism by proposing a positive alternative. As critics of the literature we publish, we should also be concerned with positive alternatives. After saying " this is not good enough " we must produce that which is better. Or, to put it another way, if some bad records have been played let's not scrap the gramophone—let's get some better records.

15.5 SOCIALISM AND VIOLENCE
The following statements were originally circulated by the Executive Committee (1948) following the Party meeting on the subject.
" The view of the E.C. is that these statements may prove useful contributions to any branch discussions which may take place."
15.5.1 Statement A—G. McClatchie.
The accepted view on violence, in the working class movement for the past hundred years or so, has been that violence means the wounding. destruction or intimidation of adversaries by the use of guns, bayonets, truncheons, bombs, dynamite, train-wrecking, or the like.
On the use of violence in the course of establishing Socialism I hold the following views : —
1.The means must be in harmony with the end. We are out to establish a system in which harmony will prevail; the use of violence to accomplish this end can only result in achieving something other than the end we are after. Russia provides many illustrations in this direction. Violence is bound to corrupt both the users and those upon whom it is used.
2.One of our main contentions, and one of our most important contributions to socialist theory, is that before Socialism can be achieved the majority of the people must really understand what it signifies and want it. The mass of people always moves as a mass; their understanding progresses at a parallel pace. Socialists are not geniuses or born revolutionists. Here and there, owing to a series of casual circumstances, a few get ahead of the mass understanding, and hence the Party grows by ones and twos. That is all. But all the time the workers as a whole are slowly gaining understanding. One day this understanding will have reached a turning point, and then the workers will come over to our side in a torrent; it will not be a matter of a small or a large majority, but of the working class as a whole. This is the conviction that carries us through the arduous years of struggle and disappointment. How will it be with those who think they are outside the working class movement? As in all previous social movements, those who think they are outside the class immediately concerned cannot escape infection by what is in the air; even some members of the ruling class will be stirred to espouse the new system that is in process of birth. The relatively small number of people that may remain behind will be without the means to do more than impotently rage against the inevitable; the machinery of government will have been taken out of the hands of the ruling class. It is necessary to stress the fact that, while former social movements were movements of minorities in the
interests of minorities, our movement differs from all others in that it is a movement of the great majority in the interest of the whole of society. We have the whole of social progress behind us pushing us on.
3.When the Party was formed, many questions had not yet been thoroughly thrashed out; it could not be otherwise, and this was one of them. The basic ideas of the Party were sound, but the implications still required the enriching and verification of study, experience and discussion. The Party has accomplished a great deal in this direction since 1904, and this has served to root more firmly its fundamental principles. If the Party had not widened and clarified its outlook it would have become moribund, and its members would have lost the capacity for original thought.
4.It has been urged that if the capitalists realise that we are not going to use violence to achieve our end they will use it to suppress us, conscious of the fact that we will not retaliate. It is essential to remember that our conquest of power will not take place in circumstances like the present, when the mass of people are still unreceptive of our main ideas, but in circumstances when the mass has absorbed and accepted our ideas. For reasons already set forth, the ruling class could only use violence before they had lost control of the state machine, and the violence they would try to use could only consist of members of the working class organised in the armed forces, workers who were infected with ideas of the time. Obviously the ruling class would only think of using armed forces against us when we had grown powerful, and then it would be too late; social consciousness will have undergone a development that puts such a prospect out of the picture.
5.It has also been suggested that these are " pacifist " views. This is a mistaken interpretation of " pacifism." " Pacifism " is not a political outlook; it is a moral outlook which its advocates claim is above classes, and which draws its inspiration from religion.
6.Although I now interpret the last few lines of Clause 6 of the Declaration of Principles somewhat differently -from the way the Party did in 1904, I can see no valid reason for changing a single word in them, and I would strenuously oppose any suggestion for doing so.
The ideas expressed here are a point of view; I hope they will be discussed as such without acrimony. My concern is that they shall be discussed. Whether they receive approval or disapproval is not a matter of immediate concern to me; it is sufficient that they shall I thought about.
15.5.2 Statement B—E. Lake.
The nature of Socialism and the means by which it can be established are determined by the conditions of capitalist society.
As the system develops, the political aspect of the class struggle becomes increasingly dominant, expressing itself in the fight for and against the establishment of socialism.
The success of the working class in this conflict depends upon two conditions. First, that there be a majority of class-conscious workers, sufficiently strong not only to overthrow capitalism, but to organise and develop the new-society; second, they must gain control of the state machinery.
Hence the statement in our Declaration of Principles to the effect that the working class must organise politically to gain control of the state machinery, including the armed forces, to convert them from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation, the present dispute turns upon the interpretation of this clause.
If we refer back to the brief statement of the case, based upon an acceptance of the class struggle, it is difficult to see how there can be two opinions on this matter among socialists.
A socialist majority in control of the armed forces will use that control to establish socialism, and the manner in which this is accomplished will depend upon conditions prevailing at the time.
Just how the armed force is used will be of secondary importance. The vital thing is that the socialists must secure control of the state machinery and use it to overcome any obstacle or opposition they may encounter.
The mere fact that the socialists have this control may be sufficient to overcome any opposition. On the other hand, it may be necessary to take more positive action, leading to serious consequences to some of the contestants. In either case there would be no difference in principle. The armed force would have been used to compel an opposing minority to accept the decision of the majority. To attempt to draw a distinction in socialist principle between the two brands one as a pacifist.
If the class struggle means anything at all, it means that there will be a considerable section of the capitalist class hostile to the establishment of socialism. What the strength of this will be and the way it will express itself we have no means of measuring, and any forecast in this respect must of necessity be very speculative.
Equally unknown are other factors which
may influence the course or events. Wars may be in progress or strikes and lock-outs may have disorganised society, to mention only two of many possibilities. It is also reasonable to assume that the reactions of the capitalist class will be affected by the historical and political conditions of their particular country. A land with a long history of civil wars would most probably pass through a more violent upheaval than one with a long period of comparative civil peace and parliamentary government. In an attempt to reduce these unpredictable factors to a negligible quantity we are told that socialism can only be established when practically the whole of society, including the capitalist class, are in agreement for this change. We are also told that the movement will not gradually gain strengih, but that there will be a sudden landslide in favour of socialism, carrying with it practically the whole of society. This may or may not be true, but in any case it is a pure assumption and no evidence has been advanced which supports it.
Although the level of understanding is slowly rising, we must recognise that this understanding is by no means uniform. Large sections of the working class are politically ignorant and reactionary, while others are on the verge of understanding their class position and in sympathy with the movement. Between the two extremes there are many levels of understanding or the lack of it.
The capitalist class are also included in this most remarkable landslide in favour of socialism. Again we look in vain for some evidence to support this statement, the logic of which is the repudiation of the class struggle.
Starting with the assertion that the socialists can on no account use the armed forces against their opponents, our prophets are then driven to eliminate the class struggle in order to bring the exploiters of labour in as supporters of socialism. By this means, apparently, they expect the capitalist class to march to their doom, if not with joy, then in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity.
There is, however, a serious side to this business : the attempt to give a pacifist interpretation to the Declaration of Principles can do much harm and it is up to the members to deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity.
15.6 THE PAPER DREAM CITY
" What is called the ' growth ' of the metropolis is in fact the constant recruitment of a proletariat capable of existing in an environment without natural or cultural resources; people who do without pure air, who do without sound slieep, who do without a cheerful garden or playing space, who do without free motion, spontaneous play, or a robust sexual life. If you wish for a touch of nature in these ' do without ' areas, you must travel in a crowded train to the outskirts of the city. Lacking the means to get out, you succumb : chronic starvation produces lack of appetite. Eventually you may live and die without even recognising the loss . . .
" The Town Dweller lives, not in a real world, but in a shadow world projected around him at every moment by means of paper and celluloid : a world in which he is insulated by glass, rubber, cellophane, from the mortifications of living.
The swish and crackle of paper is the underlying sound of the metropolis. All the major activities are directly connected with paper; and printing and packaging are among its principal industries. The activities pursued in the offices of the metropolis are directly connected with paper: the tabulating machines, the journals, the ledgers, the card-catalogues, the deeds, the contracts, the mortgages; so, too, the prospectus, the advertisement, the magazine, the newspaper. The White Plague, a ravaging flood of paper. As the day's routine proceeds the pile of paper mounts higher : the thrashbaskets are filled and emptied, and filled again. The ticker-tape exudes its quotations of stocks and its reports of news; the students in the schools and Universities fill their notebooks, digest and disgorge the contents of books, as the silkworm feeds on mulberry leaves and manufactures its cocoon, unravelling themselves on examination day. Buildings rise recklessly, often in disregard of ultimate profits, in order to provide an excuse for paper capitalisations and paper rents. In the theatre, in literature, in music, in business, reputations are made)—on paper. The scholar with his degrees and publications, the actress with her newspaper clippings and the financier with his shares and voting proxies, measure their power and importance by the amount of paper they can command. No wonder the anarchists once invented the grim phrase ' Incinerate the documents!
In this metropolitan world, then, is a world where flesh and blood is less real than paper and ink and celluloid. A world where the great masses of people, unable to have direct contact with more satisfying means of living, take life vicariously, as readers, spectators, passive observers ; a world where people watch shadow heroes and heroines in order to forget their own clumsiness or coldness in love, where they behold brutal men crushing out life in a strike riot, a wrestling ring, or a military assault, while they lack the nerve even to resist the petty tyranny of their immediate boss; where they hysterically cheer the flag of their political state, and in their neighbourhood, their trades union, their factory, fail to perform the most elementary duties of citizenship.
"... The acceptance of a day that includes no glimpse of the sun, no taste of the wind, no smell of earth or growing things, no free play of the muscles, no spontaneous pleasure not planned for a week in advance and recorded on a memorandum pad . . .
" For lack of conscious plan, the empire of muddle arose : a maximum opportunity for social conflict and cross-purposes and duplication of effort and a minimum means of achieving collective order ..."
—From " The Culture of the Cities," by Lewis Mumford.
15.7 CORRESPONDENCE
To the Editors. Comrades,
In my view, the reason for the party's failure to become a powerful political influence here and abroad is that no determined, large-scale publicity campaign by modern methods has been carried out. For an organisation claiming to have mastered those ideas essential to the survival of human society, we must count this staggering omission as our gravest, most irresponsible error.
What must be done? Branches and members should demand of the E.C. that a national publicity campaign on modern lines be prepared, to commence as soon as the efficient organisation of it can be ensured.
The execution of this proposal will require a considerable sum of money and therefore it will be necessary to sell that exacting seducer of honest socialists, " Our Shining Citadel." It should be possible with the success of this plan to reorganise the party's activities on the basis of a much larger membership. Failure to carry out this simple, direct step means the continuance of socialists as political incompetents. Yours fraternally,
ROGER.
15.8 PROBLEMS OF PROPAGANDA
2 — The Spoken Word
Outdoor meetings and personal contact are the two outstanding ways in which people first come to hear the socialist case. It is important, therefore, that members should always be studying the techniques involved, with a view to their improvement. Cox (Sept. Forum) has shown that speakers' test graduates are not the same as active espeakers—and perhaps has made it a little easier to debunk a more general proposition. It is not true that one speaker can put the Party case as well as another. Some speakers ars better than others. And they are better because (unlike their less able comrades) they are always concerned with improving themselves as speakers, with correcting the faults in themselves as well as in their audiences.
Some members seem to think that the Party should act on the principle that one speaker is as good as another. " Fair shares of Hyde Park for all " seems to be their motto. Yet really the question has nothing to do with democracy or equal opportunity. To speak on behalf of the Party one is not merely required to be wiling to do so. One must justify one's appointment or place on the rota, by achieving results for the Party. And there are objective standards by which these results may be measured tnst those of other speakers.
All speakers on the outdoor platform are obliged to ask themselves certain questions: “What sort of people am I speaking to? Should I assume that they are interested in Socialism, that they have false ideas which I must clear away, or that they will appreciate a stinging indictment of Capitalism? " The way they answer these questions determines the way they approach their audiences. It is sometimes said that because most people do not hold socialist ideas therefore we ought address our audiences as though they were hostile to our case. This is a colossal blunder. Hostility breeds hostility. Our approach should always assume that if we explain our ideas clearly to people then they will see them as we do. Then the discussion will be on an explanatory rather than a declamatory level. Instead of it being a case of the platform v. the audience, the platform will be more likely to carry the support of the audience in dealing with the objector.
Personal contact is more difficult to analyse, yet its study is of vital importance to the Party at its present stage, when a large proportion of members are introduced by friends in the Party. Individual. face-to-face presentation of propaganda is more effective than if the same arguments are presented to the subject when he is merely one member of a large audience listening to a speaker. That is why it is such a pity to hear members say " I never try to talk about Socialism to my friends or family." One suspects that what they really mean is that they never try to run a propaganda meeting in miniature. Perhaps they have tried to do so and have found it a dead loss.
The forceful, hectoring, sharp-tongued and lecturing techniques that may be appropriate to the platform are out of place in the face-to-face discussion. Other, subtler methods are called for. Small advances in understanding are better than an all-out attack designed to overwhelm the " enemy " by successive waves of socialist ideas.
To mix the metaphor slightly, some of us have become so proficient in storming the fort that we haven't a clue about what to do when the garrison is considering surrender. Having convinced ourselves that we have nothing positive to say about Socialism, we rely upon attacking other ideas—forgetting that there usually comes a time when our inquirer says " O.K., I agree Capitalism is bad. Now tell me what you propose to take its place." Our speaker, embarrassed at having such a delicate subject as the Party's object discussed in public, says " Common ownership, etc." Pressed for more details, he replies with something about the people deciding at the time. Instead of serving to organise and direct effort—something having a meaning now—this lifeless concept of Socialism operates as a compensatory dream, incapable of being transmitted to others except as a dream.
We should remember that, generally speaking, positive suggestion is better than negative. " Thou shall " is more compelling than " Thou shall not." It is seldom wise for a speaker to open up on what Socialism is not, or to volunteer to state the arguments of the opposition. This only plants in the minds of the audience competing and negative ideas which they must overcome before they accept Socialism. Put your positive case—and then let your opponents put theirs in their own words.
One of the first tasks of the propagandist is to find the common ground that he and his audiences share—to minimise disagreements and to emphasise the area of agreement. If the speaker gives the impression of a feeling of superiority, the audience will react unfavourably; if he is less than scrupulously fair to the opposition, his motives will be questioned; but if he strikes a true common ground and genuinely develops his arguments in terms of it, he will win agreement.
Here I would stress in terms of it. Never copy the mob-leader's device of appearing as " just one of the boys." No SPGB speaker is obliged to identify himself with any group. Horny-handed sons of toil don't make socialists any better or worse than wide boys do—provided they are both equally good propagandists. Let the subject matter establish the common ground, and not the personal attributes of the speaker. As far as the speaker himself is concerned, he should always relish his work and never look upon it as a duty. If he can't interest himself it is certain that he won't interest his audience. It is helpful to vary the material as much as possible, to dramatise or " spice it up a bit” Finally, it is to be hoped that Cox was; mistaken when he suggested that we can only hope to keep the Party propaganda ticking over until " the next crisis, i.e. mass unemployment." speakers must be singularly inept if the;. handicapped because Capitalism is not bad enough yet.
S.R.P.

16. Forum Internal Journal of the S.P.G.B. - January 1954
No. 16

16.1 REFORMS OR SOCIALISM?
A Criticism of the Election Address
'' S.P.G.B. propaganda is excellent in letting people know what Socialism IS NOT but it is amazingly silent in stating what IT IS."
The Election Address sent out by the Party to some! 26,000 households in North Paddington bears out the validity of this kind of criticism. It commenced with the salutation "Fellow Workers," which must mean that the author wrote as a wage-worker when in fact he should be writing as a Socialist.
The opening is negative: — I make you no promises."
"I am not begging for your vote." My Party does not aim to govern you."
The statement continues to be negative to the end.
Owing to the absence of a positive statement in general terms of what Socialism means, the Election Address could only appeal to workers within the relationship of poverty and riches, i.e., by implication the reader was invited to think that we stood for higher wages, cheaper cost of living, shorter working hours, more and better houses.
The only references to what we suggested people should do were expressed in abstract terms, e.g. : —
1. " There is no solution to be found by tinkering with the effects, this form of society must be dug up by the roots."
2. " Only a complete change in the basis of society can produce a lasting improvement in the lot of the working class."
3. " It is about time we stood on our feet and made some drastic changes in a world that could satisfy our needs with plenty but provides us with plenty of needs."
4. " The fear of unemployment will be with us as long as we remain wage-workers."
5. '-' This ownership must be ended, these things must be converted to the common property of everyone and democratically controlled in the interests of all."
6. " When a Socialist working class decides to reconstruct society in keeping with its own interests by dispossessing the Capitalist class, it must first take into its hands the machinery of government."
What does all this mean? Is this the best the E.C. could turn out for distribution to tens of thousands of people?
1. The first quotation does not mean anything. It is just wind.
2. This is incorrect—a complete change in the basis of society, i.e. from a property basis to everything being held in common, will produce the end of the working class, not " a lasting improvement in the lot of the working class."
3. This can only mean, to a reader who has no knowledge of a socialist alternative to wage-labour, that he or she should become rich.
4. Again, the reader, not being supplied with the socialist alternative, will agree that the wage-worker is in constant fear of unemployment but the capitalist is not; therefore the reader of our election address should strive to become an employer and by doing so escape the fear of unemployment.
5. This is merely a restatement of the object, it is not an explanation.
6. This would seem to be advocating the dictatorship of the proletariat. Seeing that already the election address has told the reader " My Party does not aim to govern you," it would seem reasonable to infer that the working class will be the government—this will appear ludicrous because you can't have a government comprising millions of people.
The election address sets out a fairly detailed criticism of the promises and schemes of the Tory and Labour parties on the grounds that these promises and schemes have either been forgotten or that the cures have not materialised. This kind of criticism, when not accompanied by a description of the Socialist alternative, can only mean that if the reader votes for the Socialist candidate the S.P.G.B. will provide better houses, shorter hours, cheaper living costs, etc.
This is Reformism by implication.
Then there is that part of the Election Address headed "OUR COMMON CAUSE": —
''We are all members of a class that needs to find an employer in order to live. Our problems are identical. We have a common cause."
This shows that the writer of the Election Address was approaching people from the standpoint of the way in which he gets his living, i.e. a wage-worker, when he should be writing as a Socialist to non-Socialists. A wage-worker and a Socialist are not one and the same thing. Wage-working is an economic function : Socialists are people with socialist ideas. The problems of wage-workers and Socialists are not identical because they have different objectives. They have not got a common cause.
Throughout the Election Address there is no clue as to the nature of Socialism—even in the negative sense. The usual statements that any speaker would put forward, such as :
To each according to his needs, etc.;
The world-wide character of Socialism;
That no classes would exist;
That money would not be necessary, nor armies, navies, etc. —are not mentioned. Unless the reader has some knowledge of such points as these, the material contained in the Election Address will be construed to mean that whereas the other parties have failed in housing, reforms, etc., the S.P.G.B. will succeed. This kind of propaganda does not make socialists because it is not propaganda about Socialism. I earnestly request members to read the Election Address in the light of the above criticism, for I am sure that members cannot be satisfied with this kind of propaganda.
This - is not criticism directed against Waters but against the Executive Committee and the general propaganda of the Party. I do hope that branches will take this matter up with the E.C. There are many members who would welcome the opportunity of debating their ideas with the ideas of those members who think that discussion within the party is largely a waste of time and energy, and all that is necessary regarding Socialism has already been written and nothing more need be done except to go on reiterating the object and eight principles.
To those who think that Socialism was defined in 1904 and that is that, it must be pointed out that definitions grow as the horizon of experience expands. Definitions are not inventions but descriptions of the question. Socialism or Social Equality could only be roughly defined in the 19th century; a little clearer in 1904. Today there are some who see clearly that the best arguments in favour of Socialism apply with equal force to all human beings.
The first " Law " of socialist action is to know what you really want and the second —a close corollary—to see that you are not misled into accepting a spurious substitute.
A. W. L. TURNER.
16.2 CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief and to the point as possible.
To the Editors.
16.2.1 Dear Comrades,
K. R. Smith, in his letter (Nov. issue),
betrays an appalling ignorance of the Party machinery and the way in which it is used. Like a number of other critics, he takes up a rather detached position which would appear to remove him from any responsibility for these " ghastly horrors " which are inflicted on the unsuspecting membership by the " authoritarian " Executive Committee, against whom his main complaints appear to be.
Comrade or Mr. Smith may not realise that the two instances of what he terms authoritarian thinking," i.e. permission to publish individual written matter and the speaker's test, are both issues upon which Party Conferences have instructed the E.C. Take the case of Literature. It will probably be clear to most members that any propaganda, whether written or spoken, must aim at putting the Party's view, and members must certainly not oppose our views in public or in published literature. It is the duty of any E.C. to ensure that only the Party Case shall be published—that is, the case which is accepted by a democratic majority as being in line with our established Principles and is not in conflict with them. The question of censorship does not arise, as in no other organisation are there the facilities for free discussion and criticism as exist in the S.P.G.B. The Party Principles can be changed or modified to accord with the wishes of the majority of the membership. This is not a piece of gratuitous advice to Comrade Smith. It is the only way new attitudes and ideas can be arrived at; free discussion and majority rule.
The speaker's test, which is one of his principal criticisms, is a misnomer, and was introduced during war time for a purpose entirely different from that of today. It does not prevent members from speaking, and only applies to the outdoor platform. Any member of the Party may get on a Party platform out-of-doors and speak provided there are some experienced comrades in the audience, or a speaker who has passed the test. It is also possible for Party members to speak or address any indoor meeting, large or small, without the necessity of undergoing the speaker's test. Comrade Smith ought to know this, as he was addressing public meetings before he passed the speaker's test.
His statement that E.C. permission is required in order to chalk walls and stick up posters is sheer rubbish, as also is the statement about EiC. bureaucracy. The E.C. has to take its instructions from Branches and membership, who would not tolerate bureaucratic handling of their affairs. On the question of the " S.S.," Comrade Smith is hopelessly ill-informed. The Editorial Committee are not the sole arbiters of what should or should not be published. They are a subcommittee of the Executive and have not hesitated in the past to apply for E.C. guidance on certain articles received for publication.
The useful suggestion made by Smith about organising a bureau of people has never been submitted by him or any other comrade. Let Comrade Smith organise such a bureau; there is nothing to prevent him. The Overseas Secretary has for years been trying to get individuals who can speak foreign languages to assist him. As he has not had a great deal of success maybe Comrade Smith can help him.
When Comrade Smith talks about Organisations abroad who could be of assistance to us, why does he not name them? This is typical of the vague and sweeping nature of Smith's entire criticisms. No evidence is advanced to support the numerous allegations he has made concerning the "bloody-minded attitude of members," and the various methods of improving propaganda which he claims have been discouraged—no details are given.
Comrade Smith has certainly got it off his chest, but why in " Forum "?
Yours fraternally,
J. D'ARCY, Central Organiser.
16.2.2 Dear Comrades,
S.R.P. asked (Sept. Forum)
: " What is the Party's attitude to the use of violence in connection with the establishment of Socialism? " and he instanced a minority attempting to throw a spanner into the works.
I outlined (Nov. Forum) what I think should be the Party's attitude to any violent obstruction and, in doing this, had to outline the initial steps necessary to establish Socialism. These initial steps can only be made out of such conditions as will then exist, even the armed forces if necessary.
He now replies at great length just to say that " Socialism is nothing like Capitalism." No one has said that Socialism would be like Capitalism. In fact, no one has said that Socialism would be like the establishment of Socialism. My article on Violence is nothing more, and nothing less, than an answer to his question—What is the Party's attitude to the use of violence in the establishment of Socialism?
Yours fraternally,
E. CARNELL.
16.2.3 To the Editors. Comrades,
In reply to " Roger " in the December Forum,
if he is really such an expert on publicity his place is on the Publicity Committee of the Party, where he will have ample opportunity to show his ability in that direction.
The recent by-election in North Padding-ton should show us clearly how much publicity we are likely to get from the capitalist press. While the Daily Mail ridiculed our efforts, the Daily Express and Daily Telegraph gave us a very good write-up of the Metropolitan Theatre meeting, but that was only confined to London, and no mention was made in the Express circulating further afield—and this, I expect, applies also to the Telegraph. Throughout the campaign we were not mentioned once in the News Chronicle, and in announcing the result it only mentioned us as the S.P.G.B., which to most people would be meaningless.
I disagree entirely with his idea of selling the premises to obtain the necessary cash for a publicity campaign. It behoves the members to do their utmost to increase the sales of the Socialist Standard, so that as soon as possible it can be published weekly. To get the necessary cash we should copy the capitalists and ask readers to take up shares— not with a view to making a profit (and that is where we differ from the capitalists) but with the object of ensuring that its weekly publication shall be a success. I, for one, would be prepared to help.
Fraternally yours,
WALLEY. (Editorial note : Comrade Walley's attention is drawn to the press reports of the by-election in the current issue of the S.S. It is true that the Daily Mail ridiculed our efforts, but it also stated some facts about us. The News Chronicle mentioned us by our correct title on 23rd Nov., 30th Nov. and 4th Dec. In the latter, five lines above the " Lab.," " Con." and " S.P.G.B." votes, appeared the words " Socialist Party of Great Britain." At least one edition of the Daily Express circulating in Glasgow carried a report of the "Met.' meeting.)
16.2.4 To the Editors. Dear Comrades,
Comrade Roger considers
that the Party should carry out a large scale publicity campaign on modern lines. A modern publicity campaign costs thousands of pounds. Is this what Comrade Roger has in mind? The terms publicity and propaganda are often used interchangeably, but I would define publicity as getting the Party known, either by advertising or other methods, with the object of getting people interested to the extent that they are willing to hear or read our propaganda. Taking part in Parliamentary elections (particularly by-elections) is one such means, and as a result of the recent by-election, with the Party's name mentioned on the radio and in local and all national newspapers, thousands of people must have heard of the Party who had never heard of it before. One result of this is that it increases the prestige of the Party platform at outdoor as well as indoor meetings so that people are more likely to come to meetings or to stop and listen.
The writer joined the Publicity Committee when the only income was sixpences collected from members at 42 Great Dover Street. Since then, annual allocations of £50 or more have been made for Press advertising, and during my time every financially possible means has been used towards getting the Party known, but publicity, like everything else, has to be attuned to the Party's finance. Advertisements have appeared in " left wing " papers, and in the old days in the national Press (this is more difficult now), the B.B.C. were approached from time to time, Branches were encouraged to get reports of their meetings in the local press and to offer lectures to local T.U. branches, for which printed letters were and are available at H.Q. Every public library in the U.K. was written to and offered a specially bound volume of pamphlets; several accepted, including many overseas. A leaflet with the principles and a brief statement of the Party's attitude was prepared in Esperanto; it was advertised in several Esperanto papers and copies were sent to the editors of all Esperanto journals (about sixty) throughout the world.
Adverts, of meetings are another form of publicity. Even if people do not attend the meeting, they see the advert, which thus helps to get the party better known.
It seems to me that no advertising will bring spectacular results unless a spirit of receptivity already exists, and it seems to me that such a spirit does not generally exist at the present time. Obviously this will change with changing economic conditions and a greater realisation on the part of workers generally of the conditions which govern their lives.
Yours fraternally,
R. MILBORNE.

16.3 BOUND COPIES
We regret the delay in supplying bound copies of the first 15 issues to those who have ordered them
Orders are being dealt with in rotation. Priority will be given to Branches and Companion Parties who write for a copy this month.
16.4 EDITORIAL
It will be noticed that Forum this month is printed on smaller pages. There are just as many words as in recent issues, however, so all it means is that you are buying less blank paper.
This step has resulted in a saving in printing costs—but there is still an urgent need to increase circulation. The money paid into Head Office for Forums has fallen a little short of the total printer's bills. The Executive Committee has ruled that Forum shall not be subsidised from the General Fund, so it is up to readers to increase the sales if they want it to continue in its present form. Branches are urged to increase their orders, and to carry a small stock of back numbers against future demands, which Head Office may not be able to meet.
There has been a welcome increase in the amount of material submitted for publication. Several articles have had to be held over until February. The correspondence column seems to be " catching on," though we would specially ask writers not to be too reckless in entering the fray. The repetition of old arguments, heavy irony and selection of evidence are among the things to be avoided.

16.5 SOCIALISM AND VIOLENCE
A Third View

I think that there is a lot more to be said on the subject of violence, not only in regard to the use of weapons against adversaries, but lo the use of coercion, or compulsion, by any method sugestive of the dominance of one human being by another, whichever form it may take. But first I must comment on the actual meaning of the statements by Mc-Clatchie and Lake (Dec. Forum) with some regret that a third opinion was not included.
In particular, I am concerned with the reference to the use of the political machinery, including the armed forces, once the property system of society has been made illegal. Lake states that " if the class struggle means anything at all, it means that there will be a considerable section of the capitalist class hostile, lo the establishment of Socialism." This carries with it the implication that a section will not be hostile. Therefore we can assume that some capitalists will, as McCIatchie states, " be stirred lo espouse the new system." And if they can understand, why not the others?
What is it that the capitalist class will so dearly wish to hang on to—palaces, mansions, cars, luxury yachts, stocks and shares, or just the love of exploitation for its own sake? Tell the capitalist now that he lives by exploitation and oppression, and he will laugh at you. Tell the worker that he is exploited and oppressed, and he will do the same. It is all very well for workers to say that capitalists find ' capitalist life ' sweet, but in relation to Socialism it is what the capitalist thinks about it himself that counts. He and he worker may have different things to lose, but they both have the same to gain from Socialism.
I deny that " just how the armed force will be used is of secondary importance," and view with horror Lake's further statement that " it may be necessary lo take more positive action, leading to serious consequences to some of the contestants ...
May I ask Lake who is going lo be the authority to direct the infliction of " serious consequences " on the recalcitrant minority? And who are going to be the socialists who, having at last reached their objective, will be willing to risk death before they have seen it realised?
The dispute, as I see it, does not only turn upon the interpretation of Clause 6 of the D. of P., but also upon the Object. In fact, they link up. The dispute is because there is not agreement on what the " common ownership and democratic control ... by and in the interests of the whole community " implies.
Besides the undemocratic method of " compelling a minority to accept the decision of the majority," we see a desire to carry over this undemocratic method into a propertyless system of society. This is reflected in the views held by some members that certain methods of production will obtain and that (self-appointed?) organisers will direct operations—which calls to mind a set of conditions almost in keeping with Fritz Lang's Metropolis.
The wording of Clause 6 may have sounded, and perhaps still does sound, stirring to 19th century emotions, but if we seriously examine the idea of things commonly held, " state machinery," " armed forces," etc., can no longer have any meaning except that they are part of property-based society, i hey are not something that socialists can use to turn upon a recalcitrant minority. Such action could only change the bourgeois state into a " proletarian " state, which has nothing to do with Socialism.

McCIatchie's statement that " some members of the ruling class will be stirred to espouse the new system " is extended by Lake to infer what McCIatchie did not say —" a most remarkable landslide in favour of Socialism."
But even if we accept that there will be a landslide, how does it Repudiate the class struggle? There are more antagonisms and harmful separations springing from property than just the eternal ding-dong of class struggle. Both classes within Capitalism suffer what Engels called " its narrow conditions. Because doctors, dockers, clerks, dustmen, etc., exist as groups of different status today, this doesn't mean they will exist as such in the future. This false projection into the socialist future of what exists today leads to the supposition of " qualified administrators " and Carnell's Socialist Home Secretaries.
As I see it, Socialism will really mean co-operation lo the desired end of human happiness. People will co-operate without the necessary of being labelled with an occupational tag. Neither will they be forced to undertake tasks that bind them to certain methods of production. There will not be " time " in the sense that we understand it today, when " time is money."
People will take pleasure in the things that they do well—without compulsion or authority. 1 his rules out the continual supposition of " queer people " who, it is suggested, will do all kinds of anti-social things. I have noticed that, when these hypotheses are put forward, it is always " the others " who will act in such and such a way.
Finally, McCIatchie need not be too concerned about the suggestion of "pacifist views".
What is wrong with pacifism anyway, apart from the mistaken notions of the pacifists abut capitalist society? And to Lake : how much more serious is a pacifist, non-violent interpretation of the D. of P. than a repressive, Dictatorship-of-the-Proletariat one?
G. HILBINGER.
January 1954
16.6 CANVASSING IN PARK LANE
Reply to A.A.N
Apart from the muddled thinking and contradictions contained in the article " Class Struggle and the S.P.G.B.," by A.A.N. (Dec. Forum) there are ideas and implications in it which are dangerous. Not only in the sense that, were they adopted and put into practice by the Party, they would attract all kinds of non-socialist support, but some of these are in fact intrinsically anti-socialist conceptions. It is with these that this reply must mainly be concerned.
First of all, it is not correct that we " are trying to enlist the aid of the whole of mankind to change the basis of present society." Our job is to make clear to the workers the source of their insecurity, worry and exploited lives so that they themselves, of their own volition, as a result of their own clarified indignation and abhorrence of their enslaved condition, will organise to overthrow the present system. In any case, " enlist " is an ill-chosen word. True, we explain the desirability (but foremost, the possibility) of Socialism. But this is not the source from whence springs support for the Socialist idea. Therefore it is not to painting pictures of Socialism that the socialist propaganda must turn, but rather is it to the putting up of a mirror for the worker to see himself as he is now— a degraded, deprived being supporting a set of arrogant, useless and in most cases predatory rulers.
Taking, I think with justification, my own personal experience, which cannot be uncommon (to workers) I can recall vividly that my attraction to Socialism was based on an increasing sense of insecurity, fear and abhorrence of the society I lived in—namely, experience of the degradation of poverty and wage-slavery, the humiliation of the unemployment exchange, the abhorrence of being ground down to my work, and the knowledge of how this contrasted with the privileges and economic dominance of the rich capitalist class. A.A.N would perhaps say-that this was " sour grapes." Peculiarly enough, this is the very argument the defenders of Capitalism use against workers who kick against the pricks.
The immediate job is not " to convince people of the benefits of Socialism," but to convince them of the necessity of fighting capitalist society and all its supporters, and supporting ideas, the great preponderance of which are subsidised and financed by the capitalist class. The immediate job is to convince them of the possibility of eliminating capitalist society. First and foremost, the worker is concerned with his present iniquities, and it is this and this alone which will give the working class, as individuals and as a class, the motivating impulse to overthrow the present society.
16.6.1 PROPERTY INTERESTS
What on earth does A.A.N. mean by the statement that " in its propaganda the party shall not (his emphasis) participate in the class struggle."? I can think of no more comforting thought to our rulers. The logic of this is that we must carefully avoid telling the worker anything that would make him aware of his enslaved economic position, otherwise, willy-nilly, we are inducing him to act so much the more forcefully m his own interest as a worker, as well as making him a socialist. As I see it, the only way I as a socialist propagandist could avoid participating in the class struggle would be to take a large dose of poison!
Of course, this is all ridiculous rot. We all know and agree that, in the very act of explaining and analysing Socialism, we are in effect combating the predatory tendencies of our rulers. Heaven only knows how many times I myself have used and heard this very argument in favour of giving priority to socialist propaganda as opposed to, say, the limitations of trade union activity. In the future, I shall have to drop that one (as well as a lot of others) otherwise I shall be in danger of participating in the class struggle!
A.A.N, further tells us that " it is patently clear that the true interests of anybody within Capitalism is to acquire property," and that we must not " disdain this first law of capitalist society." Is A.A.N, crackers or has he just dropped in on us from a flying saucer? Has he not heard or experienced that the first and foremost law for the worker is to acquire his week's wages or dole, as the case might be, and then to acquire the very ephemeral properties of enough food, etc., to tide him and his family over till the following week. Acquiring property, is it! Of course, this is the logic of A.A.N.'s arguments—to transform socialist into capitalist propaganda ! By the way, if it is so patently clear that the true interests of anybody in Capitalism (as argued before, this must mean the capitalist or the budding one) is to acquire property, how are we going to convince those acquirers of property, the capitalists with whom A.A.N, seems so much concerned, that their true interests are also at the same time to put an end to it?
Further on, " Socialism is in the interests of everyone." An excellent platitude! A platitude, as everyone knows, is something that everybody is more or less aware of. But are we to infer from this that we have so much cause and reason to appeal to members of the capitalist class as to the workers? If this is so, why not an intensive canvassing campaign in Park Lane and Mayfair? Why not put up a candidate in Westminster or in some bourgeois dormitory in the most expensive part of Surrey? What about selling the Standard (the Socialist one) outside the most exclusive night-clubs? And so on.
Before I am accused of flippancy, may I plead the utmost sincerity. Of course, we know well enough that we must primarily appeal to members of the working class, not simply because they are the people we happen to meet most often, but because it is only they who can provide the emotive will, power and desire to do away with capitalist society. In fact, must a socialist be told that the possibility of Socialism only arises at all as a result of Capitalism's creation of a world-wide working class. Otherwise there is no reason why Socialism should not have been created any time during the past.
Again, why is it that a newcomer to socialist propaganda sometimes confuses us with the C.P. (Would A.A.N, wish that he shouild confuse us with the Conservative Party?) Are we so divorced from our fellow-workers and the world we live in that C.P. and S.P. ideas cannot spring from the same sources? C.P. sympathies and ideas spring from the same despair and discontent as do ours.
Surely I need not enlighten A.A.N, that the C.P., as opposed to our concern for clarification, use these half-formed, anti-capitalist notions for their own ends. After all, A.A.N, admits they only apply to the newcomer. It seems hardly likely that we shall gain this newcomer's attention by a piece of sophistry such as telling him we are opposed to him as a worker but are with him as a human being. He would be perfectly correct to reject being subjected to each a lethal division! It is surely obvious that the worker and the human being are emotionally and in every other way the same creature.
16.6.2 Working-class axe
A.A.N, is worried about our grinding a working-class axe. But, whatever our wishes in this matter, does not our propaganda involve contrasting the present enslaved status of the worker with that of his more-than-usually absent boss? And, in the very act of explaining this situation, we must needs identify ourselves with him as a worker. This applies equally well to almost any facet of socialist propaganda one cares to think about. And, mark you, even should a capitalist wish to do some propaganda work for us, he too must approach the subject from a working-class standpoint. Viewed in this light, it can be seen how unreal and ridiculous is this conception of the socialist holding aloof. Even if he could do so, from a purely theoretical viewpoint, he would soon expose himself as a pedant and a hypocrite.
As to our propaganda being tainted, of course everything we say is tainted. Tainted with the vileness of the exploitation and degradation of wage-slavery. And it will continue to be so tainted till its source, the enslavement of the working class by its rulers, is put an end to.
If the S.P.G.B. is a hater of all classes —which is quite incorrect; we hate capitalist class society—then surely of the two we have infinitely more reason to hate the capitalist class most, which concerns itself very much with the perpetuation of the present system, as witness the incredibly huge sums spent in apologising and eulogising Capitalism. Everything that is conceivably possible is done to obscure the murderous and anti-social nature of their system. It is no argument to say that the workers also defend this system, for we know from our historical approach that the enslaved class always follows the ideas of its masters and rulers, and no socialist in his proper senses would argue that the contrary was the truth.
Just one more word for the present. A.A.N, talks glibly about us " coming down on one particular side—the working class," in a reproachful tone. This should not be so surprising at all, for may I point out to A.A.N, that, whilst I can provide no concrete figures, I'm prepared to stake my only decent pair of shoes that 99.999% of the membership of the party came down on the working-class side as soon as they put their heads out into the world!
JUDD.

16.7 WHALES, MINNOWS AND DEEP WATER
A Criticism of Jarvis' Head Office Lecture

A good case can be made out for the contention that capitalism is conducive to poor health—under certain conditions, in certain places. This is quite clear when it is appreciated that the state of health can be affected by one or a combination of any of the following factors: general geographical location, climate, immediate environment, economic conditions, mental and emotional reactions, food, work and exercise. The health of an individual varies from week to week, probably from day to day—good health being synonymous with a high degree of resistance to disease. If only Comrade Jarvis had left it at that!
It is far more difficult to maintain that capitalism necessarily lowers the health of the working class in general. In some special circumstances it may, e.g., specific industrial and occupational diseases—silicosis, anthrax, etc. The only general factors are probably worry and fatigue. With food, members of the working class have a measure of freedom of choice—with a little forethought it is possible to obtain a good, plain, varied diet. Most people eat too much anyway, although the human digestive system is quite capable of dealing with a fair amount of poor quality. foodstuffs without any serious detrimental effect on the health. Again, most people's lives are far too sedentary, and what exercise is taken is often too sudden and too violent.
What is lacking in these cases is just a little common sense, not socialism. The latter, some party members seem to imagine, is a panacea for all evils, which in turn are laid at the door of capitalism.
Two questions for Comrade Jarvis. What is a chemical ? What is a poison ? To use the former term meaning a substance injurious to man is nonsense. Even one of those tomatoes grown on a special compost so beloved of "' nature cure " addicts is a combination of chemicals. Poison is a relative term. Whether a substance is poisonous will depend on where, when and in what quaitities it is introduced into the body. Given orally, hydrochloric acid, in sufficient concentration, is violently corrosive, and in sufficient quantity, lethal. Yet hydrochloric acid occurs naturally in the human digestive system. Which brings me to the question of the toxic materials manufac-factured by bacteria pathogenic to man. If every time a pathogenic bacterium gained entry into the human body it meant the contraction of a disease, clearly we should all find early graves. This does not happen, for in most cases the bacteria provide the neces' sary stimulus to the invaded tissues for antibodies to be produced—i.e., chemical substances capable of neutralising the toxins. Similarly, in many diseases, infection frequently means subsequent immunity for life.
On the other hand, some pathogens are incapable of providing the necessary stimulus to the defending tissues. They, in short, do not defend—there is no natural immunity. Syphilis is an example; contact invariably means infection. Human beings are not, and probably never will be, immune to all diseases.
On the basis of this chemical struggle for ascendancy in the human body, has developed the science of bacteriological remedies for and preventions of diseases. Where natural immunity is lacking or poor, a passive or active immunity can be acquired by various inoculation techniques of vaccines and anti-toxins. Brilliant results have been obtained in the prevention of tetanus and typhoid. Active immunity to a specific disease may be acquired by introducing dead bacteria into the blood-stream. The necessary antibodies are produced to counteract the toxic material, whilst the bacteria, being dead, cannot multiply and put an unnecessary strain on the bodily resistance. Or the bacteria can be filtered off and just the toxic fluid injected into the body. This is the case where active immunity is acquired against diphtheria.
The technique of providing passive immunity throws no demands on the defending tissues, for immunity is acquired by the introduction of anti-serum, i.e. material containing antibodies from some other animal that has been actively immunised. This is obviously useful where the diseased person is so weak in resistance that the introduction of a toxin may be just sufficient to tip the scales in favour of the invading pathogen. The fall in the number of diphtheria cases since active immunisation became widespread may or may not be entirely due to this technique, but the fact that the mortality rate of those actually contracting the disease has been reduced from 80% to 5% is certainly the result of the use of diphtheria anti-serum in the early stages of infection. Comrade Jarvis need not have dealt with inoculation and vaccination for the purposes of his lecture, but nevertheless he takes the opportunity of making sweeping condemnatory remarks. We were not treated lo any scientific criticism of the above-mentioned techniques, but were subjected to a tear-jerking story of poison being injected into our bodies from miserably maltreated and diseased horses; a story reminiscent of the poorer quality propaganda that emanates from anti-vaccination and anti-vivisection schools of thought.

Regarding cancer research, Jarvis suggested that workers in this field deliberately fail to find a cure, in order that money will continue to flow in their direction. This is a stupid slander. The wage labour relationship does not generally prevent problems from being solved in the laboratory, and medical research workers are no different in this respect. A valid criticism would have been that the State is more concerned with allocating money to war materials to the neglect of medical research.
The laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century is hardly applicable to the present clay. Yet this appears to be Jarvis' concept of factory conditions, standards of food production and distribution, etc. During the last 100 years State interference in individual capitalist concerns has seen the development of greatly improved factory conditions, an increasing control of food production and distribution, although, of course, conditions are far from perfect.
Regarding some of the various carriers of disease, Local Authorities have certainly been a force that has assisted in diminishing the effects of many of the immediate environmental factors. Water is an example worth going into in some detail. Pure water does not exist in nature, all water containing some organic or inorganic chemicals in solution, and containing some form of microscopic life. Surface water is never certain to be safe, even in out-of-the-way mountain regions. Even deep wells, particularly in chalk strata which is liable to extensive vertical cracking, are not safe from contamination. Local authorities provide safe drinking water from their purification plants, the final process in which is chlorination. Chlorine, being a chemical and a poison, is therefore doubly damned by Jarvis, who would presumably prefer a clear bubbling mountain stream in the upper reaches of which a sheep had recently defaecated.
The Report on Occupational Mortality 1921 noted that the incidence of tuberculosis increased in descending the economic scale, yet in this country the death rate from this dangerous disease was in 1937 only one-fifth of what it was 70 years before then, and has continued to diminish since. Moreover, a parallel decline has occurred in other civilised countries.
Jarvis drew unfavourable comparisons between the health of people in England and Tristan de Cunha, Patagonia and amongst Eskimos and Zulus, although he failed to tell us what were the variable factors. Why draw our attention to the Zulus' good teeth? A Socialist Zulu, by the same line of argument, could hold up our way of living as an example to his fellow Zulus by pointing out that we are free from parasitic hookworm.
Let these few notes do for the moment, although much more could be said. Suffice it to say that Comrade Jarvis approached a complex problem in a facile manner. The role of a whale amongst minnows is popular on the public platform, but occasionally larger fish crop up in the audience.
R. BOTT.
16.8 IS PARLIAMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF EMANCIPATION?
(continued)
Before discussing the Party's and my own attitude towards " capturing Parliament," I should like to record William Morris' stand on the subject. Although I do not agree with all that he wrote on Socialism, I think that his ideas on Parliament are worth quoting. In a letter to Dr. Glasse of Edinburgh (May 23, 1887) Morris wrote: —
" My position, and the dealings of Socialists with it, I will now try to state clearly. I believe that the Socialists will certainly send members to Parliament when they are strong enough to do so : in itself I see no harm in that, so long as it i? understood that they go as rebels, and not as members of the governing body prepared by passing palliative measures to keep " society " alive. But I fear that many of them will be drawn into that error by the corrupting influence of a body piofessedly hostile to Socialism: and therefore I dread the parliamentary period (clearly a long way ahead of the present) of the progress of the party; and I think it will be necessary always to keep alive a body of Socialists of principle who will refuse responsibility for the action of the parliamentary portion of the party. Such a body now exists in the shape of the (Socialist) League, while germs of the parliamentary side exist in the S.D.F. (taken over by the S.P.G.B.) ..."
In a later letter to Glasse (Sept. 23, I 887) Morris wrote :
" For myself, as I have told you before, I have no wish to attack any body of Socialists : all I can say is that I would prefer to belong to a body that held aloof from parliamentary work, if such a body existed; and I think it very desirable, to say the least of it, that such a body should exist.
Although Morris thought that socialists would at some time (" clearly a long way ahead ") be sent into Parliament, he considered that they should go only as rebels; that they should never attempt to " capture Parliament in order to abolish it " He thought it desirable that a Socialist Party should, at some further date, come into existence which would stand aloof from Parliament.
Although he held these opinions, he did not wish to attack those who thought differently from himself, or to split the movement. When some of our pro- and anti-parliamentarians in the S.P.G.B. get rather heated (and at times abusive) they should remember William Morris.
16.8.1 THE S.P. AND PARLIAMENT
The title of this article is : " Is Parliament an Instrument of Emancipation? That is: Is it necessary to capture Parliament (by electing 500 to 650 M.P.'s) in order to conquer political power and the state machine? Is it necessary for representatives of the Socialist Party (and, of course, the electorate) to go to Parliament in order to establish Socialism? The Party, through the medium of its literature, says: Yes. Number 6 of the Declaration of Principles itates that " as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic."
That the machinery of government exists to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class no socialist would deny. But how this machinery of government, with its armed forces, police and the like, can be " converted into the agent of emancipation " I do not know. And no Party member has ever told me! If the majority of members in the Party agree that most of this so-called principle is incorrect, or just archaic in Jan-guage, then it must be scrapped or re-written. But the phrase in No. 6 that I am chiefly concerned with is " conquest of the powers of government." Does this mean conquering, controlling or abolishing the state and governmental machine? Or does it mean capturing governmental power via " socialist delegates"? A perusal of S.P.G.B. literature seems to suggest the latter. In " Principles and Policy " we find the following:
" The machinery of government is controlled through Parliament. Parliament provides the money without which n© navy or air force can be equipped or maintained. Parliament, which pays the piper, calls the tune to which Jack Tar and I ommy Atkins must dance. The moral is plain : the working class must organise for the capture of Parliament.
" When they have possession of this instrument they will have control of the armed forces, and will be in a position to proceed to the abolition of private property in the means of living and the organisation of industry on the basis of common ownership of the machinery of production." (pp. 25-6.) And, in " Questions of the Day " Ch. V. " Parliament " :
" The attitude of the S.P.G.B. on the
need to gain control of the political machinery has been logical and consistent. We hold the same view as Marx as to the necessity of the workers gaining control of the machinery of government before they can establish Socialism. We also hold Marx's view that in advanced capitalist countries the vote will give that control." (p. 30, New Edition.) This, then, is the party attitude on Parliament. It must be captured, by sending " socialist delegates " to what one pamphlet calls " the seat of power," before the state machine can be taken over and means of living made the property of all mankind.
The question we must answer is: Why must we capture Parliament? Why bother about Parliament at all? The answer from the official Party point of view is : because we need Parliament, so that we can then control the state machine, with the armed forces, police, etc., in case there is a counterrevolution—an attempt, presumably by the expropriated bourgeoisie, to throw a spanner into the socialist works. The Party concept of revolution is still that of Marx and Engels in their early days; that all revolution must be followed (or probably will be followed) by counter-revolution, as were all previous revolutions.
Those who hold the view that we must capture Parliament in order to use its coercive forces against a recalcitrant minority hold the view (probably subconsciously) that we will never get the overwhelming majority of the people to understand, desire and establish Socialism. They are the neo-Leninists, and are not far removed from the " qualified-violence-reservationists " mentioned by Comrade Parker in the September Forum.
16.8.2 SHOULD A SOCIALIST PARTY USE PARLIAMENT?
My viewpoint is that there is no need to capture Parliament in order to establish Socialism. I hold the view that the eon-testing of elections and by-elections may be of some, propaganda value, but that this will lessen as we become better known. In the (dim distant?) future, socialists may enter Parliament—although I am opposed to it— but if they do then they would go only as rebels, only to use the floor of the House as another (and very minor) means of propaganda.
I am not suggesting that socialists should not use the ballot as a means of counting numbers. At the moment, the writing of the word " Socialism " across the ballot paper is practically futile. But in the future, when we are much stronger, when perhaps there are millions of socialists here and abroad, then it will, in the words of Engels, prove to be a means of gauging the maturity of the working class, of " counting heads "— and the ideas inside them. When millions write " Socialism, S.P.B.G." or " Socialism, S.P.N.Z." across their ballot papers, the thermometer of universal suffrage will show boiling point!
When the vast majority of mankind register their desire for Socialism, they will take over the means of production, begin straight away to produce things solely for u:e, and take over the state machine. Those organs of the state which were necessary to Capitalism, such as much of the civil service, the armed forces and the police, will be disbanded. (No doubt numerous policemen would be absorbed in such organisations as those dealing with public services, e.g. control of traffic. No doubt, also, some form of Labour Exchange would be necessary for a time for the use of those people wishing to find useful work to do . . . and so on.) The state would " wither away," its various organs becoming defunct or atrophied. None of this would need an act of Parliament.
A last word on counter-revolution. As Parker pointed out, this would be impossible and unthinkable. Since the vast majority of the people would be socialists and would refuse to support Capitalism any longer, so would the vast majority of the workers who comprised the state machine. Most of the army conscripts would be socialists, most of the civil servants, most of the police, etc. Immediately after the majority had registered their desire for Socialism, the majority in government service would begin to dismantle the state apparatus. And no one would, or could, stop them. When the majority of mankind decide that they will no longer work for wages, or be exploited in any form, they will not need to capture Parliament. The new society will have been born.
PETER E. NEWELL.
16.9 TAKING THE RISE
" I am told that if I get a rise the goods I make will not sell because Germany will make them more cheaply, and I shall be worse off.
" So, if I want to keep my standard of living up I have got to keep it down. If I work for less than my German counterpart I shall be better off. Then he will want to work for even less, so that he can be belter off than I am.
" Finally, I suppose we shall all be working for Sweet Fanny Adams, and living like adjectival lords."
—Letter in Daily Mirror (23.12.53.)

17. FORUM
Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No.17
February 1954

17.1 HOW CLASSES STRUGGLE
Weakening of Property Ideas
The workers and capitalists are not, in fact, constituted as classes except ideally, or abstractly. That is to say, they are not two sealed-off groups united internally for the purpose of carrying out agreed upon policies against each other.
The workers do not organise together to oppose the capitalists as a class. If their ideas had reached this point they would abolish Capitalism. What happens is that in detail disputes some sections oppose their employers whilst other sections are not in favour of this opposition. When bus workers strike for higher wages other workers complain bitterly that this action is responsible for the increase in fares. There is similar opposition to strike action by railwaymen. When coal-miners strike other sections, including busmen and railwaymen, complain that this action brings about a shortage of coal and an increase in its price. A strike of those who handle meat brings forth similar opposition. One union fights another which it claims is poaching on its territory. Some sections resist the entrance of workers into their particular industry, i.e. opposition to Italian workers in pits, limitations on the enrolment of apprentices, etc. Fundamentally each section fights in defence of its own particular group, not only against the employers but also against all other workers who appear to them to interfere with the accomplishment of their own narrow objective—improvement in the wages and conditions of their own particular section.
Solidarity of the workers as a class is at the moment a myth. Only the understanding of Socialism will convert the myth into a fact.
Finally the vast mass of the workers vote for the continuation of capitalist property relationships, and a large proportion of them vote for avowed capitalist candidates.
The capitalists do not organise together to oppose the workers as a class. Even the various employers' federations and chambers of commerce are not organised for this specific purpose. Capitalists fight each other bitterly, nationally and internationally, for shares of the surplus wealth produced by the workers. Each in his particular section opposes claims for higher pay made by the workers in their own particular industry. They have no objection to workers in other industries getting higher pay unless they think this will have an adverse effect on their own particular industry. In fact, at times, they will support claims for higher pay if they think their own industry will be able to score over a competitor. They are split over particular wage claims, particular reforms, and particular wars, because they, like the workers, do not understand the present social system and do not believe that they are living on the surplus wealth produced by the workers.
Workers and capitalists accept the property system. The state came into existence to defend the property system, and when Capitalism became the established social system the state became the defender of this particular kind of property-relationship; its actions are designed to further the interests of Capitalism and therefore of the capitalists.
Workers and capitalists are alike filled with muddled ideas and share similar prejudices on nationality, race, sex and so forth.
BUT
In spite of certain common prejudices and sectional antagonisms there is a class division in society which marks off capitalist from worker and breeds an over-riding antagonism of interests between these two classes within present society, despite the fact that this is not recognised on fundamental questions. Thus:

1. A proposal for a rise in wages in an industry does provoke opposite immediate reactions in the breast of capitalist and workers, even though later reflection and propaganda may induce a common outlook in favour or against the proposal.
2. In general the worker is out for increases in pay; in general the capitalist is opposed to them.
3. The capitalists have vital interests at stake in prosecuting a war; the workers have not.
4. The question of property ownership appears as a more vital one to the capitalist than to the worker, even though the latter accepts the idea, and therefore proposals to abolish this form bring forth more strenuous opposition from the capitalist than from the worker. The abolition of insecurity has greater appeal to the worker than to the capitalist.
Against this latter point may be set a general weakening in the ideas tied up with property-ownership which has been provoked by social development during this century, including the mass destruction of property during wars, the changing personnel of the owners and the movement from direct ownership of industries to ownership through share and bond-holding. Property ownership, in the narrow sense, no longer has the universal hold upon peoples' minds that it had 100 years ago. Ideas are changing. The general feeling of insecurity which world wars have disseminated has helped in this process.
Finally, however, whilst the propaganda for Socialism is aimed at all the members of society, as we are out for a change that involves the co-operation of everybody, its appeal will be felt more directly by the workers; they have a more immediate interest in the change as the present social organisation bears heavily upon them, ana the new social form promises the removal of miseries that they constantly suffer.
Capitalism will not evolve gradually into Socialism, up to the moment of establishing the new system Capitalism will retain all its main features—private property, commodity production, the wages system, the State.
The establishment of Socialism will be a sudden basic change, involving the abolition of property. In the meantime ideas will evolve and the ideas of the mass of people will develop until they reach a socialist outlook. The ideas of the mass of people progress at about the same rate; similarity in world experience and intercommunications brings the laggards up to the general level.
Here and there a relatively small number get ahead af the mass for a time, owing to favourable individual circumstances, and form groups to propagate their ideas, but the mass catch up at an accelerated rate as time passes owing to the mutual exchange of ideas based upon a fundamental similarity in mental operations.
GILMAC
17.2 CLASS STRUGGLE AND THE S.P.G.B. (2)
The One and Only Way.
" If the S.P.G.B. is a hater of all classes —which is quite incorrect; we hate capitalist class society—then surely of the two we have infinitely more reason to hate the capitalist class most, which concerns itself very much with the perpetuation of the present system, as witness the incredibly huge sums spent in apologising and eulogising Capitalism. Everything that is conceivably possible is done to obscure the murderous and anti-social nature of their system. It is no argument to say that the workers also defend this system, for we know from our historical approach that the enslaved class always follows the ideas of its masters and rulers, and no socialist in his proper senses would argue that the contrary was the truth." —"Canvassing In Park Lane", (FORUM, Jan. 1954)
This second article is an attempt to expand some of the ideas in my first one (Dec. 1953), and is not intended to deal with the whole of judd's criticism. The above extract has been selected as being typical of the general criticism that my first article evoked.
At first sight, the paragraph appears to be quite in order and a fair example of what is considered to be " the Party's case ". But on closer inspection several anomalies become apparent.
1. What reasoning brings the S.P.G.B. to hate one class more than the other when neither class has Socialism as its interest? The struggle between classes is NOT one for Socialism, despite the fact that the D. of P. implies that the working class must be the class that will eventually establish it. Neither the worker nor the capitalist recognises their struggle as such—neither do I So here are two different struggles: two classes wanting to maintain or improve their conditions within Capitalism, and socialists wanting Socialism. Because we hold that the workers must bring about Socialism, that does not make their struggle against the capitalists a socialist one.
2. Hatred in propaganda can be used to good effect provided it is used in its correct place. But what is its correct place in .socialist propaganda? We have at least established our common hatred of Capitalism as a system of society. Is it possible to make that hatred a tactical one in the furthering of our object? I think not.
The hatred expressed by Judd I accept as a sincere reaction to an opposing class from his own aspect of society. It is, in fact, quite commonly held by Party members and many factions of the so-called " Left Wing ". Nevertheless, from the point of view of socialist propaganda, it makes a secondary issue of the socialist's detestation of the system by focussing hatred on the capitalist class. The Anarchists, Communist Party, I.L.P., and the " Left Wing " generally, do much the same thing —some go a little further by pinpointing certain capitalists. In my opinion the socialist cry should be " Down With Capitalism " not " Down With The Capitalist Class ". But do not jump to the illogical conclusion that if you don't say " Down With The Capitalist Class " then that is the same as saying " Up With The Capitalist Class ". It isn't.
Ironically, whilst the S.P.G.B. professes sympathy for the workers, it is they who take on the task of supplying the means and devising the content of the propaganda that is intended to gloss this night-marish system. Workers study for years at colleges to get these jobs. Far from always following the ideas of their masters, they are very often ahead of them! Surely Judd is not so naive as to believe that capitalists are the brains behind capitalist propaganda. No of course he isn't because elsewhere he refers to them as useless and more than usually absent.
To demonstrate further that this type of hatred is not calculated to advance the cause of Socialism, if "apologising and eulogising" is typical of the capitalist class, it follows that we must condemn those workers who do that type of work for being " anti-working class ". And I think that many members do take that view. But then so do the Anarchists who condemn prison warders and the like, the Communists who condemn Imperialist soldiers, sailors and policemen (except "Red" ones!). These parties and other groups of the " Left Wing " adopt these tactics, completely ignoring the fact that ALL workers are assisting their masters to live in luxury or relative ease, no matter what job they do.
Some members are very keen to denounce various facets of Capitalism as "anti-working class", yet appear unconcerned about explaining the socialist alternative. In what way is such propaganda distinguished from that of "Left Wing" organisations generally except by virtue of its object?
No, hatred in our propaganda must be a general hatred of the whole system, and perhaps it will be more to the point when the S.P.G.B. has something to say about Socialism in comparison with present society. Only then shall we be able to say that the S.P.G.B. stands truly in great distinction from all other parties and political factions.
3. From what facts can it be argued that a system of society belongs to one class of that society, i.e. " their system " (meaning, in this case, the system of the capitalist class)? The S.P.G.B. calls for a speedy termination to be wrought to THE system. Capitalism remains in existence whilst the people therein carry out those activities that enable it to continue, i.e. are in line with its basic structure. That the capitalist class derives the greater benefit from those activities is, in the final analysis, by the leave of the rest of society. Only in that subjective way can it be termed their system, just as we say " every dog has his day ". To give that phrase any other application or connotation would imply that the workers have another system which is theirs.
Quite naturally the capitalists do all in their power, which is bestowed upon them, to maintain property relationships. Why be surprised if exercising that power means rapacity, arrogance and brutality? Is it not typical of the whole system? These " qualities " not only manifest themselves in the master-worker struggle, but also in master-master struggles, not to mention the atrocities that workers perpetrate against each other.

Capitalism is NOT the property of the capitalist class—it is the sum total of the activities of the whole of society. And the sooner members realise that the position of the S.P.G.B. is in opposition to the LOT, the sooner will we make real headway.
4. Therefore it is a very forceful argument to say that " workers also defend this system "—they do have the ideas of their masters, because predominantly both have the same idea : self-interest and the seeking of power and privilege at the expense of othr individuals and groups. In his first sentence Judd quite rightly attacks the capitalist class for " apologising and eulogising " Capitalism and for being concerned concerned with its perpetuation. But in his last sentence he apologises for (and almost eulogises) the working class for doing the same thing!
It is no function of the S.P.G.B. to instruct people (workers) as to their best method of abtaining more wealth, any more than it is to tell capitalists how to break strikes and obtain more profit. Our sole function stands out clearly, at least to me. We must put over only that type of propaganda that will assist directly in the achievement of our object—Socialism.
In all, I think that the tendency in our propaganda to depict one class in society as ' vicious " and the other as " virtuous " puts the class struggle in an entirely false light— it destroys the whole concept that the socialist is trying to put across. I view it as a half-hearted attempt to curry favour with the so-called '.' under-dog ". But people in general do not see themselves in that light. The worker who considers himself even moderately intelligent takes great exception to the idea . that, by comparison with his employer, he is a degraded and defenceless being. It is no way to approach a person with whom you wish to hold a serious discussion by insisting that, in his present state, he is for all practical purposes a moron.
To listen to members putting " the case " from the platform, and trying to put it as though it were a domestic issue within the working class, only serves to increase the impression of what I have come to regard as a diversity of purpose within the Party. Socialism, as I see it, is solely a socialist party issue—it only concerns the working class in that we have yet to gain the support of the overwhelming majority of society. There is a difference between making socialists and merely making people conscious that there are two classes in capitalist society.
The S.P.G.B. has only one case and therefore only one " face ", which it should, and must present to anybody and everybody. We should not have one attitude to workers and another to non-workers (capitalists). We have one thing to say—the case for Socialism. 1 hey must like it or lump it, and if they choose to do the latter we must not imagine that we will get anywhere by changing the subject. We thoroughly hate the system that belongs to all of them. We think we know of a better one, and we are prepared to argue about it and to defend what we say. We can show how and why it will be superior to any other system hitherto known to man. And that means a lot of hard work in building up the part of our case that has been badly neglected—what it is that we Want
Merely criticising Capitalism does not postulate Socialism—it merely criticises what has been criticised ad infinitum, adding another voice to the general moan " when is something going to be done for the workers?" Socialism is a proposal to do the best that can be done for workers and for all people —the ending of class society by the introduction of one in the interest of the whole community. That is our case and we have to prove it. We can only speak for ourselves and cannot represent anybody but socialists. Everybody else has yet to be won over, and our object demands that we work on the assumption that they can be won over.
The working class does not recognise the S.P.G.B. as it's champion because the working class is not a united body, but a category of people with a wide diversity of economic interests. But when they are socialists it is different, for WITHIN THE S.P.G.B. ALL SUCH CLASSIFICATIONS VANISH. 1 herefore, whatever we have to say should have a direct appeal to anyone who is within earshot or is able to read literature, no matter who he is, worker or capitalist, prince or prostitute, black or white, Christian or atheist. Our case for Socialism must stand on its own merit, and not on behalf of any class or section of society. It is the one and only way.
A.A.N.
17.3 CORRESPONDENCE
To the Editors.
Comrades,
We are always looking for new avenues of socialist propaganda. This is a good thing. But I think we should concentrate more on the existing methods.
One good method of propaganda is the local press. If writers of letters to the local papers keep their letters brief and put their case in a " moderate " way, most editors will accept them. A good tactic is to start a controversy with another correspondent— a Tory, a Catholic, Communist, etc.
Small branches should elect one press correspondent; larger branches should form a press committee, each member buying a different paper.
Having regularly written in one local newspaper for about three years, and having received sympathetic remarks from numerous neighbours, I consider this form of propaganda extremely useful.
Yours fraternally,
PETER E. NEWELL.
12
FORUM
. February 1954

17.4 EDITORIAL
In this issue of FORUM we publish an from Comrade D. W. Lock, of Lewisham Branch, under the heading “Revisionism and Renegades in the S.P.G.B. ". We quote from this article :
' There is a rotten spirit making itself is Party today ... It arises from the the fact that there are individuals in the party who are opposed to the D. of P. and who hold opinions which are incompatible with membership of the Party . . . The Party is beginning to smell—it is like a cancerous growth in the Party, which unless rooted out, will pollute the name of the S.P.G.B. and make it stink in the nostrils of class conscious workers."
"There are several aspects of this article which we think are objectionable.
1. The language is emotionally abusive and without argument.
2. It makes serious charges without any attempt to substantiate them.
3. It strongly suggests that FORUM publishes the views of the " renegades " who would have no journal to publish their views if they got out of the Party.
In regard to (1) we would say that there is no objection to emotional language when it is the yeast of argument. In this case it is just abuse.
Of (2) that charges made against members and branches of the Party unsupported with evidence are not compatible with the traditional attitude of the S.P.G.B.
And (3) that whilst some of the views expressed in these columns have occasionally left the editors of FORUM somewhat bemused about their meanings, it must, with due regard to our fallibility, be said that nothing which has appeared so far could lead us to assert that within the Party there are those " who hold opinions which are incompatible with membership of the Party".
We assure Comrade Lock that we have as yet detected no cancerous smells likely to pollute the name of the S.P.G.B. Perhaps this is because the sense of smell makes so small a contribution to socialists thought. We suggest that Comrade Lock gives his sense of sight a little exercise and reads what Party members have written, and with the aid of his sense of touch put into writing for the benefit of all of us the facts which lead him to make the accusation that there are " individuals in the Party who are opposed to the Declaration of Principles " and who have differences with the Party on " fundamental aspects of the Party's case ". If this work leaves him with time to spare, the open forums held every Saturday evening at Clapham would bring his sense of hearing into vibrant activity.

17.5 REVISIONISM AND RENEGADES IN THE S.P.G.B.
There is a rotten spirit making itself felt in the Party today. Many members have been uneasy for some time, and the number who think that matters must be brought to a head is growing. It arises from the fact that there are individuals in the Party who are opposed to the D. of P. and who hold opinions which are incompatible with membership of the Party. We have had differences of opinion in the past, but to try knowledge not on such fundamental aspect of the Socialist Party's case.
In the past, when a few individuals disagreed with some aspect of the party's case it has been assumed that they would in the course of time get out. They usually did, action has been taken against members on very few occasions. Now, however, we have individuals in the Party who not only disagree with much of the D. of P. but also have not the honesty to resign. This is becoming unbearable. The Party is beginning to smell—it is like a cancerous growth in the Party which, unless rooted out, will pollute the name of the S.P.G.B. and make make it stink in the nostrils of all class-conscious workers.
17.5.1 THE FOUNDATION OF THE S.P.G.B.
As is known, the Party was founded by a group of Socialists in 1904 who were dissatisfied with the existing policy of the S.D.F. After the expulsion of J. Fitzgerald and H. J. Hawkins, a Protest Committee was formed which issued a leaflet setting forth the grounds of dissatisfaction. The signatories to the leaflet urged " the adoption of an uncompromising attitude which admits of no arrangements with any section of the capitalist party; nor permits any compromise with any individual or party not recognising the class war as a basic principle, and not prepared to work for the overthrow of the present, capitalist system. Opposition to all who are not openly and avowedly working for the realisation of Social Democracy "; Such was the position put forward by those who eventually founded the S.P.G.B.
The Socialist Party and the trade unions have a common origin in the class struggle. 1 he former is the organised expression on the political field of the conscious recognition of that struggle by the workers.
The test of admission to the S.P.G.B. can be nothing less than acceptance of the essential working principles and policy of Socialism as a class movement—hence rule i of the Party.
Those individuals who are opposed to the class struggle and are members of the Party must have signed form A, signifying their acceptance of these principles. Either they were dishonest when they joined the S.P.G.B. and their signature on form A meant nothing to them (in which case the branch which admitted them must lake some of the blame) or they are renegades who, although no longer accepting the principles and policy they originally agreed with, re-mam in the Party.
The reason for the latter is obvious—outside the Party they would have no journal to publish their views, no platform from which to propagate their revisionist theories.
The issue is purely one of principle : is the struggle to be conducted as a class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie or not? I consider it is time to throw down the gauntlet to this adulterating element. Either the branch to which they belong must challenge them that their views are incompatible with membership of the Party; or, if their branch supports them, action must be taken against the branch.
Class interest is paramount. Growing out of the class struggle, our Party rests upon the class struggle as a condition of its existence. Whoever fails to understand this or thinks that the class struggle is a dead issue, or that class antagonisms are being gradually effaced, stands upon the basis or bourgeois philosophy.
D. W. LOCK.
February 1954
17.6 A WORKING CLASS PARTY
Or a Party working for socialism?
In order to clarify my position on this issue I have chosen to present my views in the form of a series of propositions, rather than in the more usual essay form. This will better enable critics to deal with my arguments, and will also assist me to avoid using language which might obscure the arguments.
The following propositions cover the basic disagreements I have with some members. If these differences can be resolved we can then approach the question of the description of Socialism in terms of our present knowledge.
1. Socialism is in the interest of every Human being throughout the entire world.
2. Socialism means the social equality of humanity, that is, no one seeking power or privilege over others nor supporting institutions based on power or privilege.
3. In all forms of property society the economic classes and social groupings into which people are divided are mutually antagonistic, e.g. worker v. capitalist, nation v. nation, male v. female.
4. In capitalist society people are, broadly speaking, divided into two economic classes—the working class and the capitalist class.
5. The economic interests of the working class are opposed to the economic interests of the capitalists class.
6. "WORKING CLASS INTERESTS means economic interests of the working class
7. "CAPITALIST CLASS INTERESTS " means economic interests of the capitalist class,
8. "GROUP INTERESTS" means the interests peculiar to social groups of people seeking privileges and power over other groups, i.e. national, racial, religious, income groups, etc.
9. No class or group interests can be equated with social interests, i.e. the interacts of all mankind.
10. Socialism alone, as a system of society or way of life, can give complete expression to social interests.
11. Since all class or group interests are mutually antagonistic, all class or group interests must be opposed to human interests, i.e. to Socialism.
12. A SOCIALIST PARTY comprises people possessing socialist ideas and seeks to achieve Socialism. It is not an economic unit.
13. A socialist party is not a class or group party; it is not a capitalist class party nor is it a working class party.
14. The division of humanity into classes and groups struggling for privilege and power is due 'to the existence of property and property institutions.
15. A socialist party does not appeal to any class or group as such. It appeals to mankind, not to capitalists, nor to wage-workers, nor to nations, nor races, nor families, nor income groups.
16. A socialist party makes a direct appeal to all human being to think and act, as far as they can today, as equals and to join with other socialists to spread the ideas to all men and women so that Socialism can be established.
17. SOCIALISM, being in the interests of all human beings, can only be established by methods which are in harmony with human interests.
18. Since coercion is power-and privilege-seeking, Socialism precludes the use of all forms of coercion, e.g. war, violence, lying and. withholding information.
19. Socialism can only be brought about by the mass of mankind thinking and acting as equals. Only socialists can think consistently as equals, and only socialists are opposed to all power-and privilege-seeking groups.
20. THE STATE or governmental machinery, including the armed forces, exists in property society. All economic classes and social groups seeking power and privilege aim at controlling this machinery or influencing those in control so as to further their class or group interests.
21. A socialist party cannot aim at gaining control of the governmental machinery', A socialist party relies upon the socialist understanding of the mass of people —it cannot rely upon law and armed force to establish or maintain Socialism.
22. Socialists must explain why society is divided into classes and groups seeking privilege and power. They must explain the SOCIAL reasons for men's behaviour.
23. Socialists oppose all anti-social thinking and action.
24. Socialists do not talk, or write about, or organise for, Socialism as capitalists or workers, as black or white people, or on the basis of sex, but as human beings understanding and wanting Socialism.
25. We cannot salute people with " Fellow Workers " for we do not speak or write as workers but as socialists. We cannot say " Fellow Capitalists ", " Fellow Countrymen ", " Fellow Jews ", etc.
26. Socialists can only advocate Socialism no matter the country they may be in or the conditions they may live under. For socialists to advocate any other system of society or way of life would mean their relinquishing any claim to the title of Socialist.
TURNER.

17.7 VIOLENCE
" The dangers of violence that threaten us come not from the heads of individuals but from social circumstances. Murder is an embolus. The disease lies elsewhere. It is not a matter of episodic violence, but of a continuous violation of the principle of the dignity and value of human life. Actually in our society respect for human life is only a professed theoretical ideal. We must vigorously remove the obstacles that prevent it from becoming a practical reality."
—F. Wertham in “The Show of Violence ", p. 266.

17.8 SOCIALISM, UTOPIAN AND PHILOSOPHICAL
Reply to A. A. N.

The art of erecting straw houses and knocking them over has not been ignored by A.A.N., in his contribution to the current confusion entitled ' Class struggle and the S.P.G.B.' (Dec. 1953). In general the article is riddled with ambiguity, misstatements, and complete lack of definition of all the expressions used. Also the vague and unsatisfactory way and phraseology in which the arguments are presented, make criticism extremely difficult. That is, unsatisfactory from the point of rendering and inviting criticism, which must be assumed is the object of the writer.
The most glaring example of this is the use of the words ' class struggle ', the first casualty in this philosophical morass. No definition is attempted and the reader is left with the mistaken impression that the class struggle is merely a Trade Union issue. A.A.N, should have spared us this speculation and stated clearly what he meant.
Before dealing with the principal criticisms it is advisable to point out that A.A.N, has not put the Party case but has in fact put something entirely different. A criticism of the Party case, or any aspect of it, must have its basis in the Party's existing propaganda, written and spoken, and which is accepted by the Party as a whole, not certain individuals. It is not good enough to use vague and abstract phrases about the Party being opposed to the capitalist class, or even in favour of the working class, nor is it good enough to make the sweeping claim that more often than not people are confused when they hear our propaganda. The Party's case is concrete enough, and criticisms of it should be clear, and not buried in a jungle of philosophical jargon or verbal cliches, all negative in character.
The opening lines of the article begin with the statement " this article is an attempt to show that the S.P.G.B. as a Party of propagandists, who are trying to enlist the aid of the whole of mankind to change the basis of present society, should in its propaganda not participate in the class struggle!
The S.P.G.B., are not, nor ever have been, trying to enlist the aid of the whole of mankind. The Party's case is that the working class in a majority must agree to the proposals submitted by us for the abolition of Capitalism. This is an entirely different proposition. If we take A.A.N's statement at its face value, it would mean that unless we were successful in enlisting the aid of the whole of mankind. Socialism could not be established. Alternatively, so long as a minority of capitalists, or workers, do not want Socialism, we cannot have it. This would also apply to those portions of the world population who are not members of the working class—Tibetian Llamas, primitive tribes in Central Africa, Aborigines, Hottentots, and the like. This does not detract from the basic Party position that all people, given similar economic circumstances, can understand Socialism; the point is, do they all have to as A.A.N, claims?
The latter part of the sentence about the Party and its propaganda not participating in the class struggle, betrays A.A.N.'s ignorance of what the class struggle really is. Marx made the famous statement that "All history was the history of class struggles'. Is is A.A.N.'s position that he is opposed to history and to historical process? That is, of course, if he agrees with Marx's statement.
The issue in the class struggle is one of property, either in degree (Trade Unions) or as a whole (common ownership). The position could be summarised as private
property versus common property, with Socialists ad\'ocating the latter. Participation in the class struggle is indispensable to the Socialist idea. When we analyse the Capitalist nature of society, and present that analysis in the form of propaganda, we are participating in the class struggle, as we are actively seeking to dispossess the present owners. We are the only Party who do this, Labour, Communist, I.L.P., Trotskyists, etc., have not analysed Capitalism accurately or adequately—that is our criticism of them. A.A.N.'s references to the Party being opposed to the Capitalist class is a dangerous half-truth, and leaves the impression that we are opposed to individuals. Surely little clarity is needed when we state the interest of the capitalist and working class are diametrically opposed over the product of labour (properly).
Paragraph 3 is a typical example of word-spinning, and, quite frankly, A.A.N. is very confused. ' Do we not deplore the fact that class struggle is inevitable under Capitalism and desire to end it? Why then do we insist in our propaganda that we represent the true interests of the workers as a class? '
This is real Jimmy Jesus morality, which starts off in the middle. In point of fact we do not deplore anything—we actively oppose the property division in Society which is the basis of class antagonisms. We cannot oppose class antagonisms any more than we can oppose the law of Gravity or any more than Canute could keep back the waves. When we discuss the ' true interests of the Working class we mean common ownership as opposed to private ownership— could anything be clearer? Socialism means the emancipation of the Working class economically; Capitalists are already economically emancipated, therefore common ownership for them is, at best, an academic issue instead of a dire necessity. In any event, Capitalists who are in favour of Socialism automatically identify themselves with Working class interests. If there is to be any foundation in the argument, we must use the word ' interests ' economically, that is from the Party's point of view, as we areat the receiving end of A.A.N."s criticism.
In Paragraph 4 he informs us " It is patently clear that the true interests of anybody within Capitalism are to acquire property ". Perhaps A.A.N, will inform as in a later article which particular set of true interests we have to consider, those in Paragraph 3 or Paragraph 4, as it seems that we now have two versions of ' true interests '. He claims in effect that the majority of people think their problems can be solved under Capitalism. A.A.N, is probably right in thinking that people think this, but the simple position is that the majority of people, in spite of their desires to obtain pioperty under Capitalism, are propertyless and will remain so.
If workers hold the illusion that their desires can be realised under Capitalism we must dispel it, and their alleged ' true interests ' with it.
The most serious criticism contained in AA.N.'s article is that the Party's propaganda over 50 years does not make Socialists, hence the need to alter it. Viz : " Does our propaganda at present receive this response from, people? The record of our achievement shows that it does not." Which means precisely that we are not a Socialist Party, as means and end are inseparable: wrong means wrong end. It is possible of course that A.A.N, will disagree with the logic of the position that, he has taken up, and grant us a concession or two; for example our contribution to scientific Socialism in the shape of numerous pamphlets
we have published. The existence of a few thousand people, some time members of the S.P.G.B., including A.A.N., who, at any rate, call themselves Socialists.
The existing propaganda has converted a few thousand, why not a few million ? Or is it A.A.N.'s view that we in the S.P.G.B., are a special breed, or a collection of freaks? What was good enough to bring us in is apparently not good enough for people generally. It is not a question of improving that which is wrong to begin with, that is, if AA.N.'s criticism is correct. The present writer sees nothing wrong in the existing propaganda apart from its volume and ill-informed propagandists who reduce the case to a catechism instead of making it a virile and living force, scientific and emotional. To interpolate here on the question of scientific and emotional, has A.A.N, ever read Marx's description of the condition of English agricultural and factory workers in the early 19th century (Capital volume 1), the Civil War in France, Engels on the condition of the working classes in 1844? All scientific works, but not devoid of human feeling or emotion.
A.A.N, thinks he has tied us up in a verbal strait-jacket and is disgusted with our scientific approach to the real world because he claims it lacks emotion, or rather, that we are afraid of being unscientific. This is one of the reasons, he claims, that we refuse to formulate a policy on Socialism and what it will look like. The majority of members are on more than nodding terms with this phantom, and are waiting patiently
for the formulators to take the initiative. 1 he Party has never done this for the simple reason that it cannot be done, there is nothing to know. When Socialism is established nobody will know what it will look like, neither will anyone care apart from some S.P.G.B'ers. We shall certainly have some information on production, technically; big communities, small communities; nymphs & shepherds; not to forget our old friend Sex. We could, of course, speculate and be wrong, but to gain favour with A.A.N. what would it matter as long as we were emotionally wrong
It is significant that only Socialists argue what Socialism will look like—only Socialists can. The present writer hasn't a clue, like millions of others; he will accept the insurance policies of democratic control and common ownership, which is all the Party offers,, and with these two ingredients recreate the world.
A.A.N, finally threatens us with hell-fire if we don't mend our ways and include the Capitalists, as if we could exclude the Capitalists from Socialism. They will have it whether they like it or not.
A.A.N, can't see the wood for the trees. His cardinal error is to separate Socialism and the struggle for Socialism (the class struggle). The conquest drenching we have had of words and conclusions drawn from illogical presmises is a direct result of this. It seems rather a long winded way of opposing the Party's attitude to Trade Unions and clause 6 of our Declaration of Principles.
J. D'ARCY.
17.9 NATIONAL SERVICE ACT
Peter Berry, Kingston Branch, was sentenced at Kingston to three months imprisonment for refusing to undertake a medical examination for service under the National Service Act. He had previously appeared before the local Tribunal at Fulham and was struck off the Objector's register. His subsequent appeal was unsuccesful.
17.10 PROBLEMS OF PROPAGANDA — 3
The Written Word
Written propaganda is used by the Party to establish and explain its attitude on all matters connected with its principles and policy. In its long-term aspect, it is the accumulation of a reference library; from month to month it is the Socialist Standard giving its views on more or less topical subjects, " looking at world events through socialist eyes ' .
The S.S. is faced with the same problem as Party speakers—who are we addressing and what are we trying to get across to them? Officially it is "a propaganda organ to convince workers of the need for Socialism "—unofficially it is " what the Party wants to say to those outside the Party ". The unofficial definition is preferable, because it makes it easier to see that the S.S. is the product of certain definite conditions, influenced by tradition and (to a lesser degree) by particular editorial policy.
Now, what do members want to say to outsiders via the S.S.? Many answers are possible, but none seems to meet with full agreement among members. We may know that Comrade X wants to say this, and that
Y wants to say that. But with the Party as a whole it can't be so clear-cut. The Party can't tell its members what they want to say—all it can do is to tell them what (in the best interests of the Party) they shall NOT say. No member shall write in the S.S. statements which conflict with the Party case or which are the subject of controversy among members.
If it is thought desirable that the S.S. should assume that readers have no knowledge of the socialist case, then it is logical that no mention of anti-socialist arguments or internal controversy should be made. But if you are trying to get people interested in Socialism, then you've got to be positive— and this is where the S.S. falls down. The S.S. is like a certain type of speaker who wants questions to enable him to develop his case, but who precludes them by being negative. In fact, taken as a whole, the S.S. is (unfortunately) not for those who know nothing of the SPGB case—it is for those who know a little and want it confirmed or elaborated. It is also for such as the non-socialist regular reader for 25 years who finds in it useful information to dish the C.P'ers.
There is no doubt that the Party should publish a journal for newcomers to socialist ideas. But I don't agree with the ways in which some members think this can be achieved, e..g. by using simpler language, avoiding theoretical articles, etc. There is no simple solution to the problem of how to get and keep new readers of the S.S., but it might help if we allowed ourselves to be more positive in explaining what Socialism is. True, practically everything that is positive about Socialism is controversial and therefore taboo in the S.S. At present, no statement appears which could be the subject of dispute among members. But do we not needlessly hamstring our writers and limit our readership by an over-eagerness to speak with one voice about everything?
The attempt to have 100% of what is written in the S.S. agreed upon by 100% of the membership is bad for this reason : it artificially fragments socialist ideas into propaganda (to go outside) and controversy (to remain inside). In " Forum ", controversy is cut off from its source and pushed out of the main arena (where is should be part of the act) into the side-show (where it makes an exhibition of itself, in the worst sense).
A wider concept of the function of the S.S. would save members from thinking in terms of a separate internal journal. If, in the course of a genuine attempt to get across socialist ideas to others, a member says " there won't be any mass production under Socialism " why ban this from the S.S. just because some members (including myself) disagree? The member holds that view and he is a socialist. We don't know what makes people socialists—there are so many factors involved. So why not try to find as many points of contact with people as possible and try to touch as many aspects of their lives as possible?
If the S.S. incorporated articles which expressed the personal point of view of the writers (not, of course, out of proportion to the official view) then this would encourage correspondence from.non-members, just as a meeting needs a questioner, so a journal needs a correspondence column. At present the S.S. gets virtually no correspondence because it is too impersonal, though this impersonality has nothing to do with signing your name at the end—it consists in the whole approach to the reader. The occasional letter that does get into Standard is not from a reader interested in Socialism and wanting to know more, but from one who is " needled " into an attack. Perhaps this is because opponents are, on the whole, catered for rather better than sympathisers.
Were the S.S. to be " opened up " along the lines I have suggested,- there is no need to fear that members would abuse the right of free expression to grind their own axes. They would be conscious (or at least the Ed. Comm. would) that their remarks would have to be significant to socialists and non-socialists alike.
Another thing that should be discussed is the way the S.S. is printed. Are members satisfied with its present appearance? From what I have heard, they are not—when they give the matter any thought. Chief complaints centre around its parish-magazine look. There is little excuse for the all-too-frequent " sea " of unbroken type on a page, nor for the unimaginative headings. The Election Special, by comparison, was much more interesting to read. It contained mostly the same stuff as the S.S. yet it contrived to look arresting, urgent, alive. Perhaps members have got so used to the present look of the S.S. that they take it for granted —yet have a look at it when it is displayed in a newsagents alongside all the other papers. Need it look, at first glance, so much like the " Undertakers' Gazette?"
It seems to me that there is quite a lot of scope for improving the circulation of the S.S. by making it more attractive to new readers. My suggestion is to make it a 4 page newspaper (double the Election Special), without altering its present number of words. Cut the price to 3d. and print 8,000 copies. A sale of this number —surely it is possible if we really try?—at an average price of 2|d would bring in £83 6s. 8d.; more than enough to pay for the printing. Spend part of the £20 a month that we now lose on the S.S. on publicity, and I am confident that we could coon exceed a sale of 10,000 copies a month— enough to enable us to start seriously thinking about a fortnightly journal.
S.R.P.
17.11 CANVASSING
Canvassing is one of the activities of members which deserves more attention than it usually gets. Other propaganda activities, such as speaking on the platform and writing in Party literature, are subject of discussion among members, so that shortcomings are made apparent and techniques improved But when the individual member goes ou< " on the knocker " he is left to his own resources to make the best impression he can.
During the recent by-election campaign in N. Paddington, for example, the members who went canvassing had three objects : —
1.To talk to people about the policy of the S.P.G.B.
2.To get them to come to our meetings.
3.To sell our literature.
There is reason to suppose that some members who engaged in this activity experienced difficulty in handling the situations in which they found fhemselves. Yet the fact that other members are able to do very useful work regularly in this direction indicates that the technique of canvassing is something that can be learned.
Members should seize an early opportunity of discussing this question in their branches, with a view to organising an exchange of ideas between canvassers and encouraging other members to undertake this activity. They can benefit from hearing how others face and overcome the difficulties that canvassing (and personal propaganda generally) presents.
A CANVASSING ORGANISER.

18. FORUM
No. 18
Internal Journal of the S.P.G.B. - 6d.
MARCH, 1954

18.1 THE SENTIMENTAL ANARCHISTS
Forgive my calling you such names, Turner; a thousand pardons, A. A. N.— but really . . . First it was light-hearted fanciful stuff, agapemones in the air and craft-conscious Sylvies and Brunos; then the uninequality of man and the cult of nonviolence ; and now the Scout Law's call to the deep humanity in every man, no matter to what class the others may belong. Temporarily one is sorry about being a materialist; one wants to think of the joy in Valhalla—Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Moses Hess, Rousseau, Uncle Will Morris and all, heh-heh-hehing in their beards as their twopence-coloured Utopias glow among the ashes and their noble mutual-aiding savages ride again in Clapham.
It was scarcely truthful of you, Turner, to call that article " A Criticism of the Election Address ". It wasn't anything of the sort, really; it was a criticism of the Party. The election address was not very good—and the E.G. turned it down (after first turning down a real shocker from the Editorial Committee), and accepted it only when the circumstances seemed to say it was that or nothing at all. Some of us would almost have preferred nothing at all, and said so. Turner might have mentioned all this—only it isn't what he is concerned with. The address—however negatively, however leaden-footedly—stated the Party's case of opposition to other parties and its refusal to compromise with wage-labour-and-capital society; and that is the target of Turner's criticism.
And now we have the New Declaration of Principles, the twenty-five steps oc the happy land. (Can we get there by candlelight? Yes—and back again.) Flow delightfully they are introduced : "the basic disagreements I have with some members". Who are "some members"? Oh, only the thousand who accept the Party's Principles.
Turner asks members to discuss his propositions; he asks, in effect, that they shall reconsider the validity of the Party Principles, He suggests that what wras laid down in I 904 no longer meets the bill, and that the Party should break away from its fundamental pre-occupation with " economic groupings ". A spectre haunts Turner and A. A. N. : the spectre of a nineteenth-century political cartoon where a bloated, cigar-sucking capitalist confronts a collarless, downtrodden-but-defiant proley. That is the image of the "orthodox" Party case as Turner's polemics represent it. See how eagerly A. A. N. snatches Judd's reference to hating : " quite commonly held by Party members ", he rumbles. How many members really see it like that? Judd does, certainly, and a minority of others, I should say. This much, however, can be said for Judd's view: it's a caricature, but it caricatures a reality.
The case for socialism, as I see it, is something like this. All property societies are bad for the propertyless people; objectively they are bad far the property-owners too, but it's like telling a sexual athlete that continence is beneficial. People live in particular forms of property societies; ours is capitalism, and the people it is bad for in a big way are the working people. It is bad for them first and foremost in that it gives insufficient food, clothing and shelter to a great many of them; it impedes the obtaining of either variety or depth of experience for most of them; it provides innumerable individual and social difficulties and frustrations. In addition, it has special problems for all the people some of the time (e.g., wars) and for some of the people all the time (e.g., racial minorities). Practically all working men and women are aware of these problems in much the way I have put them down; that is why they support anybody who appears likely to help them to a larger slice of the cake. Whatever else may come under " working class interests ", this is the constant and the biggest one : to get much more and much better from living.
Is this what the Socialist Party is concerned with? Yes. Repeat, yes: getting more and better for the economic group to which almost all of us belong. The real nature of our opposition to reforms, to the other parties, is that they cannot produce more and better for the working class in any sense worth talking about. As far as I know we have no other objection. A. A. N. says :" It is no function of the S.P.G.B., to instruct people (workers) as to their best method of obtaining more wealth ". Well, if " socialist knowledge " included exclusive information of that sort, I shouldn't mind; are there really " best methods " of which people (workers) may be informed? I'll wait excitedly for A. A. N.'s next article—" You Too Can Have Mazuma Like Mine ".
It surprises me to read that " socialism is in the interest of every human being " comprises a " basic disagreement " with members. The Declaration of Principles says the same thing; I have no disagreement, nor has any other member I've come across (except that, as I understand Turner's case, it means we must wait for the last Hottentot after all). But it's a different thing from saying that " a socialist party makes a direct appeal to all human beings to think and act, as far as they can do today, as equals ", or that " socialists do not talk, or write about, or organise for, Socialism as capitalists or workers ". Capitalists stand to gain from Socialism, but different things; they have an interest involved in its establishment, but a different interest. " Worker or capitalist, prince or prostitute, black or white, Christian or atheist "... ah, it sounds wonderful; tell me, has anyone seen a human being stripped of the classifications and motives that the social environment imposes? A. A. N. say in big letters: " Within the S.P.G.B., all such classifications vanish ". If you buy " Health and Efficiency " you'll read that the same thing happens in the buff, and it means just as much.
But what old stuff it all is! The " true socialists" of pre-1848 Germany had it to romantic perfection. And here is Keir Hardie, writing about it in the same year as the S.P.G.B., was formed :
" I claim for the I.L.P., that its Socialism is above suspicion, and its independence unchallenged and unchallengeable; and yet in the platform speeches and in the writings of its leading advocates the terms ' class war ' or ' class conscious' are rarely if ever used . . .
Now it is not disputed that there is a conflict of interests between those who own property and those who work for wages . . . The object of Socialism is the removal of the causes which produce this antagonism, so that the human interest may at all times be the dominant one. The enlightened capitalist will be as anxious to bring this about as the enlightened workman. Both stand to gain from the change ".
Plenty of others were saying it at the same time; " Left Bevanite " has been remarking in the " Socialist Leader " that it led them up some odd paths. No, I am not suggesting that Turner and A. A. N. are going Keir Hardie's way, though it might provide a smart answer—and a warning—to those who claim that the election address implied reformism.
Throw over concern with the class struggle, and there are two ways to go. One is the reformers', the Methodism-not-Marx way; the other is the non-political way. You don't want control of the powers of government, you don't want political theory. All you need is a change of heart: close your eyes tight, forget your grouping, shed its culture, and you'll feel the human interests surging through you. You and John Ellerman have common cause; my missus and Lady Docker are sisters of the revolution.
The humanely interested are label-changers, asking to slap new tickets on the Socialist case. How shall we label them? Should it be a red label, or merely green? Turner and " Only Way " A. A. N. obviously regard themselves as " true socialists "; but how unfair it would be to call them that! Why, it was the name of a nineteenth-century sect which projected Utopias for humanitarians. There seems only one posible description. Compound the faith in humanity and the repudiation of political action, what do we find? Sentimental anarchism . . . well, well, well; so that's what all the fuss is about.
R. COSTER,
18.2 and THE ANARCHISTS
At quite a number of our outdoor meetings members of the audience have asked speakers if we have anything in common with the Anarchists—or they have suggested that we and the Anarchists have a similar aim. Unfortunately, some speakers have not, in my opinion, dealt with these questions adequately. One prominent Party speaker has often said that if the questioner wants to call what we advocate "Anarchism " he does not mind. I think this attitude makes for confusion, and tends to give the impression that we and the Anarchists have much in common, that we have similar principles. I will endeavour to show that this is not so.
18.2.1 PRINCIPLES AND DEMOCRACY
Although many of us in the S.P. may, and do, criticice certain aspects and tenets of our Declaration of Principles, we all accept the fact that the S.P.G.B., and its companion parties are the only organisations in the world that have a definate set of principles. The Anarchists have no principles at all. They are, and always have been, governed by expediency.
Take, for example, the Russian Revolution. From the beginning, the Socialist Party stated that this was a bourgeois revolution; that it would not emancipate the workers of the Russian Empire from exploitation ; that it would inevitably result in a class society. But not the Anarchists. The Anarchists, all over the world, supported the revolution and the Bolshevik dictatorship. Nowadays, like the Trotskyists, they say the revolution failed, it was betrayed. Alexander Berkman, the Russian Anarchist, supported both the February and October revolutions, and only later became disillusioned. But he admitted (A.B.C. of Anarchism) that the masses lacked both consciousness and definate purpose!
For Berkman, the revolution was O.K. until the Bolsheviks took over. But the following admission by Emma Goldman, another well-known Anarchist, should damn the Anarchists for ever. In Trotsky Protests Too Much (Published in Glasgow by the " Anarchist-Communist Federation " she wrote :
" During the four years civil war in Russia the. Anarchists almost to a man stood by the Bolsheviks, though they grew more daily conscious of the impending collapse of the Revolution. They felt in duly bound to keep silent and to avoid everything that would bring aid and comfort to the enemies of the Revolution." (p. 15)
When it suits them. Anarchists will support any form of government, democratic (?) or dictatorial.
It was not only during the first few years that the Anarchists supported the Communist government and its leaders. The following quotation from Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain, by Felix Morrow shows to what depths Anarchists can sink:
"Above all, the great masses had not been prepared to understand the Stalinist system of frame-up and slander. Currying favor with Stalm, the Anarchist leaders had been guilty of such statements as that of Montseny: ' Lenin was not the true builder of Russia but rather Stalin with his practical realism'. The Anarchist press had preserved a dead silence about Moscow trials and purges, publishing only the official news reports. The C.N.T. (Anarchist "trade union") leaders even ceased to defend their Anarchist comrades in Russia. When the Anarchist, Erich Muehson was murdered by Hitler, and his wife sought refuge in the Soviet Union, only to be imprisoned shortly after her arrival, the C.N.T. leadership stifled the protest movement in the C.N.T. ranks Even when the Red Generals were shot, the C.N.T., organs published only the official bulletins."

(Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain, p. 127-8)
18.2.2 DEMOCRACY AND VIOLENCE
Anarchists have always opposed democracy. In a debate with Comrade Turner at Denison House on Sunday March 1st, 1953, Philip Sansom, on behalf of the " London Anarchist Group ", stated categorically that Anarchists opposed democracy. And in a letter to Comrade Young, published in FORUM, April 1953, the editors of Freedom (the Anarchist weekly wrote " our paper Freedom does advocate minority action . . ." And was it not Emma Goldman who said " minorities are always right "?
The alleged object of Anarchists is Anarch}'. Whilst Anarchists claim to be revolutionaries, many of them have been guilty of reformism and the support of capitalist-reform parties. Prince Peter Kropotkin, the Russian Anarchist, supported the first World War, and the Anarchist Rudolph Rocker supported the second, whilst the well-known Belgian Anarchist, G. Ernestan recently wrote :
'' The rearmament of Western Europe is necessary, and the victory of the West in case of war is desirable; let us be frankly and sincerely with Truman."
(Freedom 1.3.52)
Anarchists maintain that their object is a free, co-operative, harmonious society, without government, state and capitalism (some Anarchists advocate the abolition of the wages system, whilst others support the ideas of Proudhon, with his " Peoples' Banks " and his peculiar theories on commodities and money).
Although some Anarchists are pacifists and refuse to defend violence, others defend violence under certain circumstances. Alexander Berkman, in his A.B.C. of Anarchism, writes :
Yes, Anarchists have thrown bombs and have sometimes resorted to violence . . . under certain conditions a man may have to resort to violence. That man may happen to be a Democrat, a Monarchist, a Socialist, Bolshevik, or Anarchist . . . You will find that this applies to all men and to all times."
(p. 11) and
" You see, then, that Anarchists have no monopoly of political violence. The number of such acts by Anarchists is infinitesimal as compared with those committed by persons of other political persuasions.
The truth is that in every country, in every social movement, violence has been a part of the struggle from time immemorial. Even the Nazarene, who came to preach the gospel of peace, resorted to violence to drive the money changers out of the temple."
(P. 13)
That the Anarchists are men of peace and opponents of war is not true. When it suits their purpose Anarchists will support war in the same way as Tories or Labourites. In Spain during the Civil War, Anarchists killed other workers (of course they were only Phalangists, Moors or Germans!) as did the Republicans and the Stalinists. Their activities in Spain confirm my statement that Anarchists are entirely lacking in principles. They are supposed to be opposed to war, but support it on occasions; they are supposed to oppose the vote and the ballot box, but have been known to vote in their millions; and are supposed to be opposed to government, and yet have joined and supported a bourgeois-liberal government in Spain.
18.2.3 ANARCHISTS AND THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT
In the February, 1936 election in Spain the Anarchists, who. had in the past abstained, voted for the Popular Front. The " left " parties increased their vote by about a million over the 1933 election. And D. A. Santillan admits that this can, to a great extent, be put down to the Anarchist vote. Santillan was a leading member of the "Anarchist Federation of Iberia " (F.A.I.), organiser of the anti-fascist Militias in Catalonia, and later an Anarchist minister in the Catalan government. In his book " Porque Perdimos la Guerra " he says : " We gave power to the Left parties, convinced that in the circumstances, they represented a lesser evil ". We seem to have heard of this " lesser evil " argument before!
Afterwards, Anarchists entered both the Madrid and Catalan governments. On November 4th, four members of the C.N.T., entered the Caballero government. Of course most Anarchists in this country now condemn and disown their Spanish comrades. Some would like to forget Proudhon, others Bakhounin, others Max Stirner.

Although there are many other aspects in which we differ from the Anarchists—such as the Anarchists' cult of the individual, syndicalism, and the like—I think I have shown that they have nothing in common with the socialist movement; that they, like the Tories, Stalinists, etc., have no principles, and are prepared to support any movement.
To those readers who are not conversant with Anarchism, I suggest the following books:—
"ANARCHISM AND SOCIALISM " by George Plechanoff.
(Charles Kerr, Chicago)
"A.B.C. OF ANARCHISM" by Alexander Berkman.
(Freedom Press, 27 Red Lion Street, W.C.1.)
" THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANARCHISM " by Sir Herbert Read.
" THE PLACE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN SOCIETY" by Emma Goldman.
For a brief account of Anarchism in Spain during the Civil War, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by V. Richards (Freedom Press) is specially recommended. Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell (Seeker and Warburg) is also well worth reading.
PETER E. NEWELL.
18.3 CORRESPONDENCE To the Editors,
The contribution " Revisionism and Renegades in the S.P.G.B." (February) by Comrade D. W. Lock, is an attempt to use abuse in the place of argument. I have only two statements to make to Lock:
1.That if there is a continuation of the atmosphere created by the statements in Lock's article then all the useful discussion within the Party is at an end.
2.That I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to debate my views with those of Comrade Lock, and accordingly invite him to attend Central Office on a Saturday to be arranged.
A. W. L. TURNER.

18.4 EDITORIAL
RETROSPECT, 1952-3
Now that the storms of the earlier FORUM controversies have had time to abate, it is perhaps time to review and lo make some assessment of them. Here it is not possible to mention all the issues that have been dealt with, but we hope that the selection, if arbitrary, is also representative.
Evans' series on " The Nature of the Socialist Revolution " drew sharply divided comment. His return to FORUM (this issue) has been awaited with some interest.
Of the initial controversies, the ballot and election questions were fairly thoroughly dealt with in the earlier isues. The thornier trade union problem only reappeared later on and has still been incompletely stated. The four contributions on Heredity and Ability put some interesting points, but tended to lose relevance to the Party's propaganda, particularly in their later stages. The articles on mass production seemed to have had the effect of reducing the area of disagrement— a desirable effect not always achieved in controversy.
Discussion on backward countries left the last word with Flayden, yet opinions in the Party (and the Chapter in Questions of the Day) suggest that most of the points were scored by McClatchie. There were several articles on selectivity, but the original proposition that " some are more likely to be interested in our case than others " evoked no suggestion of how to use this knowledge. Later discussions centred around the concentration of propaganda. Also arising out of the selectivity question was a controversy over whether "People of the World—Unite! was a valid socialist call.
Towards the end of 1953, the subject of violence was introduced, though it is doubtful whether it has yet been resolved lo anyone's satisfaction. Rather better answered was the question "Are the Workers Better Off? " We do not think we show undue bias in saying that there are few who support Horatio's contention that if workers' conditions have improved then Socialism is out.
The year ended with the appearance of topics that are still being discussed, such as our attitude to class struggle and to parliament.
There is sufficient ' unfinished business ' from the past to occupy quite a bit of the future. For example, Evans' critics have held off, awaiting his conclusions; nobody has yet challenged in print the contention that " Socialism Will Benefit All "; and no attempt has been made to formulate an attitude to sex prejudice and the family. Many other matters await consideration. The debate continues . . .

18.5 IS SOCIALISM A WORKING-CLASS ISSUE?
In our object and two of our principles, we recognise that all mankind is involved in the establishment of Socialism. The actual words are " in the interest of the whole community ", " democratic control by the whole people " and " emancipation of all mankind ".
It does not seem possible that we can propose common ownership of the means of life " in the interest of the whole community " without showing horv this will be in the interest of all its members. Neither can we propose the emancipation, i.e. freeing from bondage, of all mankind unless we grant that all mankind is in bondage in some way.
The emancipation of all mankind must include the emancipation of members of the capitalist class. If the emancipation of the capitalist class is not envisaged, then Clause 4 of the D. of P. is, in the language of the authoritarians, being " repudiated ".
If, however, Clause 4 is correct, then the capitalist class is also in bondage. And... in a sense, this is true! Its members are as much enslaved to property as the workers are. True, theirs may seem to be a pleasurable form of enslavement by comparison with the workers '. But neither workers nor capitalists are living under socialist conditions.
However much we may, as workers, envy the capitalists, we cannot do so from a socialist point of view. Socialism means a society based on the equal claims of all its members. It does NOT mean the working class getting the power and privileges that are now in the hands of the capitalist class—it means NO power and privilege. The Socialist Party cannot aim at making any section of society a ruling class or group, because that would preclude having Socialism.
Since some members hold that the changeover will consist in the working class becoming the dominant or ruling class, it seems that the explanation of what Socialism will be like is very necessary. Without agreement on the basic features of the society we propose, there can be no real agreement on the means that are to be used to bring it about.
18.5.1 WHAT ARE INTERESTS?
Let us first try to clear up this question of " interests ". What is meant by the statement " Socialism is in the interest of the working class " ? It cannot mean that members of the working class think that it is " in their interest " to establish Socialism—because most of them obviously don't. The S.P.G.B.'s propaganda has been designed to get round this point by saying that workers, for various reasons, don't perceive what is in their true interest, i.e. they don't look at Socialism (as socialists do) as something more desirable than letting Capitalism go on.
This clearly reveals that whether people consider Socialism to be in their interest or not is determined, not by membership of a class but by the ideas they hold. I have stressed ' determined ' because it is true that one's status within Capitalism is a conditional factor in one's acceptance of socialist ideas.
Yet socialist ideas are not confined to any group or class in society by design—only by chance. 1 hus there may now be no socialists in Albania, no yellow-skinned socialists, no socialists who are capitalists. But this is not because the people concerned are Albanian, yellow-skinned ar capitalists. It is simply because they do not hold socialist ideas.
Now, what does a socialist mean when he says the " Socialism is in my interest "? He doesn't mean " in my interest as a worker " because Socialism aims to abolish workers as a class. There must be some standards by which he measures his lot as a worker against that of a person living in socialist society. He cannot as a socialist measure his lot against that of a capitalist, because that would mean he would conceive his interest to be to become a capitalist. The only standards by which he can measure the present against the future he wants are those of HUMAN STATURE
Workers are not free to express themselves as human beings. Workers who are artists function primarily as capitalists. Where there are antagonisms of interest both antagonists are deprived of the conditions which only harmony can bring. A worker resents being paid too little. When he is a socialist he resents having to be paid. A capitalist resents taking too few profits. When he is a socialist he resents having to take profits. The reason for this is that all socialists share a conception of a society in which (among other things) human worth will cease to be valued in money terms.
18.5.2 BASIS OF UNDERSTANDING
In addressing audiences we do not address an abstraction called the working class. We speak to a group of people with all kinds of opinions, prejudices, religious differences, economic differences, etc. Who, then, are the working class? What are the problems that face them? A better paid job, a better house or flat, will provide solutions to many of their problems. Such problems are not perceived as social ones; therefore the solutions are never really social, but are, at most, particular group solutions.
We call in vain for working-class unity for Socialism. Such unity is only obtained inside the Socialist Party. Inside the working class, the workers continue to jostle and push each other and to carry the capitalist class on their backs—complaining only of the load, never questioning its right to be there.
To seek, therefore, a common basis of understanding is to hold the " mirror of life " under present conditions for all non-socialists to see. It is to show that there is a way out of the present social set-up, that there is a possibility of harmonious relationships in a society designed to encourage human development, not to frustrate it.
Saying that Socialism is primarily a question of class struggle, inviting questions on whether we are better or worse off than 50 years ago—in fact the whole negative approach in our propaganda must be balanced with the idea of a positive proposition of the society which is our object. Not in the dual sense of destruction and reconstruction, but as a process of development, with the elements of dissolution on the one hand, and of growth on the other.
The basis of membership of the Socialist Party is acceptance of socialist ideas—it is not membership of a class in society. Socialism is NOT " helping to raise the working class to the position of ruling class ' . It is the society that people who are socialists will bring about, not people who are workers. It is not a capitalist class issue, neither is it a working class issue.
G. HILBINGER.
18.6 A POLICY ON SOCIALISM
Stripped of verbiage, DArcy's "Socialism, Utopian and Philosophical " boils down to these points:
1. "All people, given similar economic circumstances, can understand Socialism, the point is do they all have to as A.A.N. claims" ?
Why the qualification " similar economic circumstances? " The onus is on DArcy to shows in what economic circumstances some people cannot understand Socialism.
2. " The issue in the class struggle is one of property, either in degree (Trade Unions) or as a whole (common ownership)."
Common ownership (i.e. no ownership) abolishes property " as a whole." There are no degrees in property, which consists in relationships that are either supported or opposed. Therefore Trade Unions cannot abolish property "in degree", nor can anyone else.
3. " Labour, Communist, I.L.P., Trotskyists, etc., have not analysed Capitalism accurately or adequately—that is our criticism of them."
Our main criticism of other parties is not their analysis of Capitalism, but that they do not work for Socialism.
4. " Socialism means fhe emancipation of the working class economically; capitalists are already economically emancipated, therefore common ownership for them is, at best, an academic issue instead of a dire necessity. In any event, capitalists who are in favour of Socialism automatically identify themselves with the working class interests. If there is to be any foundation in the argument, we must use the word ' interests ' economically."
Capitalists are not already economically emancipated in the way that Socialism will emancipate all mankind. Socialism in a dire necessity only for socialists, not for workers or capitalists. On DArcy's own showing that class interests are economic, no capitalist can identify himself with working class interests.
5. " When Socialism is established nobody will know what it will look like, neither will anyone care apart from some S.P.G.B'ers."
In every social system the people " know what it looks like ". With Socialism the majority will care, not just some S.P.G.B'ers. DArcy's reference to ' establishment ' can only mean a legal enactment of Socialism, to be followed later by new social conditions— i.e. he envisages a transition period. This is the inevitable result of refusing to discuss what Socialism will be like until it comes.
6. The present writer hasn't a clue, like millions of others; he will accept the insurance policies of democratic control and common ownership, which is all the Party offers, and with these two ingredients re-create the world."
The first statement is indisputable. ' Democratic control and common ownership" is not all the S.P.G.B., offers. Labour Communist, I.L.P., etc., all offer to " recreate the world " with these vague ideals. When Socialism comes (and assuming that DArcy is still alive and analysing) he will find there is much more to it than that. He should remember that insurance policies have small print and go into some detail—what he wants can be written on a due stamp.
DArcy says he is waiting patiently for other members to take the initiative in formulating a policy on what Socialism will look like. But he has already decided that " there is nothing to know ". No headway can be made while members think like this. He must see that it cuts no ice to say "A.A.N, has not put the Party case "—nor is it good enough just to state what the Party case is or is not. The only criterion for fruitful discussion within the S.P.G.B., (or anywhere) is are the arguments sound?
S. R. P.

18.7 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION— 6
The Ideological Reflection
These articles are an amplification of the first one. The next (concluding) section will suggest the possibility of construing Socialism out of the movement of Capitalism (the starting point, perhaps, of a fresh discussion). This section meanwhile draws attention to the limitations of propaganda and suggests that so far we have made the worst of a hard job.
A dance is a conventional pattern of movements traced out by the dancers' feet, woven between people who cross, turn and bow. When the music stops, no physical pattern remains, carved out in solid air, yet it does remain, for it can be repeated at will. It remains in the dancers' heads, when thought about (given a name). But it exists also in their feet, as learned (habitual) sequences of reflexes triggered off by the name.
Society is a structure of dance patterns, woven between people, the steps built up of the reflex conventions of everyday life into the distinguishable dances we name institutions— dances called by the tune of organised labour. The patterns exist in men's heads, and in the flesh and blood as habits unconsciously learned and socially compulsive. We give them names (' ideas ', ' thinking '), and give names to aggregations of names (' ideologies', ' outlooks '). If we ask how, by what intermediate processes, the mode of labour determines ideologies, we fox ourselves with a question wrongly stated. Modes of production are ideologies (habits thought about and labelled).
Bodily activity induces a moistening of the skin, sweat. It produces also another kind of sweat—' thoughts '. No tribe (probably) deifies perspiration, worships it as a separate power, and calls it the engine of the world. But this is how we regard the moist glisten of mind called ' thinking ', unless we know it's only sweat. The skin is a protective covering, a heat regulator, and an overflow outlet for the end-products of activity; so is thinking. Both are skin deep—especially the notion that " I work because I sweat .
Still, we are rational beings. We preconceive our ends. We think what we're about. We look before we leap. We decide. And part of our confusion on this matter of being giving the name ' idea ' indiscriminately to everything from the elemental percept of the aware that we think and feel comes from senses to the vast complex of a whole man's whole relation to the whole world which is the ideology. An outlook, moreover, is more than a ' large ' idea, or a bundle of ideas. An idea is a man's thought; an ideology is a man thinking. Christianity, Socialism, or the like, is the verbal formulation of a human soul, the skin glistening with the last evcre-ment of its agitation. We may argue about ideologies, but you can't argue with them. There is no reason about being what we are, and whoever is defeated in a logical clash of antlers can only grow new antlers from his flesh to preserve his flesh. ' Ideas ' in this sense can be exchanged only between those whose ideas are already akin.
This we know, more or less, but what of it anyway? What can the socialist do but talk socialism?
Suppose we also concede that the herd instinct, the supreme sanction of outlawry, makes it very embarrassing to sing out of tune, and that the revolutionary outlook is the most dissonant—still, what other tune can we sing?
18.7.1 DISARMING THE OPPOSITION
There is another difference between the idea and the ideology : one looks forward, the other backward. The idea looks forward because survival depends on awareness, not simply of the actual present situation, but of the immediate future contained in it. The idea (at the simpler, sensory level here implied) anticipates. Otherwise we could never cross the road or catch a ball. The present is perceived in motion, and its speed and direction continued in the mind's eye, the arc projected, the graph extrapolated. So the lightning catch is held or the traffic cheated.
The ideology, on the other hand, is an accumulation of past experience, which takes time to organise in the mmd. By the time it has digested into the coherence of verbal formulation it lags behind the current situation, more especially as it is formulated through the medium of earlier generations' concepts and yardsticks, accepted in innocence and taken for granted. An outlook is always more or less behind the times, and only by practising, in the larger realm of ideology, of interpretation of the world, the anticipation which which is instinctive at the simpler level of perception; that is, to keep our eye, not on the ball, but on its motion; to observe the historical movement of society and project that movement.
The reason for drawing attention to the oneness of labour and thinking and institutions and production and all the things we separate for the purpose of labelling; to the social instinct of men which makes revolution innately unacceptable; to the utter continuity of history; to changes which have taken place in capitalism since the Communist Manifesto was written, and in the Party since the D. or P. was drawn up; to Marx's political OP.'ism which our socialism has not yet out-grown; to our half-hearted acceptance of social determinism, our unintegrated grammar of history, and the idealism which grins over the shoulder of our materialism1— the reasori for this is to shake loose some of the resistance, and to give some background to the view that the ' socialist idea ' attains its (residual) power to hasten socialist society in proportion as we recognise that idea as an evolving symptom of an evolving society whose own necessary motions spell Socialism.
Hitherto, we have conceived the ' socialist idea ' as separating itself from capitalism in opposition to it: now, under pressure of actual social change, v/e begin to see that idea, and its changes, as a sign of the socialism which capitalism is compelled to produce. In this way it becomes a more powerful agent of the social process, for it means that we become aware not simply of the world but of its movement, and are compelled progressively to discover an objective, socially inhering, necessity for Socialism.
If we can point to this inhering necessity, we sidestep most of the difficulty of revolutionary propaganda. The propaganda which opposes the world only confirms itself in isolation. If, instead of entering the field of political action determined to wage war, we draw attention to the socialism being hustled along by capitalism, we disarm the opposition which opposition kindles. If we go bald-headed at workers' heads, tell them the world won't change until they change, place the onus on them (" now when you're ready, oysters dear, Tee can begin to feed "), our offensive against capitalism becomes little more than offensive. If instead we show socialism as the end of a road already being trod, we assert their and our common participation in it. If we can show it as having a necessity outside men's wishes, and therefore binding on all, we make an ally of the social instinct. If, on the one hand, ideologies are invulnerable, on the other hand the objective world is irrefutable.

18.7.2 WE CAN CONSTRUCT SOCIALISM
We all agree that capitalism produces socialists, but we are not all agreed what this means. It is generally held that capitalism produces socialists out of revolt against its miseries, assisted by socialists as they organise themselves. 1 his is the prevailing theme, with minor variations: that the socialist should address the most likely converts (conceived as occupational groups or as layers of intelligence), or should attend more to the psychological technique of propaganda, or should concentrate on giving a positive and concrete description of the society at which he aims. They are reasonable variations on the commonsense theme that socialists, wanting socialism, must organise propaganda to gain consent for it.
The variation these articles propose is the need to recognise that capitalism itself moves towards socialism, and that this is the reason why it produces socialists, out of the elements of socialism necessarily developed by capital (for instance, democracy, equality, plenty— but by no means only these) and still being developed. The power of socialist propaganda as an agent of social change lies in this acknowledgement.
The objection that this removes the need for propaganda applies equally to the miseries and contradictions of capitalism. Equally, the enlargement of necessity contained in this proposition still includes the need by socialists to talk socialism. More crucial is the objection that it does away with the revolution. But it does away with the revolution too simply as a single act, the better to proclaim the certainty of socialism as a social fact. The view put forward here is that there is no proof of the pudding like the smell of the cooking, and that a socially inhering necessity for Socialism, objectively demonstrable in the motions of capitalism, is more convincing than our most rational wishes or fearful warnings.
Soon after Newton, some materialist philosopher said, " Give me matter, and I will construct the universe ", soon again to be capped by another who said, " Give me motion, and I will construct the universe ".
And to-day sociological research has moved so far from the descriptive level of Grimm and Maine that it now strains against the barrier of our own uncouth materialist grammar. But the banns have been read— just in time. Our exposure of the exploitative relations between the buyers and sellers of the m. of p.—the analysis of particles within a closed system of their fixed orbits— is a dead duck to the heirs of Darwin and Marx and Einstein, who gave us motion out of dynamo and rocket and the transmutation of the elements.
The particulate analysis of a dead capitalism on which we must breathe to make it move has the lively attractiveness of the jointed wooden toys of yesterday that don't go by themselves. Inhering motion is the major premiss of our time. There is a queasy consciousness of speed, without knowledge of direction. The world is asking itself out loud " where is it all leading to? ". And there is a kingdom offered to prince or poor man who will answer truly.
Given motion, we can construct Socialism.
F. EVANS.
18.8 THE MAKING OF HUMANITY
Robert Briffault, Allen & Unwin
The central theme of this book concerns the battle of custom and against rational thought, and the development of the latter, especially in relation to morality. Articles in the Socialist Standard (Jan. and Feb. 1953) have already discussed custom-and power-thought and outlined the role of rational thought in the development of socialist ideas. It is necessary here, perhaps, only to recall that custom-thought is summed up in the phrase " it is done thus " (the possibility of anything new just doesn't enter in); that power thought arises with the development of property over society, when power over men's minds replaces power over tools; and that rational thought is man's process of acquiring efficiency in dealing with his environment by securing correspondence between his thoughts and the actual relation and sequence of events—a refinement of 'trial and error '.
Parts III and IV of the book are concerned with The Evolution of Moral Order and Preface 1 o Utopia, and here I shall touch upon what appear to me to be the main topics in them.

Nowhere is the falsification of power thought more profound than in the sphere of ethical values. The existing absolute and coercive morality of property society is nothing but a man-made convention. It is concerned with ' judging " actions with reference to punishment or reward, blame or praise. Yet it is not what men do, knowing-it to be bad and wicked, but what they do, considering it to be highly moral, which is answerable for most injustice :
" The foes of humanity have not been men of bad intentions—bad men; they have been purely and simply men who have held wrong, that is, irrational opinions. Torquemada . . . was a ' good man'; he loved humanity, he was animated, not by any personal and selfish motives, but by a perfervid sense of duty; he roasted alive ten thousand men and women with the sincere purpose of benefiting them and the human race."
The real evil-doer is some opinion, some intellectual absurdity. No lie can manage to be inoffensive. If it has power it will be bloody and murderous. AH power wielded by man over man is an aggression. That power, the object of human competition, seeks the profit of the strong at the cost of the weak; all power encroaches on equity, is unjust, oppresive.
On the other hand, morality is characterised by the ideas of injustice, which postulates the equal claim of all individuals. This, in turn, rests upon the repudiation of all claims to privileged conduct and privileged dealing. Justice is not merely a cry of the weak for protection; it is the rational call of the paramount interests of the human race. And justice is the whole of morality. It is simply the negation of wrong, of injustice. It demands that there shall be no despotic oppression, no violence done by man to man (Briffault says " no arbitrary violence ", but the non-arbitrary variety is equally as inexcusable) and that in his life, his activity, his thought, man shall not be tyrannised over by man by virtue of power, privilege, (factitious and false) authority.
The ' moralists ' complain that the foundations of morality are being sapped by rational criticism. What they really mean is that the motive of (heavenly) reward, of future life, is destroyed. Religion's role of teaching man to make the best of things is jeopardised, They still press upon us the old remedy ' Reform yourselves and the world will be reformed '. But morality progresses not by the reformation of the individual, but by the reformation of the world's thought. Moral progress does not consist in conformity with the ethical ideals of the age, but in the detection of the immorality of those ideals.
The physical force wielded by oppressors has mostly been that lent to them by the loyalty of their victims through the power of intellectual and moral theories. The oppressed have only revolted against tyranny or injustice, however atrocious, when they have perceived it as irrational and false. " It is that purely intellectual process of enlightenment and criticism which is the indispensable condition of the protest of the oppressed. Until it has taken place their ethical conceptions are as immoral as those of their oppressors; their their veneration, their bowing submission to the divinely appointed order, their contentment with the station in which Providence has placed them, are the counterpart of the ruthless injustice, the tyranny, the rapacity, the cruelty, the barbarity of the holders of power."
If we accept this analysis, then we must seriously question whether it is rational to appeal any differently to the members of one group or class to think m terms of no classes, from the way in which we appeal to those of any other group or class . . .
Briffault goes strangely " off the rails " in dealing with leaders and dirty work. The following passages seem to be out of harmony with the rest of the book:
" Natural inequality, aristocracies of talent, of wisdom, of true insight, let us by all means pray for; let us have leaders. But to offer high wages for leadership is precisely the way not to get it. Given
decent fulness of life to all, it is your true leader that can best dispense with high wages. The true difficulty ... is not so much to allot leadership as to allot the dirty work . . . To preserve human beings from becoming brutes when put to the dirty work of the world, that is the greater difficulty. To them the high wages.'
This is reminiscent of the Leninist conception of leadership, but goes further—instead of equal wages for all, the high wages will go to the doers of " dirty work ", not to the leaders! Even if we grant that such unlikely conditions could ever obtain, they would not allow free access to what is produced, but must involve the privileges and unequal claims of individuals, against which Briffault elsewhere inveighs so effectively.
In the concluding chapters we find sentiments which clearly show the influence of Marxism, which the author earlier explicitly acknowledges :
The length of our individual tether, our capacity for going maybe a little beyond the expressed thought of the age, is itself determined by the stage of evolution which we happen to have reached . . . the growth of humanity has so far been engaged rather with developing the means of its evolution than with using and applying them. The goals which humanity at present envisages are not so much ideals of ripe perfection—which does not exist in any evolutionary process—as a condition of suitable equipment for its free development."
The interesting theory is advanced that in the world's population today every phase of human evolution is represented, from the Stone Age onward. They do not settle their disputes with stone hatchets, but in all that counts in human evolution—their ideas—some people appertain to a primitive period. It is no incurable ' human nature ' that is at fault, but the failure of society to transmit the products of human evolution to all its members.
The book concludes with a plea for such a transmission by education—"' The imparting to every being of the means and methods of rational thought." The author's concept of the future is, however, tinged with the Communist Party ideas that he was later to take up (it includes nations, share of work, etc.). Despite this, his explanation and advocacy of the triumph of rational thought over custom- and power-thought stands on its own merits. If he chose to speak of transmitting rational idea to the next generation, it was probably because he despaired of overcoming the difficulties of spreading them to this generation. And. therein lies the basic difference between such as Briffault and the S.P.G.B.
S. R. P,

18.9 The S.S. - Comments and Suggestions
The time is long overdue for someone to survey the activities of the Party from the early days to the present time. Whilst there are undoubtedly many sources for carrying out this research, one of the most helpful and important is the files of the ' S.S. .
I have been engaged recently in reading back numbers of the ' S.S. ', and it has given me much pleasure in forming even a little picture of our journal over the last ] 2 months. I append my findings, together with comments and suggestions.
It will be seen that a most interesting and worthwhile task awaits the member who gets down to presenting a record of activities and propaganda covering the lifetime of our Party, as expressed in the columns of the ' S.S ' and elsewhere.
During the twelve months Oct. 1952'— Sept. 1953, the 'S.S. ' published 131 articles, excluding editorial features. The year's publication was well spiced with contributions relative to topical events. There were 'five historical articles and six instructively humorous articles. The book reviews were a regular feature, and it is obvious that the comrade responsible for them put in a great deal of critical reading.
One felt that the series on " Religion " (still continuing), whilst being sound enough, is somewhat old-fashioned and out of place. Why should we continue to make an issue of this when most thinking people (including non-socialists) have dropped it? One feels that the able pen of Comrade Jarvis could be put to better use.
Of the other methods of propaganda and instruction we were rather poorly served; e.g. there were only two cartoons and no poetry worth mentioning. There is no reason why we cannot press these two art forms into our service far more often than we do. A perusal of the pages of the ' S.S.' of the ' twenties ' shows that poetry was used quite frequently.
Regarding the cartoon—the working class of today is a class in a hurry; it has been speeded up in its masters' cause. The cartoon is a symbolic message, speeded up to catch the eye of the reader with a few seconds to spare. It often speaks paragraphs, as the owners of the capitalist press know quite well.
Other ideas that strike me as worthy of attention are such items as reports of debates (suitably parsed), and a reversion to the old habit of inserting a socialist quotation in every issue.
It is somewhat significant that, whilst at one time there were frequent critical and controversial letters from non-socialists printed in the ' S.S.', we no longer see them. It is because non-socialists no longer buy the paper—or that they have effectively been shut up?
To sum up, when one turns over the pages of the ' S.S.' one absorbs working-class history, and is rather proud of the sustained efforts gone into its making. As one who has only recently become a member of the Party, I would suggest to other new members that they read the back issues of our paper and glean in a comfortable manner those things created, often in the face of discomfort and toil, by old members living and dead.
W. BRAIN., Swansea Branch

19. FORUM
Internal Journal of the S.P.G.B.
No. 19
APRIL 1954

19.1 RELIGION IN THE S.S.
One has come to expect the S.S. to be rather dull, but at least it always used to put forward the Socialist case. Since last August, however, a series which does not do this has been running in its pages.
Articles in the S.S. which do not put forward the Socialist case may be quite acceptable if they do not actively contradict that case and are scientifically accurate. But these articles bristle with gross inaccuracies and misstatements, such as to lower the standard of the S.S. in the eyes of any intelligent reader.
The author starts off by asking the question " What Is Religion?" and commenting : " Most people think they know what religion is, but nearly everybody has different ideas. . . .
However, he doesn't tell us what it is himself. He says he is going to tell us; he says : " Religion, then can be said to consist of five things. ..." but the five things he gives us are only his chapter-headings, and are quite worthless as explanations. Any Socialist answer to the question would explain religion by reference to its change and development with changing society, not by a series of abstract headings—" 1. Belief in God or gods. 2. Belief in Miracles. 3. Belief in Life after Death. 4. Belief in the Efficacy of Prayer. 5. Belief in Holy or Inspired Books."
These are five particular aspects of religion—one could select any number of others-—which arise in various forms in response to the needs of society at different times and places. Marx himself (e.g. in the " Introduction to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law ") consistently adopts this dynamic and historical viewpoint. These articles, on the other hand, give a completely static analysis. They adopt a uniformly un-historical — and therefore unsocialist — approach.
If these articles were accurate and well-written in other ways, the author and the Editorial Committee might be forgiven for publishing non-socialist matter. But even accepting the static position put forward, there are shocking errors of fact and interpretation such as to damage the value of the S.S. as a propaganda medium. Here are three or four of them , gathered from a plentiful selection.
1. "All the arguments for God yet launched fall into five categories. ..." So says our author, and promptly leaves out the Ontological Proof, perhaps the most famous one of all. He also leaves out Revelation, which is certainly the most-often-quoted " proof." Worst of all, he never examines the term " God " lo distinguish the numerous possible interpretations of it, ranging all the way from an extra-powerful man to an unknowable Absolute.
2 " Materialists have consistently claimed that matter always existed and always will exist, because you can neither make nor destroy matter. ..." Well, well. So all the physicists are wrong. They say that all elementary particles are capable of being created and destroyed, given suitable conditions, and that some of them—neutrons and mesons—even destroy themselves in a free state. Wrong again, Comrade Jarvis.
3. In other parts of the world where primitive people had lived in comparative isolation and had not been contaminated by missionaries, many of them remained agnostic." The first definition of Agnosticism given in my dictionary is this—" The doctrine that neither the nature nor the existence of God nor the ultimate character of the universe is knowable." How an illiterate savage can get ideas like this, God only knows! Nor can one understand how a socialist can spout this nonsense—and be allowed to get away with it in the Party's official organ. It is on a par with Comrade Offord's assertion that the people of China have no religion, but have a dialectical outlook instead!
4. No doubt the only knowledge some of the first priests had was that they knew that there was by bluff prestige and power to be obtained from the god business. Savages and primitive man were very credulous. . . . " Apart from the bad writing itself, this rationalist claptrap has no place in a socialist paper. The " first priests " were god-kings, or (later) derived their status from a god-king. A king of this kind derives his magical powers not from his cunning m imposing himself on a credulous populace, but, as Caudwell very well puts it, " because his role, forced on him by the division of labour, makes him in fact custodian of those supra-individual forces which arise from division of labour and the association of men." (Further Studies in a Dying Culture, P.36).
The lowest ebb of Jarvis' articles is reached in the section on the Bible. His niggling criticisms, abstract in the worst sense, ignore all the Biblical criticism and counter-criticism of the last hundred years, and appear to have been written off the cuff, as one might expatiate to a crony in the cafe. His arguments come nowhere near the positions actually held by educated Christians to-day. They only touch the most superficial assumptions of those few who take the Bible quite literally. The thinking Christian (and surely no other would start reading the S.S. ?) tends more and more to agree with Santayanal—" The idea that religion contains a literal, not a symbolic, representation of truth and life is simply an impossible idea. Whoever maintains it has not come within the region of profitable philosophising on the subject."
The amazing side to the whole business is that seven instalments of this epic have appeared—and more to come, comrades, more to come—when the whole thing really came to an end soon after it began. At the end of the second instalment, Comrade jarvis said the materialist " is content with the fact (or rests on the basis) that one can neither make nor destroy matter, so therefore has no need to look into the pros and cons about God, but let'.; him sleep undisturbed except for the enquiries of the secularists, freethinkers, rationalists and the like." Yet after making this seemingly conc.ujive cta'temcnt, on he goes for another five issues, and the end still not in sight!
There is one reference to Marx and one reference to economics, in the entire opus. These are the only two concessions made to the socialist outlook in what has so far appeared. Even if the following instalment (s) are packed with socialist meat, that's still an unconscionable deal of rationalist mishmash.
Surely a socialist paper should only contain articles which at least make a reasonable attempt at being socialist? Or even if they are not directly socialist, surely their standards of accuracy and scholarship should be such as not to disgrace a paper devoted to scientific socialism? What is the policy of the Editorial Committee?
J. C. Rowan.
19.2 THE WORLD FOR THE WORKERS
So the Editorial Committee of FORUM considers my article published in the February issue objectionable. I am not surprised. I note that the Editorial Committee has never considered any other article published in FORUM objectionable, not even when the writer is opposing the Declaration of Principles of the Party of which is a member. It possibly can be explained by the fact that the Editorial Committee disagrees with the D. of P. At least one member does, namely S. R. Parker.
In April 1953 an article was published in FORUM (in error without the signature " S.R.P.") entitled " People of the World —Unite ". In a paragraph under the heading " Amend the D. of P." the author stated " It may be noticed that what I am saying in this article conflicts with certain phrases in the Party's Declaration of Principles. In order that readers may be able to make comparisons, I suggest a number of amendments." The writer of the article then proposed to amend half the D. of P. in order to make it fit his case. He called his amendments "revolutionary" changes.
I was amazed that any member of the Party could hold such ideas which were so much in conflict with the Party's case that the member concerned wanted to amend half the D. of P. I wrote an article in reply, published in June.
S. R. Parker, making a reply in the July issue, stated "My amendments to the D. of P. were not in order to make our propaganda unselective." The truth of this can been seen m the fact that the words " working class " appear in nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the D. of P., and in each case 5. R. Parker proposed deleting them.
Because of pressure on space, a number of articles received have unavoidably had to be left over until next month.
Despite the facts shown that S. R. Parker is opposed to much of the D. of P., despite the fact that he himself proposed amending half the D. of P., the Editorial Committee now in all innocence requests facts which led me to make the accusation that there are individuals in the Party who are opposed to the D. of P. and who have differences with the Party on fundamental aspects of its case. There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.
In December 1953 an article appeared over the initials A.A.N. Now this article confirmed up to the hilt my opinion that there were individuals in the Party who differed with the Party on fundamental aspects of its case. I think, for the benefit of the Editorial Committee of FORUM, we had better have a look at the D. of P.
I have my combined membership card and rule book in front of me. The first words are " The World for the Workers ". It is obvious from A.A.N.'s article that he objects to that. No doubt he would like it to read " The World for all Human Beings ". Rule 1 makes it clear that any person desiring membership must accept the Principles of the Party. On the object, namely Socialism, there is no disagreement, provided we keep to the brief statement given in all Party literature except FORUM. But how much of the D. of P. does A.A.N, accept?
When one reads through the D. of P. and the elaboration given in our pamphlet no. 12 (which I consider the finest pamphlet the Party has produced) it is difficult to harmonize any of A.A.N.'s ideas with the views of the Party. As an example would A.A.N. agree with this statement: " The class struggle finds its highest expression in the movement for the overthrow of the capitalist system of society "? That is the Party's view, but A.A.N, states in December FORUM "that the SPGB should not participate in the class struggle .
It is needless to dwell on no. 5 of the D. of P.—both S. R. Parker and A.A.N. make it abundantly clear that they disagree with it. It is absurd to think the Editorial Committee of FORUM doesn't know this; however it keeps respectfully silent.
No. 6 states in brief that the working class must organise consciously and politically to capture political power, with the object of using it as the means of dispossessing the capitalist class. It is clear that once we capture political power the capitalist class will be dispossessed. What chance have they to resist? The powers of state are in the hands of the working class. The state is not abolished—it dies out after Socialism has been established. It is not a case of morally persuading the capitalist class to give up its ownership of the means and instruments of wealth production.
The capture of state power by the working class, the transformation of the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution into common property, means that the production of commodities is done away with. By this act the working class frees the means of production from the character of capital. But in doing this it abolishes itself as a class; it abolishes all class distinctions and antagonisms. When the means of life are common property class society ceases to exist. But this remains a dream until we capture state power, hence bo. 6 of the D. of P. Once again, it is apparent from their articles that both S. R. Parker and A.A.N, disagree with the above statement, which is part of the Party's case.
Since I wrote the article published in February, A. Turner has placed in writing some of his opinions. Up till now most of what I knew regarding his views has been hearsay. But it appears that his views also disagree with 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the D. of P. In order to clarify his position, he puts forward a number of propositions. The first sentence of no. 20 reads: " A socialist party cannot aim at gaining control of the governmental machinery." This is in opposition to the sixth principle of the SPGB (dealt with above). A. Turner states (no. 12) : "A socialist party is not a class or group party: it is not a capitalist class party, nor is it a working class party." Proposition no. 1 4 begins " A socialist party does not appeal to any class or group as such." Is this true?
The SPGB has a pamphhlet entitled Socialism. To whom is it addressed? The first sentence in the pamphlet says : " These words are addressed to the members of the working class."
The election address of C. Groves in July 1945 began "Fellow Workers", and in November 1946 " Fellow working men and women ". In February 1950 both addresses (H. Young, East Ham South and G. McClatchie, Paddington North) began " Fellow working men and women ", and in November 1953 W. Waters' began " Fellow Workers ".
The leaflet Introducing the SPGB states " The watchword of the SPGB is that the workers have a historic mission of shouldering the responsibility of achieving Socialism and thus enabling the human race to make a further step forward in social progress ". It should be absolutely clear that the SPGB does appeal to a particular class, namely the working class. But A. Turner states " A socialist party does not appeal to any class or group as such ". Presumably, then, in his view the SPGB is not a Socialist Party.
Now with regard to the Editorial Committee of FORUM, it states in the February issue " It must, with due regard to our fallibility, be said that nothing which has appeared so far could lead us to assert that within the Party there are those who hold opinions which are incompatible with membership of the Party ". I have in this article given some facts for the Editorial Committee. I consider that I have proved my case and that these individuals stand condemned by their own articles.
Even if the Editorial Committee supports their views and believes the Party is wrong and that the D. of P. requires drastically amending, that doesn't alter the fact that they disagree with the Party's case and are attacking it from the inside. Opposition to the Party's case should come from outside the Party.
The acceptance and understanding of the D. of P. leads us to our object. The opponents of the D. of P. put the cart before the horse. They take the object first, which to them is the ideal, and endeavour to build up to it. This is utopianism; G. Plechanoff sums them up admirably : " The Utopian is one who, starting from an abstract principle, seeks for a perfect social organisation."
The SPGB stresses in all its literature, except FORUM, the class character of the Party, and I call upon the members of the SPGB to strive to maintain it. We must do all we can to discourage those who do not understand the meaning of revolutionary politics from attaching themselves to the SPGB.
D. W. LOCK.
19.3 EDITORIAL NOTE
As Editorial Committee we do not, as has been suggested, take sides in FORUM controversies, nor did we in the editorial to which Lock refers. We consider that charges made against members should be substantiated. So far as the Editorial Committee of a controversial journal has any policy, we try to limit it to this function.

19.4 To the Editors
After reading Lock's article ("Revisionism and Renegades in the S.P.G.B ") 1 am inclined to agree that " there is a rotten spirit making itself felt in the Party today." I would, however, suggest that this rottenness of spirit is being introduced by one of the more orthodox members amongst us i.e. Lock.
It is nothing short of impudence on the part of any member to lay down rules and regulations regarding what shall be said in " Forum " or at the discussion forums. Neither of these media was intended as a way in which members could merely reaffirm the D. of P. It was largely because a need was expressed to discuss our D. of P. and basic attitudes that " Forum " came into existence.
We all as party members created this Journal, but Lock now wants to remove from the Party those members who have utilised this machinery for the very purpose it was intended. Why? Presumably because they have reached conclusions that Lock finds unacceptable. It would have been better if Lock had used " Forum " as it was intended, and DISCUSSED the merits of the arguments and shown why he considers them unsound or non-socialist. This he makes no attempt whatever to do.
Lock says there are members in the Party who are opposed to the D. of P. This he considers undesirable because he holds the D. of P. as an essential guide to the achievement of Socialism, and draws the conclusion that because some members do not accept these principles in their entirety they therefore repudiate our aim—Socialism. This conclusion does not follow, and is not in fact the case. To the best of my knowledge, those comrades who do not wholly accept the D. of P. give as their principal reason that such acceptance is inconsistent with a clear understanding of our socialist aim.
So that the real position is as follows. On the one hand we have Lock and others who maintain that an understanding and acceptance of the D. of P. is an essential condition for the achievement of our aim. On the other hand, there are those members who feel that a re-examination and modification of those principles is essential to a better understanding of our objective. In fact they claim, with much justification in my view, that it is their very loyalty to the socialist objective of the Party that has led them to a questioning of the D. of P. Far from being anti-socialist, if their claims are sound, they are adopting a more truly socialist attitude than Lock!
Now, how are we to judge the merits of these conflicting views unless we allow their full and free expression in the journal organised for this purpose? To this question Lock gives no answer. In fact, if we are to judge ability by performance then Lock's glaring inability to deal with the substance of the discussions to which he takes such violent emotional exception has served merely to discredit the ideas he would have us all accept. As this is not in the best interests of the Party I look forward to a more reasonable statement of Lock's views in a future issue of " Forum." Joan Lestor.

19.5 A NEW SLOGAN FOR THE S.P.G.B.
The Emancipation of Capitalist Class "

The most astonishing thing about A.A.N.'s article (2) on " Class Struggle and the S.P.G.B." is that he makes no attempt to refute indignantly what must suiely be the most damning and humiliating thing that could be said to a socialist, namely, my original contention that the ideas expressed by him, ostensibly based on socialist knowledge and ideas, are in fact non- or anti-socialist.
A.A.N.'s expressed attitude to the class struggle, and his interpretation of it, are essentially anti-socialist. This is the criticism that A.A.N, and his supporters must deal with. Springing directly out of this expressed attitude, a fierce controversy has arisen among members over the role of the class struggle in the achievement of socialism. Witness, for instance, Comrade Turner's point 14 ('" Forum " Feb.) : "A Socialist Party does not appeal to any class or group as such.'
It is no exaggeration to say that this viewpoint constitutes a sufficient departure from the viewpoint of other party members to refer to it as a split. In fact, if it is held, as I and (I believe) many others do, that this is an anti-socialist approach, then we can agree that the matter is sufficiently important to be thrashed out.
As I see it, the acid test of whether this point of view is in line with the aims and object of the S.P.G.B. is as follows. Would an applicant for membership be admitted if he were to disagree with the D. of P. and its implication that the first and foremost aim of the socialist revolution will be to strip the capitalist class of the source of its power, wealth and privilege, namely, of its ownership of the means of wealth production?
I think it would be easier, at the moment, for a camel to go through the eye of a small needle than for such an applicant to become a member. If, however, the stage is ever reached when such an attitude becomes permissible in the S.P.G.B. it would be time for me to make a move.
As it is, I think it is A.A.N, and those holding his viewpoint who should make the move out of the party. Probably I shall be pounced upon and told that this is not the point of view held and expressed by A.A.N. Let us see, then.
Quote (1) "What reasoning brings the S.P.G.B. to hate one class more than the
other when neither class has socialism as its interest?" (my italics).
Nos. 3. 4. 7 and, by clear implication, No. 5 of our D. of P. speak quite distinctly of " the emancipation of the working class." Is it, then, in the interests of the working class to be emancipated or is this just an empty, meaningless phrase, " signifying nothing "?
If the former be true then the working class has got socialism m its interest. On the other hand, if the latter is correct we may as well scrap the whole lot, for the whole of the D. of P. rests on the assumption—and, moreover, the powerful protagonism—of the socialist revolution effecting the emancipation of the working class.
It can, no doubt, be argued in return that No. 4 principle goes on to say that this will " involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.'' Certainly this latter part is not free from ambiguity, but it does not go on to include " or class," which would suggest that the capitalist class, too, would be emancipated.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that socialism is in the interests of the working class, since it involves its emancipation from wage-slavery, and is against the interest of the capitalist class, since it involves an end to its power, privilege and dominancy.
19.5.1 STRUGGLE FOR SOCIALISM
Quote (2) " The struggle between classes is NOT one for socialism.
Presumably the struggle he refers to is the one for higher wages, better conditions, etc. A little careful thought will show, however, that this is not a homogeneous, overall clear-cut struggle between the two classes, but is a continuous, shifting conflict between various differing sections of these classes.
In fact, sections of the capitalist group more than welcome a manifestation of struggle for higher wages where it suits their interests. For instance, the struggle of Japanese workers for higher wages is viewed with benevolent interest by certain sections of the British ruling clique, as witness the favourable comment in The Times editorial (12.2.54).
These instances could be shown to apply both to the ruling class and to the working class. As A.A.N, himself points out, " the working class is not a united body, but a category of people with a wide diversity of economic interests. . . . Within the S.P.G.B. all such classifications vanish." Precisely. It is only in the struggle for socialism that the working class becomes united in its aims and objective.
The key word is struggle. The struggle " to expropriate the expropriators," to strip the capitalist class of its possession of the means of production, no matter what form this ownership takes in the future—this is the primary object of the socialist revolution.
In the struggle on the industrial field, the worker hopes to extract at best another 10/-or so per week from his capitalist's wealth. On the political field, we are demanding the whole lot. And yet A.A.N, has the impertinence to tell us there is no antagonism here, that there is no class struggle in the political pursuit of socialism! When we hold that the workers must bring about Socialism, we mean that this is the class struggle in all its historical essence. And, if it is not the capitalist class we are struggling against, who or what is it then?
The reply forthcoming will no doubt be working-class ignorance and apathy. In fact, this can be the only alternative answer. But to pose working-class ignorance as an obstruction to socialism is only begging an historical question and has nothing to do with the principle of the class struggle as argued here.
And the reason, as I see it, which makes A.A.N.'s anti-class struggle viewpoint an anti-socialist one is that this must inevitably distract the socialist movement from its main objective and gather to it every conceivable sort of hotch-potch element, making an end eventually to our existence as a socialist party. If this is exaggerated, then the party has been putting forward exaggerated arguments now for 50 years against contaminating itself with non- or anti-socialist elements.
My further comments on A.A.N.'s article are intended to illustrate the validity of the above contention and to show how the anti-class struggle attitude inevitably leads to anti-working class ideas and anti-socialist results.
19.5.2 DIVERSITY OF INTERESTS
Would it not have been more to the point to have stressed " the wide diversity of economic interests " of the capitalist class, which run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, rather than that of the working class, which vary in comparison from about £5 to £ 15 or £20?
But, whereas there is little or no unity of interests among the capitalists (dog eat dog; big fish swallows small fish, etc.) there is certainly one amongst the workers, albeit they are mostly unaware of it. The favourable influence on sections of workers agitating for pay increases when some other section forces a rise in pay is well-known and proved. Likewise, when some workers succeed in effecting an improvement in their working conditions the example is not lost on others, and so on. The whole struggle-ridden history of the working class tells of this unity of interests.
Could anything be more miserably anti-working class than A.A.N.'s remarks on this subject — " because predominantly faotfi (capitalists and workers) have the same idea : self-interest and the seeking of power and privilege at the expense of other individuals and groups."
What gibberish nonsense is this! How it would warm the heart of the worst kind of middle-class philistine, and what a bitter blow to our constantly reiterated assertion that work (even under capitalism) is a fundamental social impulse. What an appalling ignorance A.A.N, displays of the bitter history of working-class exploitation! If it were not so tragic that a supposed socialist accuses workers (its application to the capitalist class is, of course, perfectly appropriate) of spending their lives " seeking power and privilege," it would be laughable to the nth degree.
Again, on this question of who does the dirty work of apologising for capitalism— is it suggested that the vast mass of workers are concerned in it? Of course they are not. They are the recipients. Capitalists may not be the brains behind capitalist propaganda, but their interests are and it is their money which pays for the dirty work.
"All workers are assisting their masters to live in luxury or relative ease." Yes, by heavens, but what do they get for it! A.A.N. speaks of the " atrocities that workers perpetrate against each other." Again, is this true of the vast majority of working people? Or is it manifested only by a few, and then only under the terrible pressure of battle conditions, performed in the interests of capitalist profit?
To prove his points A.A.N, resorts to twisting the facts, as witness : " Capitalism is not the property of the capitalist class—it is the sum total of the activities of the whole of society."
It would be interesting to know how an abstraction can be classified as property, i he sum total of the activities of the whole of society goes to create quite a bit of capitalist wealth. In fact, would it be an exaggeration to say that practically all the industrial, commercial and financial activities are directed to the realisation and protection of rent, interest and profit? And is it not an essential part of our propaganda to reveal to workers that this is what they spend the major part of their lives doing?
Also difficult to comprehend, coming from a member of the party, are the contemptuous references to " the party's case." Does he really know what that case is? And if he does profess to know it and disagrees with it, then his place is outside not inside our organisation.
The achievement of socialism means quite clearly the dispossession of the capitalist class of its ownership of the means of production by the working class. This is what we mean by the socialist revolution. One class overthrowing the dominancy of another. If this is not the essence and meaning of the class struggle, then I await to hear how socialism is going to be achieved without the overthrow of the capitalist class.
Judd (Lewisham)
19.6 ON WORKERS AND CAPITALISTS
As a Socialist I do not hate the capitalist class or individual capitalists. To my mind such an approach would be an unscientific one.
As I am a worker I am opposed to the interests of the capitalist class. This carries with it no moral judgments on individuals— only on the system.
I am a worker and because of that I am a Socialist for, as I see it, the only solution to working-class problems is to abolish capitalism. By that I mean to establish socialism. I should have thought the last statement was unnecessary but Comrade Turner apparently thinks there is some difference between abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism. I don't know what Comrade Turner thinks could be established, other than socialism, when capitalism is abolished.
We as a Party have analysed working-class problems at great length and in great detail and we have come to the conclusion that they cannot be solved within capitalism. It is therefore in the interests of the working class to establish socialism.
The Party has never analysed the problems of the capitalist class very thoroughly. The capitalist has problems— yes, but is their only solution socialism? I think not. Most of his problems can be solved within capitalism with a little ingenuity on his part.
The question itself of whether the capitalist can or will understand and want socialism I consider rather irrelevant as we can get the majority to establish socialism with or without them.
What interests me is the method used by Comrade Turner in arriving at his conclusions. I base my views and my arguments on the M.C.H. Does Comrade Turner? I have heard these " brotherly love and charity " arguments before. The Catholics, who say they are opposed to capitalism, suggest that if capitalists gave workers a little more and workers were then satisfied with what they got then everyone would live happily ever afterwards. This is the sort of argument I have heard and rejected before. The fact that now it is used to champion something that I want (socialism) does not interest me. No doubt for the same reason that I agreed with the E.C. when they didn't let the Christian Scientist into the Party.
The worker who is not interested in the class struggle is usually the religious one, the one who thinks that his boss does him a favour to give him a job, the one who is not interested in national or world events at all. As one becomes a Socialist one becomes more indifferent to the pleas of the boss about his (profits and to the entreaties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about our " dollar reserves " and " overseas investments." One becomes more militant in demanding higher real wages for oneself and for other workers and at the same time avoids anti-working-class action (such as opposition to coloured or foreign workers). If this happens to the Socialist on a personal level why deny this attitude when we band together as a Party of Socialists?
The Party, quite rightly, has never " taken part in industrial action in the usual way. Reason? We've got something better to do —working for socialism. But why go to the other extreme and pretend no interest at all in the class struggle?
L. Bryan.
19.7 CASTRATED SOCIALISM
Reply to Turner
Turner, in his 25 principles, does not argue a positive case but expects us to argue a negative position. He mentions in his opening paragraph that he wishes to avoid using language which might obscure the arguments. As there are no arguments, but merely a series of numbered sentences, I assume that their profundity might not survive the author's attempts to explain them. Purely as a point of interest, who are these members who believe that " power and privilege " will exist under socialism? This phrase occurs no less than seven times.
Principle 1 states: " Socialism is in the interests of every human being throughout the entire world." This is a philosophical abstract truth, as socialism, is undoubtedly a superior form of social organisation which will operate in the interests of all human beings and not just in the interest of a tiny group of human beings as is the case with capitalism. From a practical point of view the slogan is worse than useless, as we shoulder the responsibility for showing that capitalism does not run in the interests of the capitalists—a very debatable proposition.
To deal with the problems of the capitalist makes a mockery of the class struggle and reduces our case to caricature. The French Revolution was in the interests of the whole of humanity—a historical abstract truth. The function of a Socialist. Party is to prove that socialism (common ownership) is in the interests of a majority, a statement which is valid and can be argued from any angle. The other position is absolutist and dangerous, as it encourages workers to sink their class differences. The first manifestation of this humanity argument is reflected in the attitude of Turner S.R.F., A.A.N., to trade unions. The logic of the position they have taken up leads them to oppose trade unions and the struggle for higher wages which they must condemn as being antisocial.
2. " Socialism means the social equality of humanity. ..." What is social equality outside of common ownership and democratic control, etc. ? Power and privilege cannot exist where these two factors prevail.
3., 4. and 5. inform us that there is a class struggle. 6 tells us that capitalist class interests are capitalist class interests and that working class interests are working class interests. We are never told what these interests really are. Turner must not take it for granted that we know already, in view of the surprising allegations contained in his thesis.
7. brings in an economic bastard under the heading "Group interests." Has Turner considered the possibility of people belonging to several social groups at the same time, i.e., Roman Catholic workers, Roman Catholic employers, competing Jewish capitalists, international capitalists, black capitalists, black workers. According to Turner's own statement all these groups are mutually antagonistic to each other, but on the other hand do not religious groups of all kinds have something in common with each other and the capitalists, and have a common interest in opposing socialism and supporting power and privilege? Does Turner think he has exhausted the whole field of social groups by mentioning four? How about Freemasons, Trade Unionists, Boy Scouts, the British Legion, not forgetting the Group who lay the wreath on Charles I's statue every year on his anniversary. These are organised social groups who are not antagonistic to each other.
8 and 9 are meaningless unless we are told what social interests are. Working-class interests are human interests and the interest of the working class is socialism. The mutual antagonism referred to by Turner is from our point of view on the issue of socialism in the final analysis, i.e., the class struggle.
No. 11 is meaningless. No. 12 tells us that a Socialist Party is a Socialist Party. 13. is incorrect. It is not the existence of property which gives rise to class struggles— it is the division of that property. Common property will exist in socialist society where there will be no antagonisms. 14 and 15 are variations of 1 dealt with above.
16 reaffirms the first part of 1 and the latter phrase "... can only be established by methods which are in harmony with human interests " would appear sheer mysticism were it not for 1 7, which brings in our old friend violence and the time-worn speculation on its use or non-use. This is a largely academic question and does not really relate to socialism at all (if you examine it) but to some spiritual and moral quality endowed by Turner on that supernatural being the ideal social man.

Dealing with the question " does socialism depend on working class understanding?" the answer is obviously yes. Put a further question : " will violence be instrumental in the establishment of socialism? The answer is no. Put a final question: " will violence prevent the establishment of socialism?" The answer is again no. Whether violence will be used during the establishment of socialism by a disgruntled minority cannot in any way affect the main issue, which is working-class understanding.
18 claims that all people must understand socialism prior to its establishment. I hope I am not being unfair to Turner, but the terms of the proposition are so vague that this is all I am able to deduce from it. It means nothing otherwise. If my deduction is correct it would mean that so long as a tiny group of capitalists, religious fanatics, and hitherto undiscovered tribes in Africa or elsewhere do not understand socialism we cannot have it. Turner must argue a case here and not maintain a negative position.
Socialism can be established by a majority of the working class within the relationship of labour and capital, the dominant forces in society. Society today is capitalism and vice versa. Society constitutes those working within a given economic framework with distinct social relations over the social means of production. Socialism is not the counting of heads in the world, it does not depend on quantity but on quality. Quality representing the socialist ideas of the working class who alone have social responsibility in production. Society is an organisation for production and nothing else. I am not interested in whether the Dalai Llama or the Pope can understand socialism. Backward people will see the physical benefits of socialism after its establishment.
In 19, Turner has balanced his statement so delicately that it is difficult to discover which side of the fence he is on. Assuming that he agrees with the D. of P. on the question of Parliament, is he seriously suggesting that members of the S.P.G.B. hold the view that the state will exist under socialism? Is this one of the differences Turner has with members, or is it fictional?
On the other hand, assuming that he disagrees with the D. of P., is he suggesting that socialism can be established without getting control of the machinery of government? Until he is more specific there is little point in pursuing this at this stage,
21, 22, 23 and 24 appear to have been thrown in for good measure. At best they are a bundle of philosophical pious platitudes.. 25 means that Socialists should advocate socialism not capitalism. Is Turner hinting in his use of the phrase "... or the conditions they may live under," that socialism was possible 500 or more years ago, or is he referring to the action Socialists should adopt in places like Russia, China or India, etc?
It seems to me that Turner will have to argue his case, not merely make statements in numerical order and then seize on the opposition. The views themselves are the product of 1 8 months heated and largely in- j conclusive discussion. The average members | might well wonder what all the fuss is about before re - reading the Declaration of Principles or something else that matters.
J. D'Arcy.
19.8 Correspondence To the Editors.
Over the past few years I have been developing my ideas about Socialism, i decided to put my views in writing, and .hey were published in the February " Forum "
As I stated in the introduction, I had chosen to present my views in the form of a series of propositions for two reasons (1) For the greater convenience of the readers who may wish to criticise them, and (2) To prevent my using language which might obscure the ideas I was trying to put over.
My sole purpose in writing is to present my ideas to others on the points of disagreement I have with some members of the Party. I have no desire to ridicule the views of those with whom I have disagreement, nor do 3 wish to score points.
In the March issue Coster writes an article under the title " The Sentimental Anarchists." It purports to deal with the views I set out in my article referred to above. I have searched Coster's article to find out where my ideas are shown to be incorrect. All I could discover was exaggerated flippancy and a laboured effort to score points. I am not prepared to enter into this kind of vulgar word-spinning. I am submitting another article next month further developing my case.
Turner.
19.9 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION 6
The Ideological Reflection (continued)
There is a spectre haunting the Socialist movement)—the spectre of Communism.
The Socialist, more consciously than any, sees political and ideological forms as expressing material interests, sees the differences between social systems as facets of their respective modes of production — materialism. The socialist, more consciously than any, is aware of change and development, has turned his eyes upon the whole sweep of history and distilled a general concept of social evolution —historical materialism. Yet, historical-evolutionist though he is, he cannot accept that Capitalism evolves (that is, that Socialism evolves), and materialist though he is, he cannot accept capital as the dynamic of his own society.
Large ideas (gravitation, materialism, socialism — things like that), grow slowly, like coral reefs, the precipitate of countless human acts and artifacts, and because today is always the summit of the pile it seems always that there is nothing more to add. 1 he origin of the Party is an example of the tiny stages by which the new grows from the old. The features which distinguished us in 1904 from our immediate forbears were the need for a completely independent working class party, with a completely democratic organisation, and the insistence that our sole aim and the whole concern of our propaganda should be the establishment of a new society. But these elements of the revolutionary idea were not new : what was new was the integration of them. And they were brought to a focus, not as an exercise in logic, but as part of the social integrations implicit in the first Industrial Revolution which began with Marx and ended with the Party.
19.9.1 PRE-HISTORY OF THE PARTY
Until he was twelve, Will Evans had to learn reading and writing, and his college education was continued in the Socialist Sunday Schools, the Cinderella Clubs, the N.U.C, and the Labour Chapel run by the Rev. John Trevor in Rusholme, or in the derelict " Casino " music hall, where meeting ware addressed by Bruce Glasier, Tom Mann, G. B. Shaw, Leonard Hall, John Burns. Sometimes, bowler-hatted and Sunday-bested, he walked into Salford, to the S.D.F. meetings of Quelch and Hyndman. Fie went to work with an older man who was debunked God. He read the " Clarion," weekly, one penny, started by Robert (" delegates, not leaders ") Blatchford with brother Monty and Thompson and Fay, and who founded the first independent national labour party, the I.L.P., of which William Evans (then a man of 19) joined the Manchester local in 1893. In ! 904 he resigned, because Keir Hardie had forced the abrogation of the " fourth clause" (the independence clause). In 1905 he came to London and found the Party he "had been looking for all these years." His form "A" was accepted with the joyful wariness of the elect, and the friendly warning to listen and learn. But it was only the words he had to learn, for his history was the pre-history of the Party. His pan, framed and yellow, adorns H.O. along with a hundred hardly distinguishable others, alike as peas, for they were nurtured in the same social pod.
The Party's fibre roots embrace this top-soil of the nineteenth century, but it is tap-rooted in the tenth. We descend from the Anglo-Saxon village moot which raised two fingers, ouveris, in the face of Norman fief, setting the pattern of salute for Protestant and Non-conformist and Society of Friends, the pattern of conscience for Winstanley and Wilkes, the patterns of trial by jury, presumption of innocence, right of appeal, rule of law, permissive legislation, local government, voluntary enlistment, free association, Habeas Corpus and Flyde Park—the peculiarly individualistic democracy elsewhere known only where it was exported in the Mayflower or deported from Dorset to Botany Bay.
Party democracy is the summit of a thousands years of freedom from conquest within safe ramparts of water. It is the adjective " G.B." The distinctly revolutionary substance of the S.P. is the vision of an integrated society, which is the integration, the sharpened focus, of the unsteady lights of nineteenth - century working - class revolt, whose partial articulations we know as Labourism, Anarchism, Communism.
But the integration is not complete. Tha part articulations overlap, but have not been lost in a single focus. Cast your mind, comrade, over othef members of the Party. Can you not distinguish those who are more Anarchist from those who are more Communist, or one on this issue and the other on that? Have we not read in Freedom things " good enough for the Standard! " Haven't we often said that " all that's wrong with the Anarchist is his anarchism "? Isn't the Communist (as a bloke) someone akin, with whom militance and Marxism and revolution and class struggle are at least good words? Do we not expect to recruit from the Left Wing (and indeed do we not recruit for it!) ?
The Party is still a mixture of these distinguishable components, and not yet a synthesis qualitatively different from them, as water is neither oxygen nor hydrogen. With the " social administration of things " we have purged Anarchism of its anarchy- but still regard the Socialist Idea as sovereign (the dynamic), which is therefore the sovereignty of mp idea, my conscience, my ego. With the " social administration of things " we have purged Communism of dictatorship—but reserve the right to shoot. We oppose our own components when we meet them separately outside our own corpus. We go gunning Anarchists with communist law and order, and cosh Communists with the classless freedom in which there is no law, no compulsion, no constraint, no authority, no morals. We oppose these things with these things because the Socialist movement combines but does not yet transcend them.
19.9.2 INHERITED DICHOTOMY
In his own time, and on his own doorstep, Marx had seen the fall of Feudalism and the rise of Capitalism. He lived struggle and revolt, and trampled out the vineyard where the grapes of wrath are stored. The air he breathed was still charged with the volcanic dust of the French Revolution, and industrial revolutionary termors still rocked the earth under him. Thus, in the Manifesto which he presented to the International, the Socialist theory of history which announces the imminence of civilisation plays down to the Communist political strategy which is the pattern of the bourgeois revolutions. The genius of Marx gave us an integrated theory —social evolutio n (M.C.H.)—but the quality of his time saddled it also with a theory of class struggle and of political revolution which applies to the transference of production property between classes, witri.il class society, but not to the abrogation of production property for a classless society.
We inherit this dichotomy. Thus we oppose the Communists, as being reformists, but accept their premises of political revolution, and the motifs of power and politics which underwrite it. We oppose power and politics, yet set up shop in competition (which, in the event, brings us to the vcige of political window dressing). We oppose the Labour Party as being reformists, yet our propaganda turns upon poverty and insecurity, on which the reformist can out-bid us every time and all the time. Our aim is Socialism, but the core of our message is the hellfire of increasing misery and degradation which is the theme, precisely, of the labour-communist revolt against absolute surplus value.
We claim Socialist theory as a science, but our own historical-materialism is only idealism wrapped up in bread and butter. We aim to inaugurate civilisation, yet our concept of human needs is the barbaric notion of food, clothing and shelter. Congruent atom of a society which has polarised use and value, we polarise revolutionary Communism and anarchist Idealism. Congruent atom of a society in which everything is two-faced and contradictory, we acknowledge the materialist unity of social forms and continuity of historical change (acknowledge, that is, the organic character of society), yet insist on the establishment of civilisation by a surgical operation, in a theatre picketted with guns—the inorganic, unsocial, unhistorical concept of demolishing society and rebuilding on a cleared site.
F. Evans. (to be continued)

19.10 SOCIALISTS AND THE CAPITALIST CLASS
In order to clarify his position on the issue "A Working Class Party or a Party Working For Socialism?" (there are some who do not see any issue at all in that title), Turner presents his views in no less than 25 propositions. Seventeen of these are merely platitudes derived from the D. of P., and with' these platitudes no socialist who understands and agrees with the Declaration would disagree. 1 he remaining eight propositions, sprinkled indiscriminately among the seventeen, can be reduced to two straightforward statements : —
1. A Socialist Party is not a class party, as it does not appeal to any particular class. It appeals to all mankind as humans because Socialism is in the interests of every human being.
2. A Socialist Party cannot aim at getting control of governmental machinery, be cause it relies upon the socialist under standing of the mass of people, and it cannot rely upon law and armed force for the introduction of Socialism,
The answer to the first statement is this: no one knows what socialism will be like and, therefore, no one can know its merits and demerits for present-day capitalists. We only know that socialism is an immediate solution to the working-class poverty problem, and this solution will necessarily dislodge the capitalist class from its present privileged position.
Turner evidently believes that wealthy capitalists will willingly get off our backs and stand upon their own feet in return for the promise of some hypothetical future benefits which he is not able to describe. There is no foundation for this belief, exceptional cases like Engels notwithstanding. There is ample evidence that workers can understand the case for socialism just as easily as capitalists. As the workers are in the vast majority, the conversion of capitalists to socialism, even if possible, is superfluous.
The answer to the second statement is this ; the capitalist class also relies upon the support of the mass of people. Are we not treated to a General Election every five years, and sometimes sooner? Yet, in spite of relying upon the support of the mass, the capitalist class, not so naive as to think that it can convert all mankind, keeps a tight control on all governmental machinery and the armed force connected therewith—presumably for the unreliable minority.
E. Carnell.
We regret that the third line of type was omitted from col. 1 of page 21 in the March issue. It should have read : " Workers who are artists function primarily as workers. Capitalists who are artists function primarily as capitalists."

20. FORUM
Internal Journal of the S.P.G.B. - 6d.
MAY, 1954

20.1 CYBERNECTICS AND SOCIETY

At all times in history people have tended to term the most recent machines, or devices, automatic. We hear much in the Press of the future of atomic (or nuclear) power, and little of the probably more important application of atomic physics to the field of control units. Just as the methods of production based on the classical knowledge of electricity —termed scientific management, belt systems, etc.—utilised also the mechanics that was the basic scientific knowledge of the previous method of production, so automatic control units utilise classical electricity and mechanics, and electronics in addition.
Here we describe the physical principles of cybernetics, and a variety of applications of these principles.
20.1.1 WHAT IS CYBERNETICS ?
This term, introduced by Norbert Wiener, signifies the art of pilot, or steersman, and it is the study of " messages of control."
We usually think only of messages being sent from one person to another. This need not be the case at all. If, being lazy, I wish to avoid getting out of bed in the morning, I press a button which turns on the heat, closes the window, and starts an electric heating unit under the coffee pot. I am sending messages to all these pieces of apparatus. If on the other hand, the electric egg boiler starts a whistle going after a number of minutes, it is sending me a message. If. the thermostat records that the room is too warm, and turns off the oil burner, the message may be said to be a method of control of the oil burner. Control, in other words, is nothing but the sending of messages which effectively change the behaviour of the recipient,,
20.1.2 WHAT IS FEEDBACK ?
The control of a machine on the basis of the difference between its actual performance and its expected performance, is known as feedback.
For example, if we are running an elevator, it is not enough to open the outside door merely when we calculate that the elevator should be alongside that door. The release for the door must be dependent on the fact that the elevator is at the doorway; otherwise if anything has hindered it the passenger might step into an empty shaft.
There are other cases where feedback is even more essential. For example, a gun-pointer takes information from his instruments of observation, and conveys it to the gun, so that the latter will point in such a direction that the missile will pass through the moving target at a given time. Now, the gun itself must be used under all conditions of weather. In some of these the grease is warm, and the gun swings easily and rapidly, while in others it is frozen or mixed with sand, and so responds more slowly. The error of the gun-pointer will be decreased if, when it tends to lag, it is given an extra push. Therefore to obtain as uniform a performance as possible a control feedback element is used. This " reads" the lag of the gun behind the desired position, and gives it an appropriate " push " if it lags.
Something very similar to this occurs in human action. If I pick up a pencil, I do not will to move any specific muscles. I turn into action a certain feedback mechanism; namely a reflex in which the amount by which I have yet failed to pick up the pencil is turned into a new and increased order to the lagging muscles, whichever they may be. In this way, a fairly uniform voluntary command will enable the same task to be performed from widely varying initial positions, and irrespective of the decrease of contraction due to fatigue of the muscles. Similarly, when I drive a car, I do not follow out a series of commands dependent, simply on a mental image-of the road and the task I am doing. If I find the car swerving too much to the left, that causes me to turn it to the right, and vice versa. This depends on the actual performance of the car, and not simply on the road; and allows me to drive with nearly equal efficiency a light Austin or a heavy truck, without having formed separate habits for the driving of each.
The governor, which regulated the speed on Watt's steam engine (1788) was an early application of feedback. This governor was needed to stop the engine from running wild when its load was removed. If it starts to run wild, or " overrev," the weights of this governor move upward and outward from centrifugal action and operate a lever which cuts off some of the steam, and so the engine slows down again.
20.1.3 WHAT IS ELECTRONICS?
It is broadly speaking the branch of electrical science dealing with the characteristics of electrons.
Electronic devices depend for their design on a knowledge of these characteristics. Some important, electronic devices are; the thermionic valves found in radio sets; the cathode ray tube, which is the viewing screen of present-day home television sets; the photoelectric cell or photo-cell, which is used in some types of photographic exposure meters; the germanium transistor; the klystron tube, etc.
The photo-cell is often called a magic eye because when' light falls on it it produces an electric current, which may be used to operate an indicating device. The sense of sight is used very frequently for testing products and processes in industry, and the photo-cell, in conjunction with amplifiers, relays and recorders, is suitable to replace human beings for such work.
Photo-cells have already proved suitable for grading and sorting commodities like rice, beans and cigars, detecting and rejecting tins with labels missing, " reading " a drawing, and controlling a tool in engraving processes. The biggest potentialities, however, lie in their application to the basic production processes of metallurgy and engineering, such as reversing the rollers in steam rolling mills or removing metal bars from the furnace at a given temperature. An inspecting machine for camshafts has been reported in the U.S.A. to use this device, and enables four men to do the work previously requiring eighteen. An even more spectacular machine reported in recent years is the photo-electric lathe, in which a photo-cell " reads " the blue print and " controls " the actions of tools on one, or more, lathes accordingly.
Feedback mechanisms may be of a purely mechanical type, but research in World War II has led to the formulation of general principles whereby automatic mechanisms of very varied types, employing electronic feedback circuits, can be readily designed. " George," the automatic pilot, which keeps an aircraft, or guided missile, flying en a constant heading, depends on such a circuit.
During World War II a weapon was developed that showed vividly the potentialities of electronic feedback. The machine embodied radar to follow the movements of an aeroplane, fed this information into an electronic brain which then computed, or predicted, the position of that aeroplane a short time hence, and then the anti-aircraft gun pointed to this predicted position and fired at the appropriate time automatically.
20.1.4 ELECTRONIC BRAINS
These are calculating machines that embody feedback circuits. The digital type calculating machines in use today are supplied with the data for calculations from two sets of punched tapes. On one tape the actual quantities (numbers) to be used in the calculation are given symbolically, as a pattern of holes, while the other tape is marked with the processing instructions, such as " add the numbers," " multiply them together," or " divide them," for example. When supplied with the two tapes and switched on, these complicated machines perform these sums very quickly. ENIAC, which is an Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator, will make 5,000 additions in a single second!
So the use of such machines allows calculations to be made which would never be completed soon enough to be of any use, if performed by human calculators. The electronic predictor mentioned in the previous section is a good example. Also, the calculation of the result of the last presidential election in the U.S.A. was made correctly by an electronic brain called UNIVAC, taking only 40 minutes on a task which would have taken a team of Einsteins about six months.*-
* The factual basis of this calculation was an orgy of statistics of past elections, described as follows by Alistair Cooke.
" They gave him the returns of the 3,000 counties in this country for every election since 1920; into other cells they poured statistics of the way previous elections had gone at different stages of election night. They fed him horrible casseroles, mixtures of old comparisons between party representation in the Senate, say with the popular vote of the old presidential winners, and tricky contrasts between the habits of the Electoral College and the voting habits of 100 regions of the United States."
—p. 799, " The Listener," 13.11.52. The difference between the result predicted by this machine, and the actual result was less than 1% (4 votes in-a total of 500)

In recent years the development of electronic brains has led to heated discussions of the question "Can Machines Think?" It is clear that a machine can only solve a problem, or control a process, if it has first been adjusted (or taught) to do so. To that extent it can think. It cannot enjoy a good joke, fall in love, or even dream of that date tonight; though it can simulate the reactions of a human being. In that sense it is not original. But the capitalist does not employ his workers to do that either; he employs them to carry out a number of instructions, just as a machine does. In fact the machine is the perfect worker—the answer to a capitalist's prayer!
20.1.5 USE IN WAR
The uses of feedback in gun laying and in the radar controlled gun have already been mentioned. However, it is in the field of aircraft, or missiles, that these devices will make their main impact on warfare.
During the first world war experiments on remote radio control of aircraft were made successfully. In the years that followed a few radio-controlled aircraft were used as targets for gunnery practice. The D.H. Queen Bee aircraft was a British example. In the second world war guided aircraft, controlled from a nearby piloted aircraft, were used by the Germans as a sort of aerial torpedo. Today, to combat jet aircraft that fly at great heights, at speeds approaching the speed of sound (and so are largely immune to the simple anti-aircraft guns) missiles are being developed which in the first stages of flight may be guided, and then steer themselves onto the bombing plane. Duncan Sandys, the Minister of Supply, has already stated that rockets capable of flying at speeds over 2,000 m.p.h. have been built. (Picture Post, 22nd November, '52). An offensive weapon to counter such defences is a guided, bomb-carrying rocket of the V.2 type. Research on such weapons is being carried on in the U.S.A. we know. It is unlikely that it is the only country where such work is being done.
20.1.6 Social Effects
It is hoped to discuss these in a further article.
20.1.7 Some Books on this Subject
The Human Use of Human Beings by Nor-bert Wiener (The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass, U.S.A., 1950). Automation by John Diebold (Van Nostrand
1951).
Sections in Profile of Science by Ritchie Calder (Allen
and Unwin, 1951). It's Bound to Happen by A. M. Low
(Burke Pub. Co., 1950). Men, Machines and History by S. Lilley
(Cobbett Press, 1948).
20.2 CORRESPONDENCE
20.2.1 To the Editors.
Re A. Turner's letter published in the March issue of " Forum ", I wish to state:
1. Regarding abuse—That in my opinion those who oppose the D. of P. and remain members of the Party are the people who are abusing the Party.
2. When members use the Party's premises and Party publications to oppose the Party's case, I do not consider this to be useful to the Party. I repeat, opposition should come from outside the Party. We are not a debating society or a discussion group but a political party with a purpose.
3. Acceptance of the D. of P. must remain the basis for membership of the Party.
4. Does A. Turner admit that he is opposed to the D. of P. ?
D. W. LOCK
20.2.2 Dear Comrades,
I want to protest most strongly about the Editorial column which appeared in the February " Forum ".
I have no specific axe to grind in this matter, as I disagree with Lock's article, although not necessarily for the same reasons as those of the writer of the Editorial. I am, for the moment, concerned with the principle involved.
What is the purpose of the Editorial Committee of " Forum" ? Actually, they are not an " Editorial Committee " in any accepted sense. " Forum " itself has no views and consequently one of the most important tasks of most Editorial Committees —to put across the paper's opinion one way or another—does not exist for the I.P.J. Committee.
The " Forum " Editorial Committee edit a controversial journal, i.e. they correct spelling, type out articles, add up the numbers of words, reject obscene or libellous matter and arrange the order and appearance of the contributions.
That is more or less all.
As a Committee they are, or should be, impartial about the controversial views expressed in the paper. As a Committee they should under no circumstances express a view. Obviously, there is nothing to stop the individual members of the Committee writing to the journal expressing their own views, so long as the members sign (heir own names (or write under a pseudonym).
In the February " Forum " the Committee acted outside their authority, in my opinion.
If the member who wrote the article felt so strongly, why didn't he write to " Forum "
Does the Committee think that in the case of Lock's article the readers are incapable of reaching a verdict unaided ?
Many articles in " Forum " are "emotional and without argument". Is the Editorial Committee in future going to point this out to us on every occasion?
I am not attributing malice or any unworthy motives to the writer of the Editorial in question. He made a mistake and one which he should under no circumstances make again. Some members may think my point a small one to warrant this rather long letter but I am concerned for the future of " Forum ", as I think it a journal that serves a useful purpose, and the quickest way to kill the paper is for the Editorial to adopt views.
Fraternally, Lisa Bryan.
20.3 GETTING THE PARTY A BAD NAME
A writer sent an article to the Socialist Standard. The manuscript began :
'' This writer enjoyed his visit to the evangelist crusade at Harringay. He listened to Billy Graham, the newest American revival preacher, he saw three hundred people ' saved,' he sang the hymns louder than anyone else, and he went home feeling that sin had a lot to be said for it."
The article was received, was edited, was published. It began :
' This writer enjoyed his visit to the evangelist crusade at Harringay. He listener] to Billy Graham, the newest American revival preacher, and he went home feeling that sin had a lot to be said for it."
The story probably has a moral, only the writer can't think what it is. But he's sure it is too good to keep to himself.
Why, of course—I've got it! "Group interests" at work! Help! Tony, quick! The tuneless H and the cacophonous McC, seething with envy because C can sing, applying the insidious gag . . . Help!
C.
20.4 CAPITALISM AND HEALTH
Comrade Bott, in criticising my lecture on " Capitalism and Health ", displays intellectual dishonesty unworthy of a member of the Party. At first I intended to ignore his long harangue in the January " Forum "—for who could not write a criticism of another's lecture, selecting points to suit his purpose and avoiding those which have been raised at the lecture?
I was careful to quote authentic figures when I claimed that immunisation was not responsible for the decline in diphtheria, and Bott could have taken me up on this point, instead of putting up his Aunt Sally at this stage.
He wrote in the January Forum " the fact that the mortality rate of those actually contacting the disease (diphtheria) has been reduced from 80 per cent, to 5 per cent, is certainly the result of the use of diphtheria anti-serum: in the early stages of infection." This is rubbish, and I would like to ask Com. Bott what evidence he has to give apart from stating this. He does not quote the source of information, nor the period under review, nor the place or country where his figures apply.
I will repeat what I quoted at the lecture. In 1916 there were 5,366 deaths from diphtheria in England and Wales. In 1939 there were 2,130 deaths from diphtheria in England and Wales. Both figures are from the Registrar General's Report for these respective years. The diphtheria immunisation campaign started in 1941, so why this great decline before immunisation? If Com. Bott wants to criticise or give explanations of the theory behind immunisation, let him answer the above facts..
I further quoted in the lecture that cholera and typhus whichh were once both rabid in England, have now completely disappeared, and before any vaccine or serum could be found for them. Why was this?
Furthermore, as I also quoted in the lecture, in 1871 when everybody in England was vaccinated (and had to be vaccinated by compulsion as there were no conscientious objectors allowed) 41,000 vaccinated people died in the great small-pox epidemic of that year (Encyclopaedia Bnttanica). Today, with less than half the British population vaccinated, a small-pox death is of such rare occurence that when it does occur it gets a headline in the papers.
In the 14 years 1933—1946 inclusive (also quoted in my lecture Com. Bott) not one child under 12 months of age died of small-pox in England and Wales; but 51 babies died during this period from postvaccinal encephalitis (that is, were killed by vaccination). This was given out by the Minister of Health in the House of Commons on November 10th 1947 in reply to a question. As it is doctors who have to sign the death certificates, and who themselves are mostly in favour of vaccination, we can be perfectly sure that they have not made the case too black against themselves. One wonders how many deaths from vaccination and immunisation are attributed to other things.
There is only one thoroughly vaccinated country in the world at the present time, the Philippines, and during the last five years 72,000 people (all vaccinated) have died there from small-pox, according to the official figures isued in the only international report which gives statistics about such epidemics. To save Com. Bott thinking out an explanation to this, I will give him the orthodox reply. Yes, it is true that 72,000 have died there of small-pox during the five years, but if we had not vaccinated, the whole population might have died from small-pox.
It is high time that members of the S.P.G.B., who have learnt that doctors and other scientists are the paid lackeys of capitalism, should open their eyes to what is going on in medicine, health and disease. To point this out was one of the purposes of my lecture. H. JARVIS

20.5 NOTE
Under the title Sentimental Anarchists- in the March Forum, Coster referred the Editorial Committee in the following passage: The election address was not very good – and the E.C. turned it down
(after turning down a real shocker from the Editorial Committee)."
The Election Address submitted by the Editorial Committee was subsequently printed in the Election Special under the title " What We Stand For ". Members are therefore in a position to judge if it was " a real shocker ".
GILMAC and HARDY
20.6 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
6, The Ideological Reflection (continued)
The spectre of Communism still haunts the Socialist movement. We have put our hand through the ghost of " natural superiority " and emancipated ourselves from dependence on " leaders," yet because, so far, we have equated independence with political hostility, we remain only the Quaker, Channel-cushioned, variety of proletarian Communism. The crux of our dilemma is that we still bear the imprint of the past revolutions in which we were cradled. In the act of establishing Socialist political independence we have accepted also the Communist strategy of political participation, and in the course of fifty years determination to wage war on all other political parties we have come to accept the revolutionary attitude as meaning anti-reformism, and revolution as the mere negation of all that is. In establishing Socialist political independence we preserve our familiar kinship with those whom we oppose, as being reformist, notwithstanding that revolution is the one thing that can't be sold from the hustings, because politics is essentially and necessarily reformist. (But because our movement is dedicated to the concept, however rudimentary, of a new society, it contains the possibility, and the necessity, of achieving independence from politics and of raising revolution-activity to a level qualitatively different from that of Communism.) Moreover, in establishing Socialist political independence, we have deemed this to be the sign that the " material conditions are ripe," and the Socialist Idea therefore complete. Thus the political independence of the Party has become the social independence of the Socialist Idea, outside social and historical change, a separate power in itself, creating history in opposition to history, and reducing the revolution to the nonsense of a single political act, thus repelling the intuitive sense of men and ensuring our impotence as revolutionary agents by insisting that until that single act history stands still.
As historical materialists we dare not deny continuous social change—fundamentally. So with the reason that finds reasons we find that whatever happens, nothing happens—fundamentally. Since 1904 all that has happened adds up to nothing—fundamentally. Corporative State, Welfare State, New Deal, Nazism, Titoism, Russian, Chinese, Indian and African revolutions—these have motion, but no direction, for they are capitalism— fundamentally. The new industrial revolution of spaceships and atoms, of plastics, cybernetics and electronic brains, and the new industrial, political and international integrations which accompany them—the mind staggers at the dizzy speed with which, today, nothing happens (fundamentally).
When Torricelli first demonstrated that mercury in a vacuum, tube would rise only to a height of 33 inches, leaving the vacuum above it empty, the Paduan professors refused to accept the evidence of their sense, for " nature abhors a vacuum." Whereupon Torricelli drew the sardonic conclusion that " nature evidently abhors a vacuum up to 33 inches." In our turn we must conclude that social evolution is continuous up to 1904.
20.6.1 POT AND KETTLE
Like good Communists, we use our thin materialism for exposing class interests, and have come to regard class struggle as the engine of social change. Dominating our minds is not the material, artifactual, social-productive determination of class relationships, but the class (and therefore ideological) determination of social change. It is the (class) Idea which for us is the dynamic of history. For us, historical-materialist, the social productive forces no longer evolve and change society in the process : only the Idea moves. For us, historical-materialist, it moves in spite of and in opposite direction to the material forces of capitalism. Like good Communists, the Labour Theory of Value is understood by us only as a theory of exploitation, and we do not wish to know that it explains capital's inhering necessity to socialise itself. Like good Communists, we are concerned with capital only as political matter, and dare not see it as social motion. Indeed, we are opposed to it, as resolutely as the Pope was once opposed to the motion of the earth, and the suggestion that we might usefully discern Socialist direction in the growth of Capitalism is conceived as reformism. How else can it be conceived when revolution is conceived as anti-reformism?
The more outrageous idealism (as I see it) which has emerged in recent discussions; the claim that there are no laws of social development, and that the Socialist idea can be communicated to anyone anywhere (irrespective of social conditions) and anywhen (independent of history)—this idealism is not so much a departure from our position as an extension of it. Our Communist political idealism leaves us wide open to attack by our Anarchist idealists. So long as the revolutionary pot insists, as an instrument of class struggle, that the Socialist idea is the dynamic of social change, the revolutionary kettle can reply, as an instrument of Utopian Socialism, with the Idea-at-Large, undetermined by material social process. And because this anarchism is just one half of our idealist backside, it makes the same objection, from the other side, to the suggestion that Capitalism (and therefore Socialism) evolves: we must not concede that Capitalism itself moves, for then we should be compelled to support its movement, and cease to be revolutionary.
Since Copernicus, science has not felt it necessary to support or oppose terrestial motion: it interprets, and by interpreting, creates. But social science is the last to be conscripted for capitalist production, and our college is still the Labour Chapel. Our Socialism is still little more than Communist opposition to exploitation leavened by a still Anarchist vision of classless society. Because our political independence was historically condemned to emerge first, not as independence from politics, but as competition with all other political parties, " revolutionary " has continued to mean " anti-reformist," our Socialist propaganda has remained only universal opposition, and our Socialism-creative influence negatived by our own nihilism. " We welcome opposition "— for fifty years our stock-in-trade : in another fifty our epitaph?
20.6.2 THE D. OF P
No. It is not a long time, as time goes. Our obsession with opposition is only a cradle mark. Militant opposition to the universe is the first squawking of the newly born. The Mayflower set sail in 1 904, its Declaration of Independence nailed aloft, but we remain offshore, facing shore. Pioneers all, the pioneers once stood, and having accepted we have refused to budge an inch from where Capitalism as completed and the Socialist idea as complete, we have not conceived it necessary to enrich or enlarge our understanding of our Principles, With the Communist Manifesto, the D, of P. stands as a landmark in the history of the Socialist movement, a brilliantly economical summary of its time, and sung with a resonance that rings like bells through half a hundred years. It is not the stature of the Principles which falls short, but ours who wear them as a talisman, an octave of gods known by name or number, or hold them as a shield against all comers, or fling them as a gauntlet in opposition to the world, or see them as a monument instead of a signpost, or use them as an anchor to a dollshouse political platform instead of as a compass to discover and proclaim the movement of society towards Socialism, thus shortening the birthpangs.
To ease the revolutionary socialist idea from its Communist political cocoon, in which it remains mere sterile anti-reformism, is at the same time to rescue its humanism from utopia. For a purely logical description of future society is no improvement on a pathological description of the present one, and only by construing Socialist society from the movement of history (and therefore of Capitalism) can it rise from the level of being anyone's present wish and therefore nobody's present concern. I o be revolutionary is to be matenalist-historically aware of the genera! character of men within the multifariousness of human conduct, and materialist-historically aware of the general drive of history within the welter of events, and therefore the inhering necessity of capital to socialise itself. I hese things provide the rationale for Socialism, and give the " historical necessity for Socialism " its necessity. Outside of this materialist discipline, the discussion of Socialist society is Utopian, and allows the pioneers among us who have stopped dead in their tracks to say " your guess is as good as mine, and I'm not guessing." Without discussion of Socialist society we cannot kindle the belly-fires of human indignation which is the drive of social revolt, nor light a torch to see by. Only within this socially disciplined discussion of socialist society can we give articulation and focus to the needs of men as animals and as conditioned by existing productive forces.
Only thus can we enter on the blank cheque the figures which men will endorse, and provide ourselves with a held of activity more unifying, more enduring, and more socially influential than the political confidence trick which has nothing to offer but a dream wrapped up in a wet blanket.
The practical possibility of doing so will be discussed in the next and last section.
F. EVANS.
20.6.3 DE PROFUNDIS
" If we can show it, (Socialism) as having a necesity outside men's wishes, and therefore binding on all, we make an ally of the social instinct,"
Chap. 6—The Nature of the Socialist Revolution—Evans.
Oh Evans, Pantheistic scribe, So intellectual, erudite, Descendant of the Stoic tribe, Does Nature fight the workers' fight?
There was a purpose after all, Before the birds and fishes : And this the Answer to IT all— Necessity outside men's wishes.
P. McHale.
20.7 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION
Following close upon his physical needs, the metaphysical needs of man are deeply rooted in the human race; the temples, churches, pagodas and mosques in every land testify to the metaphysical needs of man.
Man is the only animal that wonders at its own existence, and also the only animal that carries about with him in his abstract conceptions the certainty of his death, although this troubles him only when he brings it to his imagination. The very fact that all men must die has been, and will always be of deep concern to all men under all isms, creeds, and doctrines. All religious teachings are principally directed to this end, and are thus primarily the antidote to the certainty of death, which reflective reason produces out of its own means.
If life were endless and painless there would be no religious or philosophical systems of thought, for it is most certainly due to the fact that there is death and suffering in the world that men take the trouble to try and understand the riddle of the world.
We must bear in mind that suffering never began with the introduction of Capitalism, nor will it end under Socialism. The problem of suffering goes much deeper than economics, for one has also a biological factor to consider, and also a sexual one.
The Buddhist religion is very much concerned with the problem of suffering, and the beliefs of the Buddhists are based on the following principles : —
1. That there is suffering.
2. That there is a cause for that suffering.
3. That such a cause can be removed.
4. That there is a way of deliverance, viz., the doctrine of Buddha. There can be no doubt that we can as socialists agree with the Buddhists on three of these profound truths, that is, the first three. The fourth one is a truth in itself, and may even be practised on a large scale under Socialism. Flowever, it seems to me a very heartening aspect that socialists can agree on three out of four principles of one of the largest religious bodies in the world.
It seems to me rather foolish that we should pooh-pooh all this. Our purpose is to abolish Capitalism, not Religion, and no political party or any other sort of organisation, will ever succeed in that endeavour. To try this is to be likened to Sisyphus in Homer's Odyssey who was tormented in Hades, having eternally to roll a rock up a hill, from the top of which it always rolls down again. This in my opinion is really what all criticisms of religion will ever amount to, an endless and hopeless task which is like trying to fill the sieves of the Danaides.
It would be much wiser when writing articles as regards Religion, to assert where we are in full agreement, and also where we differ, but to write articles in such a manner as Jarvis is doing in the Socialist Standard is really extremely foolish, and will not do the Party good, but harm.
The Buddhist has no God or Creator, and we are in full agreement with three of the fundamental principles of his Religion—that is something not to be scoffed at.
I have never read nor had in my possession the pamphlet on Religion published by the Parly stating its attitude to all religions. However, in my opinion an organisation that is to establish a new social order where suffering will possibly be greatly diminished, should consider the religious bodies that are primarily concerned with the sufferings of the Human Race, and not attack their inmost beliefs as nonsense and trash. Dialectical Materialism was not the first word, nor will it be the last word on everything.
As I have said, religion will carry on under socialism just as it did more or less under every other 'ism, and in my opinion, all this should be carefully considered for the benefit of the Party and Socialism.
R. SMITH.

20.8 EDITORIAL COMMENT
. We publish this month an article and a letter which object to the criticism of Lock's article in the Feb. editorial. Both writers read into the criticism opinions which were not intended.
The editorial (which was the work of our Committee, not of a member) did not approve or disapprove of the views held and expressed in the various articles by Lock. We agree that partiality in commenting on the opinions expressed in FORUM should be avoided in editorials. This has been and is our policy. Apart from this being good policy, it would not be possible to have an editorial opinion on most of the issues that have been presented in FORUM, because the individual members of the I.P.J. Committee do not hold identical opinions on them.
The point of our criticism was to stress the desirability of reasoned argument as opposed to abuse. It appears that we might have overstresed this, to the point that it might have seemed that we were necessarily opposed to Lock's views. If this is so, it cautions care in the future, but not that we should refrain from doing one of our jobs, that is, making what editorial comment is relative to the publication of FORUM.
We disagree that there is no scope for editorial comment of any kind. Contributions from other committees have been published under their titles without complaint. We see no reason why this should not be so in the case of the committee that edits FORUM.
H. B. is critical because we said that there is no evidence of views being put forward which are incompatible with Party membership.
We still say it. For a long time in the Party it has been the practice to permit disagreement with the Party's policy and interpretation of Socialism, except in written and spoken propaganda. It could be that H. B. disagrees with this practice (as might the individual editors of FORUM), but it is a little off the mark for him to claim that what the Party rules, permits or approves is " incompatible with Party membership ". What other evidence is needed of this practice in the Party than the existence of FORUM ?
20.9 WELL, WELL, WELL!
Well now, who ever would have thought this would happen? The boys on the Editorial Committee of " Forum " have found a cap that fits and they have worn it. They have used their claws and shown their teeth with a snarl. And who is responsible for this sad state of affairs? Why, it is that terrible menace Comrade D. W. Lock (with his bad sense of smell).
If the editors are supposed to be impartially running a controversial journal, is it not just a little strange that they should pause to make comment on this particular article (" Revisionism and Renegades in the S.P.G.B."), when they have had such a fine crop of weird and wonderful masterpieces to choose from?
As for what they have to say about Comrade Lock's article, it proves one of two things. Either they don't read their own journal and go around the party blind and deaf to what goes on—or they are just plain crazy.
They say " nothing which has appeared so far could lead us to assert that within the party there are those ' who hold opinions which are incompatible with membership of the party ", while on the very next page Turner calmly tears up everything the party stands for and A. A. N. does the same thing on the preceding page.
They then, with conjured innocence, ask Comrade Lock to state the facts " which lead him to make the accusation that there are ' individuals in the party who are opposed to the D. of P.' and who have differences with the party on ' fundamental aspects of the party's case' ". Their final blow, adding insult to injury, is to recommend Lock's attendance at the Saturday evening Knitting Club and Word Spinners' Retreat at Head Office.

I have hitherto left " Forum " to the controversialists, but things seem to have reached a stage where it is necessary to spend my two cents. If our editors want some evidence about views " incompatible with membership of the party " here it is :
"A socialist party is not a class or group party; it is not a capitalist class party nor is it a working class party."
(Turner, Feb. " Forum ")
So, quite out of the blue, we have an existence apart from being thrown up by the material conditions of class struggle.
I hope I do not bore the more intelligent members when I say that, since the working class is the last subject class in history, it alone can dispossess the capitalist parasites (or are they going to abdicate?) This dispossession will be the final act of class struggle (the act to end classes) ; a struggle carried on unceasingly throughout the life of Capitalism. The capitalist class is a reactionary class of plunderers : the working class is alone the revolutionary class.
We have not the slighest point of contact with workers apart from how they gain and carry on their living. It is from an understanding of their material conditions that we are born as a party, and our object arises not from any Godly concepts of mankind. We cannot reconcile the classes.
To have nothing but contempt for the life and struggle of the workers we speak to is a first-class way of not making members. Next comes a pearl of wisdom which contrives to mix up races, families and income groups with class divisions—this is no doubt done to make the pill more easily swallowed.
"A socialist party does not appeal to any class or group as such. It appeals to MANKIND, not to capitalists, nor to wage-workers, nor to nations, nor races, nor families, nor income groups . , .
We cannot salute people with " Fellow Workers " , . .'
It is obvious that, using I timer's yardstick, the S.P.G.B., cannot be a socialist party, because it does do precisely those things which he claims a socialist party cannot do.
How does he and those who agree with him square their statements with their continued membership of this non-socialist party —or is it all right with the rest of the members if this sort of thing is said on their behalf?
If they are trying to convert us into " socialists " why not work in the Labour or Conservative party—they are bigger, and one non-socialist outfit is as much part of MANKIND as' another. " Fellow Workers " is not a salutation but a form of address.
Comrade Turner used to spend a lot of time quite rightly explaining " there are no royal roads to Socialism— no short cuts ". But now the royal carpet is spread, and the road is via mankind.
May I say at this point that I disagree with Comrade Lock if he attacks the party as a whole. I only share what he says of the " renegades " or controversial introverts. I also think that some contributions to "Forum" have been useful, notably D'Arcy's (Feb.), judd's (Jan.), and one or two others on similar lines, which should, however, not be necessary in the S.P.G.B.
I hope I will be forgiven for a slight digression, but A. A. N. is either unique in having completely identical errors to Comrade 1 urner or he has been looking over his shoulder, and S. R. P. wants to carry the confusion into the S.S. It is amazing how they cut the cloth to fit their case.
The official organ of the party must speak for the party, not the controversial wizards who see themselves as the pioneers of (new-look) Socialism, superseding Marx and the founders of the party. If the S.S. is not what it used to be, this can be understood when those who write for it do so in the present atmosphere of halfheartedness.
Let us stop frittering our time away. Socialism is worth every effort we can make and a lot more than most of us do. Let us stop playing games and get down to the serious work of winning the WORKING-CLASS over to Socialism.
H. B.
20.10 ARE THE WORKERS BETTER OFF? (Round Two)
First the facts. In the December 1952 issue of FORUM was published a letter which had originally been written to the, E. C and had then been circulated to the Branches.
This letter urged Party speakers to change from " just attacking Capitalism to describing Socialism." In reviewing the efforts of Party speakers the statement was made that
" Older speakers unconsciously preclude questions of the future by creating the impression that conditions have grown worse and will continue to do so. This does not fit the facts of experience." I understood this to mean that Capitalism improves the conditions of the working-class, and that their experience had proved it. I therefore wrote a comment on this letter in the April FORUM in which I stated that " I hold, as a Socialist, that the conditions have grown worse, and will continue to do so."
It would seem, therefore, that there is a real disagreement here. In the one view, Capitalism improves the workers' conditions; in the other, it does not.
After further consideration I wrote an article (October issue) entitled " Are the Workers Better Off? " In this article I categorically stated that "As Capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must get worse." I also stated explicitly that the contrary opinion was fatal to the Socialist case.
It should be made quite clear that I have in mind the permanent economic laws of the capitalist system; not its temporary fluctuations. This question can only be seriously discussed from the angle of social development.
It would be readily agreed, for example, that the years 1939-45 and after were years in which the workers were " better off " than they were in 1929 and 30, for the reason that they had employment. The most favourable condition for wage-labour is the accumulation of Capital. Such " ups " prove nothing, because they are followed by " downs " which cancel them out. In this case, the workers exchanged the leisure of the dole-queue for the comfort of the Air-Raid Shelter, or the warmth of the Battlefield.
20.10.1 THE ARGUMENT
Capitalism is based upon wage-labour. It is a competitive system, in which capitalists undersell each other. To maintain profit, the employers must get workers to produce more Surplus Value. To get more Surplus Value they must increase surplus labour—that part of the working day during which workers produce solely for the capitalist. There are three ways of doing this :—
1. By stretching the number of hours worked;
2. By speeding up in the same hours as before; or
3. By cheapening the stuff the workers live on.
No matter which way it is done, the worker is worse off.
As Capitalism grows, more Capital is needed to set a labourer to work. Therefore the composition of Capital changes. Variable Capital (labour) decreases, and Constant Capital (machinery) increases. As Variable Capital decreases the rate of Surplus Value tends to fall, since Surplus Value comes solely from the Variable Capital, though calculated on the entire Capital.
Therefore, it is a law of Capitalism that the Rate of Profit tends to fall.
The capitalist tries to counteract this. He increases Constant Capital to increase productivity, and the workers therefore receive a steadily diminishing proportion of their produce. The Capitalist gets a greater mass of Surplus Value, but its Rate declines. In this sense, the workers are subject to a law of increasing misery, in that the proportion which they receive, of the total value they create, continually declines. It is exclusively a proportional relationship.
The capitalist system developes convulsions called crises of overproduction. The reason for this is the inability of workers to buy back what they make. It is therefore a law of Capitalism that, as it grows, the workers can buy less and less of their produce, making bigger crises.
If the workers' conditions are permanently improving, then Capitalism is not an antagonistic socially-harmful system. It does not deprive workers. It must be exploiting them less, as it improves them more. How can it be said that Capitalism robs the working class, when it is continually giving them more? Capitalism, then, h not an anarchic system producing crises; the troubles will all be ironed out, as the workers solve overproduction by buying back more and more as they improve.

This erroneous idea of the improvement of workers' conditions under Capitalism breeds absurdities in some members' propaganda. This it has been said in answer to questions: —" I don't care if the workers get double their present wages, £20 a week with no alterations in prices, I'm not interested, I want Socialism." It would be hard to devise a more nonsensical statement. The workers cannot get double wages without alterations in prices, because wages ARE prices. If this speaker had said—" We are opposed to the whole wages system—because wages can never be anything but the cost-of-not-living. We want Socialism "—it might have had a bit of sense.
If the workers' conditions are steadily improving, then it follows that the poor must be getting richer, as the rich get poorer. This means that Capitalism equalizes society, and classes are on the way out. Why anybody should then want Socialism is inexplicable. According to "A. T." & Co., therefore, Capitalism is Capitalism, for the benefit of the working-class.
I hold, as a Socialist, that the Capitalist system is a system of slavery which grows not less but more severe, as the social productive forces of labour develop. While the worker develops as a worker, he deteriorates as a human being.
THE EXPLANATION Can we measure the workers' position at any given time in Capitalist society?
Answer : Yes. The only thing that can be measured to compare the workers' position, at any time, is the proportion of the wealth they retain of what they produce, at that time. This measurement is quite feasible, and has been made repeatedly. Thus we know that, despite very great increases in the wealth produced in the first half of the last century, there was an increase in pauperism.
To try to compare the standard of living of workers of, say, 1850 with 1950, is futile. Some contributors to FORUM seem to have attributed this to me, without reason. It is quite possible to analyse the working day in 1850, and to conclude that the worker then spent 1 /3 of his day in necessary labour, 2/3 therefore going to his employer. If the data for 1950 showed that the worker spent only of his day on himself, then the 20th Century man is, in fact, worse off. This will express itself in greater social discrepancy than before, and show the worker that the capitalist is relatively wealthier than he was, generating more social discontent.
If the modern worker, conversely, works 2/3 of his day for himself, he would be correspondingly better off; in this case, twice as well off.
Capitalism, being based on sale on the market, drags everybody into the vortex. Every device of human ingenuity is used to convince potential buyers that they must have all sorts of things, once luxuries, now needs.
Capitalism frequently throws masses of workers into violent motion. In employment —out. To War! Back home! Emigrate. Overtime. New Industries. New Towns. Strikes. Lockouts.
The wage slaves of Capitalism are not a stagnating mass like the slaves of Ancient Rome, but an active and volatile social factor, who can and will act. Knowledge of the economics of Capitalism shows that the increasing misery of the working-class is accompanied by a corresponding growth in its numbers, organization and experience.
The worsening position of the workers under Capitalism—its hopelessness—is what makes Socialism their only hope. The increasing misery of the workers is a linchpin of Socialist economics. It is the inescapable outcome of the law of relative Surplus Value and the falling Rate of Profit.
The Socialist Party, therefore, does not seek to improve the workers' conditions—but to abolish the working-class.
HORATIO
20.11
CORRESPONDENCE
Comrades,
On March 2nd, the E.C. following up a complaint laid by Comrade Coster questioned Comrade G. Hilbinger.
The complaint was, that, Hilbinger during the course of plugging our case in the ' Socialist Leader', had committed the heinous offence of transgressing Principle No. 7. The offending sentence of his letter to the ' Socialist Leader ' ( I 3.2.54) was : " How can a Marxist party, or any other party for that matter, ' represent working-class interests ? " Now this may or may not contravene No. 7, depending upon which way you interpret the principle. What I would like to know is where the above sentence disagrees with the party's case? If as our Object says, Socialism is in the interest of the whole community, where is Hilbinger wrong? To say that we represent working-class interests, is to imply that Socialism is not in the interest of the capitalist class, which belies our Object. The logic of that argument is that the capitalist class have no problems that can be solved by Socialism! In which case to be consistent we should be trying our hardest to become capitalists and advocating such a course to others. In actual fact, we say otherwise. Therefore a Socialist party cannot represent sectional or class interests. The other aspect of Hilbinger's sentence, that no party can represent the working-class's interests, is soon disposed of. All parties (other than Socialist) aspire to run capitalism; some say they will run it in the interests of the working-class, others in the interests of all classes. But we know that capitalism can only be run in one way, in the interests of the capitalist class. Which again bears out Hilbinger's statement.
What prompted me to write this letter was not just implications of Hilbinger's sentence and the E.C.'s disagreement with it, but the disgusting exhibition by the E.C. on March 2nd. I hope I never witness such a scene again. A diffident party member being badgered and browbeaten by the E.C. in an atmosphere which surely must have been reminiscent of the Roman Catholic inquisitions. The following comment from a bystander at H.O. is an illuminating one. " He (Llilbinger) would have stood a better chance in a Capitalist Court of Law, at least he would have had a better hearing!
To me the most nauseating aspect of it all, was the hypocrisy of the whole business. Many E.C. members hold views which clash with some aspects of the party case, some even disagreeing with the Object! Yet they could still pass a pious resolution telling Hilbinger that he had been a bad lad and that he must be a good boy in future.
I think that we should amend the rules operating to the E.C. to relieve it of its autocratic functions and make it a purely administrative body with no power over the individual member or branches. Then and then only can we obviate such scenes as occured on March 2nd. Any cases of discipline, complaints etc., could be referred direct to Annual Conference to decide. This would at least be a little more democratic, as representing a majority of the party, which the E.C. does not; being a handful of members with no responsibility to anyone but themselves. Jon Keys.

21. FORUM
Internal Journal of the S.P.G.B. - 6d.
JUNE, 1954

21.1 THE WORKERS-MUST THEIR CONDITIONS WORSEN?
Horatio in the May issue of Forum uses " The law of the falling tendency of the rate of profit" and "Relative Surplus value" in support of his views that under Capitalism the conditions of the working class steadily worsen. I do not think these two propositions support Horatio's contentions.
It is indisputable of course that the increase in the organic composition of capital, shows a steady rising trend. Constant capital, i.e. machines and raw material, has proportionately grown greater in the total capital advanced than variable capital (wage bills). It is in the C/C+V equation surplus value can only be made from V, that any increase in the ratio of C to V must lead to a fall in the rate of profit, all other conditions being equal.
But they never really are, as Marx was quick to point out. Changes in the organic composition of capital are generally accompanied by increased productivity of labour, i.e. an increase in the rate of surplus value. This operates as a check on the falling rate of profit. Thus if in any undertaking, V dropped to half of its original amount and C increased proportionately, but the rate of exploitation was doubled, then the rate of profit would remain the same.
If then we can reasonably assume that generally, changes in the organic composition of capital are accompanied by changes in the rate of surplus value, then the trend of the rate of profit will itself be indefiinite. The only way the rate of profit would fall is if the rate of variable capital to the total outlay suffered a greater percentage decrease than the precentage increase in the rate of surplus value.
Now it can be argued that changes in C will be so much greater than changes in the rate of surplus value that increases in the latter will fail to act as an effective counter agent to the falling tendency of the rate of profit, which will show a consistent downward trend. This would of course compel the capitalist to feverishly intensify the exploitation of workers and further to try and depress wages if only to retard the falling rate of profit. If of course this was true then the tendency of the falling rate of profit would lead to a steady deterioration in working class standards of living.
Such a view of the falling tendency of the rate of profit seems to me to be untenable. It is true that the growth of machinery per worker has increased very rapidly although not perhaps so rapidly as some are inclined to think. But the growth in the organic composition of capital is not merely a technical development, but a value expression. Side by side with the growth of the physical magnitude of constant capital has gone an increasing cheapening of the elements of constant capital due to increased labour productivity. Thus although the value of constant capital increases it does not increase at the same rate as its physical volume. Marx of course deals with the cheapening elements of constant capital as a counter tendency to the falling rate of profit.
Marx also mentions the reserve army of labour operating as a check to the falling rate of profit. First because as a competitive factor on the labour market it tends to depress wages and so raise the rate of surplus value. Secondly, where unemployment is considerable it stimulates the setting up of new industries with a low organic composition of capital and consequently a comparatively high rate of profit.
To put the matter into better perspective it would be true to say that Marx saw tendencies and counter tendencies in capitalism. It is from this conflict of opposing forces that the general law of motion of Capitalism
emerges. To the question which tendency is likely to prevail, Marx gave no clear indication. To have dealt with any of these tendencies like the falling rate of profit in abstraction, divorced from the actual existing conditions of a class society, would I think, have been foreign to his method.
This of course has not prevented some marxist writers from giving a mechanistic twist to the falling rate of profit, picturing it as operating in a continuous downward trend to reach a point where the system would cease to work.
As for the question of relative surplus value. Marx's own view can best be expressed in his own words—" Hand in hand with the increasing productivity of labour goes as we have seen the cheapening of the labour, therefore a higher rate of surplus value but even when wages are rising, the latter nevei rise proportionally to the productive power of Labour" This seems to suggest that the workers can improve their living standards though not to the extent that they are able to reap the entire benefit of their increased productivity. But even if this is so one finds it hard to accept the fact that this is tantamount to a law of increasing misery.
Moreover, how much the workers can obtain when there is an expanding period of capitalist investment and how much is standard of living cannot be decided by purely incorporated as a permanent feature of their theoretical considerations, but on the actual strength of class relations, viz., in the workers case, the power of the Trades Unions.
Again it cannot be deduced that increase in the organic composition of capital has as its immediate aim increased productivity. In other words in any period of extended capital expansion employers tend to meet less and less reserves of ' cheap labour'. The capitalist attempts to meet the situation by an increase of machinery (constant capital).
The opinions expressed in this journal are those of the individual contributors, and are not to be taken as the official views of the party

This is actuated by a relative scarcity in the' labour market. This leads to a fall in the rate of profit but it does not necessarily follow that the capitalist is compensated by an increase in the rate of surplus value. It could involve a loss. Neither does it follow that any increase in constant capital with its accompanying productivity produces results wholly favourable to the employer. Working class resistance to intensification of the labour process may be a considerable factor in the situation.
I am not of course saying that increases in working class standards are not subject to grave restrictions. When the price of labour power is such as to threaten profits to any great extent then the capitalists will seek to increase the organic composition of capital as an answer. This means workers will be put off, unemployment will grow and as a competitive factor it will serve to depress wages. Thus wages are regulated between the upper and nether millstones of this process. It is this which makes it impossible for workers to absorb in wage increases the whole of surplus value.
I think it better in order to understand the economic function of capitalism to regard the falling rate of profit and relative surplus value not as isolated features, but as related parts of the general law of capitalism, i.e. the law of capitalist accumulation. That is the need of the capitalist to expand his capital by converting t. part—the greater part—of surplus value into additional capital. It is this that gives rise to a demand for labour and with it a rise in wages. This leads to a reduction in the rate of profit. The capitalist then seeks through the introduction of machinery to offset this. It is this which in my opinion puts the increased tendency of a rising organic composition of capital in its proper perspective. Whether this action will tend to restore the rate of profit or further depress it cannot be proved on general grounds.
One thing we can say is that a theory of increasing working class misery cannot be decided by appeals to the falling tendency of the rate of profit considered in vacuo bu-t is a result of a highly complex interacting situation.
Just one point further. Horatio's statement that crises are caused by the inability of workers to buy back the goods they produce fills me with grave concern. I propose in a later issue to deal with what I think is the Marxian view of crises.
I am glad, however, to discuss these differences with Horatio because such discussion makes for theoretical clarity which is important for a party such as ours.
E.W.
21.2 POLEMICS OR PROPAGANDA?
S.R.P's article ' A Policy on Socialism ' purports to deal with my earlier criticism of A.A.N's article ' Class Struggle and the S.P.G.B.'. As S.R.P. has reduced my article to six points I will answer his criticisms accordingly.
1. Members will notice that he avoids dealing with the essence of my original statement which is " Do all people have to understand Socialism prior to its establishment? " Instead he poses an academic question asking me to show " in what economic circumstances people cannot understand Socialism ". My answer is that people cannot understand Socialism in the economic circumstances of Feudalism.
2. My original statement claimed that a struggle existed over the product of labour, which I called ' property ', between Trade Unions and employers. Whilst Trade Unions argued to the degree of the division of property, Socialists sought to dispossess the property owners and introduce common property. Surely the meaning is clear. Again, S.R.P. alters the meaning of the words, equates common ownership with ' no ownership ', and by some process proceeds to accuse me of saying that Trade Unions propose to abolish property by degrees. (I am completely puzzled by the statement " There are no degrees in property, which consists in relationships that are either supported or opposed "). I take it that the product of labour will exist under Socialism.
3. All Parties I named in the original article call themselves ' Socialist ' and sincerely believe they are. They work for their objective which, due to a faulty analysis of the forces of Capitalism and its contradictions, is not Socialism at all, and usually turns but to be Nationalisation. They cannot work for Socialism because of ignorance and not intention. A logical inference to be drawn from S.R.P's remarks in this connection is that these Parties could work for Socialism but do not.
4. The answer to this point brings the word ' emancipate ' into dispute. Again, I stated clearly what I meant. Emancipation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means setting free from slavery or legal disabilities. Both descriptions fit the modern working class perfectly, and not the capitalist class. If Socialism will not emancipate workers in this way, what other way ?
All this must seem horribly mundane to S.R.P., who seems to use the word 'emancipate' in a religious or moral sense. Perhaps he will inform us in simple terms how Socialism will emancipate the capitalist in particular. Will it free him from slavery or legal disability? The statement " Socialism is a dire necessity only for Socialists not for workers or capitalists " is rather mystifying. Surely Socialism is a dire necessity for the non-Socialist working class—it is not a dire necessity for the capitalist class. In fact it is not a necessity at all for them.
On this issue, S.R.P. and others who hold similar views, have refrained from giving reasons why Socialism will benefit the capitalist, or alternatively, showing what problems the capitalist suffers from. Surely we are entitled to know them. The capitalist appears to have been buried under the heading of ' humanity and mankind ''—let's have him out and discuss his particular problems. S.R.P. claims that no capitalist can identify himself with working class interests—how about Frederic Engels?
(5) I realised when I made the statement " When Socialism is established nobody will know what it will look like, neither will anyone care apart from some S.P.G.Bers that it was likely to shock S.R.P. and many others. I did add, of course, that we would be in a position to know more about production, etc, I make no apology for this seeming sacrilege, but S.R.P. should not presume that I have given no thought to the question, nor listened to discussions, nor read the works of William Morris. This phantom appeared in its modern form six years ago, and never once have I heard or read, anything that the Party could usefully use in its propaganda.
Surely the onus is on S.R.P. and others to put forward a description of Socialism and what it will Took like. They should not be deterred or put off by members' hostility. As Socialists we are interested in obtaining Socialism as soon as possible, and any asset to our propaganda would be more than welcome.
My own view is that the very nature of the question 'Socialism—what will it look like?' is an absurdity. You can only describe social systems, including Capitalism and Socialism, from their economic basis, the relations of people to the means of production. In short, the description contained in our object.
S.R.P. would describe Socialism as ' the establishment of social harmony', which leaves us as wise as ever. He is also not quite sure on whether mass production will take place or not. A number of other individuals have made alarming speculations, and it is no exaggeration to say that during the past two years polemics have been taking place between individuals who are supposed to agree basically. I am interested in propaganda and not polemics. If S.R.P. wants to admonish me and my analysis let him do so in a clear statement showing what remarkable advantages we will gain by indulging in this new form of propaganda. Illustrations please.
(6) Despite what S.R.P. says, all the Party offers is democratic control and common ownership. If S.R.P. decides to refer to these as vague ideals he must have something else in mind apart from Socialism, because this is the basis of Socialism. The statement " Labour, Communist, I.L.P. etc., all offer to re-create the world with these vague ideals " (referred to above) leads me to the conclusion that it would do S.R.P. no harm to do a bit of analysing himself, and find out what these political parties really stand for.
I repeat the challenge to S.R.P. and others —show us the problems from which the capitalist suffers, and let us have the treatise on Socialism and what it will look like.
D'ARCY
21.3 EDITORIAL NOTE
We have received many articles criticising Turner's article, some of which seem to us to repeat the same points, and practically in the same words, as articles which have already appeared. We are therefore not printing them in this issue. If any writer feels that he wishes his article to appear in any case, he should let us know, and it will appear in the next issue.
We must apologise for two printer's errors in last month's issue. The title of the front page article should course have been " Cybernetics and Society ", and not " Cybernectics and Society ". The author's name was ROBERT.
21.4 SOCIALISTS AND PARLIAMENT
Peter Newell will not find an answer to his question " Is Parliament an Instrument of Emancipation?" (FORUM, Dec—Jan) by exploring the evolution of Parliament, nor by considering the views of Marx, Engels, Morris and others. These views, even if correct, can only apply to certain conditions of the past. He will find the answer to his question by examining the Parliament of today, and having clear ideas about emancipation.
Although Parliament is of recent growth, there has not been any stage in social evolution which did not have laws of some sort which were enforced by sanctions of some kind. We, who wish to establish the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living in the interest of all, must needs make a law to this effect.
The right to make laws is only for those who can enforce them. The British Parliament i.e. the House of Commons (the Lords and Monarchy can be ignored) is representative of the whole community and has the sole right of making laws—other people can make law only where Parliament authorises. This Parliament is neither capitalist nor socialist, but merely a machine for making what laws we like and as fast as we like.
A party wishing to control this Parliament need not fill all 625 seats, but only enough to have a substantial majority. A Socialist Party will get a majority when there will be a small section of the working class still hostile to Socialism because it does not understand, and a large section of the capitalists class hostile because it does. These two sections together will, however, be only a minority of the whole community, and against this minority the first socialist legislation may have to be enforced—perhaps more against ex-capitalists than against ex-workers. Parliament can change a person's econonmic status in a moment, but it cannot undo the mental make-up of a lifetime in a moment. And the one thing a Socialist Parliament will never be able to do is to compensate the capitalist class.
Newell confesses that he does not know how the present powers of government will be "converted into an agent of emancipation and no Party member has ever told him. No Party member has ever told me either, but I have never had to ask.
Now, Newell's idea of establishing Socialism is that when a majority of mankind (not a majority of workers) register their desire for Socialism (presumably by writing ' Socialism, S.P.G.P. across their ballot papers) they will take over the means of production, produce articles for use, take over the State, and immediately disband those " parts which were only necessary for Capitalism ". One of the " parts of Capitalism " to be immediately disbanded is to be the police. But he is going to keep the Labour Excange a little longer " for the use of those people wishing to find useful work to do ". That will presumably be for the people who have not been working usefully nor have felt the urge to do so but who,, upon revolution day, will undergo a conversion and so register for useful work.
Keeping the Labour Exchange is a good idea, but what about the idlers who do not undergo this conversion? What if none of the idlers undergoes this conversion, which, at the moment, is only Newell's conception?
Let me point out that a Socialist Revolution will not arise from a problem of production, but from one of distribution, i.e. a working-class poverty problem. Therefore, the fundamental task of a Socialist Party in control is to solve the distribution problem. This means organising distribution on socialist lines, and leaving the powers of production to carry on exactly as before—except, of course, that they will be requisitioned. As socialist distribution reveals deficiencies of certain articles (and the signs will soon show) so will the powers of production be adjusted accordingly.
To do all this, the Socialist Party will require machinery for making rules and amending them as conditions change (i.e. a legislative assembly), and also some means of enforcing its rules where enforcement is indicated. When the Socialist Party is strong enough to make such rules and enforce them, it will be strong enough to use the already existing machinery for this purpose.
E. CARNELL
21.5 THE CASE FOR SOCIALISM
Paddington Branch Draft Election Address
The following draft was produced in consequence of Paddington Branch's circulated criticism of the Address sent out by the Party in the N. Paddington by-election of Nov. '53
21.5.1 TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF N. PADDINGTON
This is the fifth time that the Socialist Party of Great Britain has run an election campaign in N. Paddington since 1945. We are not concerned with arguing ' party politics ' in the sense of seeking to get the members of our party into power and the others out. Our sole purpose is to urge you to understand and work for Socialism, which is the only solution to the social problems that face all of us today.
The S.P.G.B. is organised for one purpose alone—the establishment of Socialism. Although we are in opposition to> the policies of all other parties, our case does not rest upon mere criticism of them. We have a positive alternative to the property system that exists today. Our aim is to convince you that this alternative (which we call Socialism) is both desirable and practicable.
21.5.2 WHAT LIFE IS LIKE TODAY
The way of life today is one of antagonisms : nation against nation, class against class—man against man. The means of production—land, factories, railways and so on—are owned by a minority. This means that the majority of people are compelled to work for wages or salaries in order to live.
This class division breeds a clash of iritere&ts. Employers are always seeking to get workers to produce more for less, while workers have to struggle to maintain or improve their conditions. This is the class struggle, and it is because of its harmful effects on every aspect of life that socialists seek to abolish class society.
The world is capable of producing an abundance of the good things of life. Yet millions go short. It is not people's needs that count, but what one can afford to buy. Further, the struggle between nations (representing capitalist class interests) over world markets, sources of raw materials, etc., leads finally to war. Of course, war is usually supposed to be fought for other things, but the securing of property can always be shown to be the real season.
21.5.3 WHAT SOCIALISM WILL BE LIKE
When we speak of Socialism we mean an entirely new system of society that has not yet existed in any part of the world.
The socialist way of life is one in which everything that is in and on earth is to be held in common by the people of the earth. Everything will be produced solely for use— nothing will be for sale. Socialism means that each person will have access to what he or she needs, each determining his or her own needs.
A socialist outlook is not a nationalist outlook, but one that regards all men and women as equals. Socialism will bring all the people of the earth into co-operative harmony. When property relationships and trading have disappeared, nations as such will have disappeared, along with the armed forces and the rest of the state machinery. There will be no conflict of property interests to cause wars.
21.5.4 PRODUCTION FOR USE
Perhaps you think that ' production for use applies today? 1 rue, people do use the goods and services that are produced, but that is not the primary motive for production. Things are made today to sell in order that the owners may make a profit. Consequently, a great deal that is sold is shoddy, useless and even harmful.
By contrast, under Socialism everything will be made as well as they can be for their intended purpose.
Rhink of the quantity of human labour that is wasted today. Much of the steel, oil, coal and textile output is solely for war purposes. Effort is frittered away on advertising campaigns, in purely financial dealings, and on frivolous luxuries. The latter do not give real satisfaction, and are only part of the act of " keeping up with the Jones's " in a world where competition and money-values prevail.
This will give you some idea of the enormous amount of Labour that will be at the disposal of socialist society. The dull routine, both at home and at work, with which we are so familiar will give place to occupations that are interesting and have variety.
21.5.5 NO BUYING OR SELLING
There will not be anything for sale under Socialism. No one will be able to sell,
because no one will want to buy what he is free to have. No buying or selling means no production for profit, and so money will not be needed and all the things that are necessary only to a money-based world will go.
Imagine the evils that Socialism will remove by making money unnecessary. People will no longer have to sell their self-respect for it. No one will need to steal what he can have freely.
People will behave towards each other in a co-operative manner and, without laws to break, there will be no prisons, warders, police or lawyers. Bribery and corruption will vanish along with servility and domination. Cash values will be replaced by human values.
21.5.6 HOW PEOPLE WILL WORK
With Socialism, each person will have full scope to give of his best, and he will be amply rewarded by the pleasure his work gives both to himself and others.
Since all people, in free association, will control their conditions of living, the aim will be to have as full and satisfying lives as possible. All human activity will be carried on under as pleasant conditions as can be devised, and occupations that are harmful to the doer will be abolished.
What is objectionable today is not work itself, but the kind of things we have to produce and the conditions under which we have to produce them. When things are made to sell in a mass market they have to be turned out as quickly and cheaply as possible, no matter the harmful effects that may result to the workers. Mass production means that work is split into its simplest component parts —and the ideal is that each worker shall make only one movement as frequently as possible.
Thus a variety of products is obtained (very few of which add anything to living) only at the cost of making work uninteresting. The strain of modern life—the overcrowded cities, the ceaseless hurry to save time (for what?)—all are symptoms of a desease that is inherent in capitalist society.
Socialism is an integrated society, which will have regard for people both as producers and consumers. The feeling of being a cog in a vast impersonal machine will disappear in communities that are smaller and designed for living.
21.5.7 EQUALITY
People will not be divided into classes as they are today—-some rich and most poor— because there will.no longer be sections with privileges. All will stand to each other as social equals.
The position of women in society will be the same as that of men. The sexes will participate freely in the various occupations. Already the marriage institution is fast changing from the wife's econonmic dependence on the husband into a union of companionship. This form of marriage rests not merely upon the economic tie, but rather upon the need tor affection, understanding and companion-snip that is denied people in their relationships with those outside the family; In socialist society the fulfilling of these human desires will be given full expression, not thwarted and confined within the limits of the family.
There will be no groups of people seeking power and privileges over other groups, i.e. no racial discrimination, no age, occupational or other antagonisms of interest. This does not mean that everyone will do exactly the same amount of work and have the same ™ rations". Each, according to his mental and physical energies, will contribute willingly to the production of what is needed. No longer will people have to worry about what tomorrow will bring forth; whether they will lose their job and go hungry, badly clothed or unwanted. In other words, there will be real security of living for all.
Since there will be no privileged classes, there will be no state power or governments to prevent some from encroaching upon the privileges of others. Social affairs of all kinds will be administered with the full participation of all for the mutual benefit of all. No governing body or leaders will be given power to wield over others. Social matters will be conducted in an organised fashion, but without " authorities ".
21.5.8 WHAT STANDS IN THE WAY
Whilst you will almost certainly have many doubts about the details of the ;ocialist way of life, we think you will look upon it as something desirable. The doubts and objections you have are probably along the lines that it is impossible " because of toman nature ". This is where we come in. Our sole purpose is to convince you that it is possible.
It is true that men behave selfishly, greedily, aggressively, and in other antisocial ways—in a society that sets man against man. But in some circumstances (a flood disaster, for example) they work with untiring energy for a communal purpose.
Whether people act selfishly or unselfishly depends not on 'human nature ' but on their conditions and ideas. Where property makes one man's loss another man's gain such emotions as greed and jealousy are found. Where things are held in common these emotions are absent because they have no purpose. Human nature is no barrier tb Socialism; human ignorance is—but that can be overcome.
Do not accept the arguments of those who will say that Socialism is all very well for the future " but we must do something practical in the meantime ". It is claimed that, since a vote for the Socialist Party would be a " wasted " vote, therefore electors should choose one of the larger parties as the lesser of two evils. The socialist, however, argues that when presented with the choice of two evils you should choose neither, but continue to work for what you think is desirable,
21.5.9 WHAT YOU SHOULD DO
We have tried, in this short space, to give you an outline of what the Socialist Party stands for. We scarcely need add that we do not beg for your vote—we only ask you seriously to consider the ideas that we put forward.
The socialist approach is, above all, an integrated and dynamic approach, viewing society as a whole and not isolating ideas from activity. That is why we insist that it is necessary to change people's ideas in order to change the way we live today. This is the socialist revolution—the ideas and the action, forming a harmonious way of life in contrast to the antagonisms of today.
The choice before you is Capitalism, and a continuation of present evils—or Socialism and a life worth living.

21.6 HEREDITY AND ABILITY
Comrade Bott says that I deliberately misconstrued his remarks about leadership. This is what he said (Jan. p. 7) : " If innate structural variations produce special abilities, applied to the brain this would mean innate variation in mental capabilities. Some indivir duals could be endowed with innately superior thought mechanisms. Anyone who believes this must be seriously disturbed by the Socialist case regarding leaders ".
Leaving aside his introduction of the term " special abilities " (which courts misunderstanding, and was not used by me), I took his last sentence to imply that he thought a case for leaders could rest on differences of ability between men. I still take it to mean this, as I do not see why, otherwise, the Party's case against leaders should be disturbing to anyone who acknowledges that other implication is contained in his statement, or what other inference than mine could be drawn from it. If he did not mean that a case for leadership rests on differences of ability, why did he raise the question of leaders in connection with differences of ability? Will comrade Bott please explain what he did mean, and in what way I misconstrued it?
My point (to which comrade Bott refers) about the undesirability of not assuming a. common knowledge of the Party position has nothing to do with the propriety of criticising views expressed. What I was averse to was the failure to interpret what is written in the light of that assumption of common ground, or to give benefit of doubt, where alternative interpretations are possible. We cannot make that assumption where views expressly conflict with it. It was comrade Bott who implied (see above) that my views did not square with our position on leadership, and it was up to me to show that they do (and therefore that his don't).
Comrade Bott now implies that in my first reply to him I modified rny original proposition. I did not and I do not: I repeated it, and I repeat it again here (at the end). Nor did I drop the word " abilities ". I simply explained the sense in which I used it, in response to a suggestion that it could be misunderstood. I had deliberately left the word " abilities " open and uncrossed, relying on sense to establish its meaning, because definition was not practicable, and because any alternative I could think of (including " responses ")' presented the same difficulty. Whatever word is used, the sense of the matter is this: that what is innate is only potential, and becomes actual (as performance) only under environmental stimulus. I deemed this so obvious as not to need saying. The point here at issue was whether men vary in innate endowment as do other species. I have not changed the proposition selected by comrade Bott to deal with. I repeated its precise purport in pointing out that comrade Bott had not in fact dealt with it, and the need to answer still remains.
He agrees that unlike causes produce unlike effects, adds that I don't understand what this means, and then demonstrates with three examples that he doesn't. His confusion pivots on his error that " every difference is not a cause ". Every difference is a cause of something. How otherwise can he agree that unlike causes produce unlike effects?
His first example does not show that unlike causes (different initial velocities) produce like effects, but only that part of the effects is the same (terminal velocity). 1 he unlike causes here do (as they must) produce unlike effects—the conversion of the additional velocity of one of the bodies into additional heat. There is not in this case, as he thinks, any " difference which is not a cause ". The difference was a cause, of heat (they often are).
in his second example, the cause of the redistribution of the sugar is precisely the difference in vapour-pressure—a very queei example of a difference which is not a cause.
His third example, of the genetically abnormal stomach apparent in moist but not in dry atmosphere, shows that he means, not what he says (that every difference is not a cause), but only that every difference is not necessarily relevant to some part of the effects.
Example 4 (nautical). Six sailors, all saucy but otherwise all different, lie down and fall asleep. Out of their manifold differences comes a like recumbent somnolence.
I hope the reader now understands, with comrade Boit, that unlike causes may produce like effects even though we agree they can't.
Who argues like this doesn't know science form yellow clay. Science must make sense. We may of course talk sense without talking science, but it would hardly do to say therefore that science is not exactly sense : rather is it talking sense exactly. Anyway, if it isn't sense, Greek and Latin words or the numbering of paragraphs won't make it science. All that comrade Bott tells us is that all differences are not necessarily relevant to every effect, and any naive prole who has staggered his way through this " extraordinary confusion not known to science " must have asked himself why he tells us something that does not need saying and uses a column of scientific fancy dress to say it.
It is not in dispute that some innate differences between men may not be relevant to some differences of performance. It is not in dispute that human behaviour is socially conditioned. It is not claimed that the imbecile (or anyone) is an immutable bodily organisation. What is in dispute is whether inherited factors may have a bearing on who does or who doesn't need " interfering with and adjusting ". What I dispute is comrade Bott's claim that innate differences have no bearing on differences of performance among
men. I hold that the examples he has given do not show, and that such examples cannot show, what innate differences may be decisive in (causes of) or irrelevant to (not causes of) what kind of perfomance, nor show what environmental influences may have compensated for what genetic differences. I hold that the matter has no bearing on the socialist attitude to leadership; that the strained and devious effort to exclude the human species from the innate variation which is the mechanism of organic evolution raises difficulties without solving any; that on the other hand we can, without any bobbing and weaving, accept that variation as enriching the possibilities (particularly relevant to primordial man) of the co-operative labour which is the spring of a new kind of evolution (history); that this attitude towards individuation is more in line with the historical necessity we call Socialism than atavistic notions of equality, and that these notions, with their new Idealism and new Absolute (" technique "), are only the old anthropomorphist ego of the machine-age barbarian ("I think therefore I am" translated "I make, therefore I am Creator") not yet purged from the socialist ideology whose evolution is socialism evolving.
Comrade Bott has not answered the objections raised, and he does not further the discussion (or resolve our probable cross-purposes) by repeating my views (about language, or the social inheritance of technique) as though in answer to me; nor by the carelessness which permits him to say in one breath that we think with words, and in the next that we think with tools (especially as in fact we think with our brains), or to say that the " limiting factor within the human body " is something outside it (" social inheritance of technique "), nor by foisting on me views that run counter to all I have said ( such as the silly view that social development is determined by the biological struggle for existence, when I have emphasised production as the agency of history at such length as surely to leave no one else in doubt about it).
It is a matter of taste what one feels about a charge of dishonesty in discussion, and as comrade Bott obviously does not share my taste there is no point in returning the charge. But he seems not yet to be aware that evasive action by throwing up a cloud of scientific dust is the wrong tactic in our outfit. The fact that some of us still drum on our chests when we've read another book, doesn't mean that our hands all brush the ground.
There are two or three questions to which comrade Bott owes an answer: the one in the second paragraph (in connection with which he should also say what are his differences on what he calls my naive treatment of the question of leadership), and the one relating to his original point of difference with me. He said (Jan. p.6) : " I promise to deal, therefore, with only one statement, which appears in Evans' last paragraph, viz. ' The rich genetically determined variation in innate individual abilities cannot be dismissed without dismissing the basis of biological evolution ' ". If comrade Bott rejects natural selection, what other mode of biological evolution does he suggest? There was no answer in his first reply, and after being reminded there was none in his second. Blow away the dust and there it is—gorn.
F. EVANS
NOTE : This article should have appeared in the July 1953 issue of FORUM, but was mislaid. (Eds.)
21.7 SOCIALISTS AND THE RETREAT FROM REALITY
The philosophy on which Socialism is based is that of Marxian materialism. It is because materialism has to do with the observable, i.e. that which can be analysed, documented and shown to conform to certain laws, that the materialist conception is accepted as the only possible system suitable for the world of today and the future. By its application, Man sees a working law in what appears otherwise chaos.
Despite this, large numbers of people in the more ' advanced ' industrialized countries see life as Khayyam saw it—as a door to which they find no key. This is not to say that they have consciously rejected the materialist view of life, but rather that they have failed to
understand it. They have long since thrown away the key handed down to them by the church fathers as being totally unfitted to unlock the problematical doors of their age. They stand now, suspended in a limbo of perplexity, shuffling and faltering: they are the bewildered conscripts of Capitalism becoming increasingly aware of a frightening shadow as they feel their world moving towards the pin-point of nihilism.
Faced with this ' octopodius ' army that waves its multifronds abstractedly, each separate arm seeking its nourishment marked ' peace ', ' work ', ' leisure ', and ' wages ', the socialist must somehow make contact with the vital core which animates the whole.

If socialists are to hold up the retreat from reality they themselves must come to grips with reality. There are, at the moment, controversial views within the party; views which, according to some, appear to be frontal attacks on fundamental principles.
While we agree that Ideas cannot be divorced from environment, we are not too certain on the question of new attitudes arising among ourselves, resulting from inner changes taking place within the general environment of Capitalism. While we agree that the Idea is the skin of the environmental body, we cannot all agree that it must stretch in keeping with changes within that body. Is it enough to say that Capitalism remains the same? Does not its method of exploitation change? It is not more difficult to convince in the old-fashioned way, the modern wage slave, that he is indeed being exploited just as much as his forbears of the 1 8th century, and this despite our learned explanation on the falling rate of profit? Is not this difficulty the result of the innerchanges taking place within the broad field of capitalist exploitation?
Is not our attitude towards Religion rather archaic? Much understandable criticism has been levelled at Jarvis' articles on religion. It would be a tragedy indeed if the party developed its anti-religious propaganda at the expense of Socialism. R. Smith brings a sense of proportion along when he chides us on our attack against what are in some- cases worthy and sensible sentiments found in certain religious philosophies. Socialists do not need to be guarded against religion, but we do need to guard ourselves against the possibility of creating one of our own. We must be careful that we do not cut our noses with an academic knife when we discuss religion with prospective members. Would it be a bad idea to get them in " souls an' all and, through better acquaintance with socialist philosophy, convert them to ' full blooded ' materialism?
Perhaps we are being rather foolishly pedantic when we refuse to ' violate ' the D of P by even suggesting changing its Victorian phraseology. We look at the river and observe that it still flows in the same direction as when Marx was a student, but we do not pay sufficient attention to the change of currents underneath, and it is the under currents that drag one down.
Perhaps, if we take stock we may find that one of the major causes for the slowness of our progress lies not wholly in the strength of our class enemy or the apathy of the workers but in a ' stiffness ' in versatility in. ourselves. Perhaps, like Alice, we refuse to grow up even though we grow older.
W.BRAIN
21.8 PROBLEMS OF PROPAGANDA
4 Organisation
The purposes of organisation as far as the S.P.G.B. is concerned are, I suggest:
1. To gather and keep together socialists
2. To enable our ideas to be propagated
3. To afford a measure of, and a stimulus to, the growth of those ideas.
These purposes are not separable (except for analysis); nor are they without influence upon each other.
" Gathering " at present means, perhaps one or two members a week. There is a danger that we become reconciled to this intake, that we gear our organisation to take this number, and so preclude any substantial increase. The problem of integrating new members into the Party is one which deserves more attention than it gets now. It is )deplor-able how rare it is for anyone to get into the Party on anything less than a couple of years acquaintance with it. The number of our sympathisers is far too large in proportion to the number of our members, and we should take steps to correct this.
The bureaucratic and inconsiderate way in which members are enrolled in the Party tends to result in what may be called ' post-enrolment apathy ', which may easily turn into despair. I here have been nearly 6,000 members on our books since 1904, of which only 1,100 remain. Physical death has accounted for only some of the losses : death of enthusiasm for probably the greater part. It should be realised that it is part of the function of the Party to keep its members happy—to study their needs, to make them feel wanted by giving them tasks that afford satisfaction without draining off reserves of mental and physical energy.
At the present stage, our problem as a Party is to appear large enough to " count " in the scheme of things, and yet not so well-established as not to require help in its work. We make progress towards the former by concentrating our propaganda efforts, large meetings and election campaigns (in which we appear larger than life, as it were) and towards the latter by overcoming such difficulties as asking people to identify themselves with a small group.
In some mysterious way, the concentration of propaganda has come to be associated with the pernicious doctrine of selectivity. There is an easy way to distinguish the two. The selectivists think " We have come here because we think you are the people." Those in favour of concentrated propaganda think " We have come here so that you will think we are the people."
Little need be said about the importance of organisation to the mechanics of propaganda. Except to point out that it means not only a certain degree of centralisation but also of individual responsibility. The Party itself counts for relatively little in propaganda —the unit of literature sales and meetings is normally the branch, and of writing and personal contact, the individual member. The fact that personal contact has played such a large part in our growth indicates that the Party and its branches are not so effective as the separate members who compose them.
We enrol people in the Party as a convenient way of registering the fact that they hold socialist views. But this line we draw between members and non-members loses all convenience if it is over-emphasised. It becomes instead a barrier which segregates.
The fuss and bother about selling Forum to non-members and about the subject-matter of Plead Office Sunday meetings indicates that some members still think we shouldn't tell " all " to non-members, although they rationalise this belief by saying that it would " confuse " them. What a subtle form of insult this really is! How can members be so insensitive as not to realise that people; desire above all else to be treated as human bings, as equals and not as intellectual inferiors?
We may become so used to thinking in terms of black and white (member and non-member) that we ignore greyness and fail to encourage the latter to become the former. It is " not done " to ask people to join the Party—and this attitude is justified by saying that when they are socialists " they will know what to do ". Yet to what extent might it also be true that they will be socialists when they know what to do?
So reconciled have we become to the microscopic rate of growth of the Party that the "en masse" theory has ousted the "snowball". The party will always remain small, it is said, until people will " come over as a mass movement. The respective merits of these theories need not concern us here. The important thing is not to use "en masse" as a rationalisation oi our lack of progress. The pressing need of the Party IS to become bigger. " En masses " tomorrow is a consoling theory, but no substitute for rolling the snowball today.
We must look upon the Party organisation as not so much a means of keeping non-socialists ouiside as of getting socialists inside. Quite a few of those outside unquestionably hold views very close to those of members. Yet the very fact of iheir not being included in the membership largely denies them the environment of ideas which makes socialists. Once inside the Party (and, if possible, given a job to do) they would cease to be preoccupied with the minor differences they have with the Party case, since they would have a personal interest in promoting socialist ideas as a whole.
In summing up these four articles on problems of propaganda, the connection between the main themes can be noted.
1. A way of looking at propaganda as the cultivation of an attitude, stressing the positive side—analysis plus synthesis.
2. The desirability of speakers assuming agreement and not hostility on the part of their audiences.
3. The wider scope of Party literature, by ceasing to divide socialist ideas into propaganda and controversy, and
4. Appreciation of the fact that socialists are made WITHIN the Party.
S.R.P.

21.9 QUESTIONS OF THE DAZED
Answers to some of the questions asked at the 50th Conference
Question: What is the Party's attitude to Psychology, Monogamy, or Genetics? Answer: What is the Party's attitude to ballistics, acoustics, eurythmics, or hieroglyphics? The only " ics " the Party has an attitude to is Economics. Party speakers who know Economics, can answer questions on Socialism from any source. If a Psychologist or Geneticist claims that his idea invalidates Socialism, let him prove it. Question: Why not allow speakers to put forward contradictory ideas? If a chemist wants to find something, does he not experiment?
Answer: Analogy false. Chemistry is esta blished as a Science as a result of experimentation. An experimenter who insists on the existence of Phlogiston, denying the proven basis of Chemistry, would finish up in the lunatic asylum.
Question: Seeing that Socialism is for everybody, why does the Declaration of Principles call on the working class to emancipate itself? Answer: Because Society is split into two groups, whose actions are decided by their interests. The emancipation of the working class is opposed to the interests of the capitalist class; it involves their extinction, which they do not want. The working class is driven to struggle by capitalism. It does not run out of capitalism as a prisoner does out of gaol.
Question: If you charge members who say that they disagree with the principles, will you not prevent all discussion of them? Answer: No. Read your your rule-book. Every member has the right to state his case to a conference. The delegates at the next annual delegate meeting or annual conference shall hear the case of the E.C. and the accused. The delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll (Rule 33). Question: As the armed forces mentioned in point 6 now include things like Hydrogen bombs, would the founders of the Party have included this point if they had known about them?
Answer: We do not know what the founders would have done, if they had not done what they did. The Hydrogen bomb does not invalidate the Principle. On the contrary, the more efficient the weapon the greater the necessity to control it. The bomb has destroyed the anti-parliamentary case, confirming the Socialists.
" FESTINA LENTE "
21.10 PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
The April FORUM was more than usually lively, but from the free-for-all emerges Ca serious call for clarification of some vital issues for the Party.
These issues, be it noted, are fortunately practically all on the tactical plane. None will challenge the statement that the aim of the S.P.G.B., especially at the present juncture, is, to use a homely but well understood phrase: " To Make Socialists ". In spite of Turner's " economic bastard ", with its duly numbered spiky hairs scattered over a bald pate of sentimentalism, there is surely no call for a frenzied cry from our comrade's head. Here it is necessary to remind ourselves that fifty years of experience has adequately safeguarded the Party against the admission (or retention) of anyone definately holding opinions not in conformity with its basic principles.
As to the making of Socialists : this involves propaganda, and here of course a very wide field is involved, carrying with it, throughout the history of the Party, widely divergent views—older comrades will know that such a superb propagandist as Anderson would have refused to admit Trade Unionists! Peckham branch narrowly missed advice to the E.C. to expel him on account of deviation from the then nominally accepted code of " morality " in its narrowest sense— Yes, we have travelled since, haven't we?

It is meet, right, and our bounden duty to criticise all efforts put out in the sincere desire to " make Socialists ", but to raise these issues to vital principles (as at too many conferences) is a sad waste of time. For instance, the " violence " controversy seems to betray a misunderstanding of the role of the Party. It may come as a mild shock to some members to learn that I regard this question as beside the mark. It is far from certain, indeed unlikely, that the S.P.G.B. will effect the actual Social Revolution; future developments can only decide, as future developments can only allay the somewhat naive craving for a nice, neat blue-print of what a Socialist Regime " will be like ". Meanwhile the unique cutting edge of S.P. propaganda must not be blunted by uncomradely strife.
I should like to add in a future number some remarks on the D of P, which is clearly involved on several points now raised, only saying here how heartily I concur with with Evans (father and son) that clause 7, raised to a point of principle, STANDS.
REGINALD

22. FORUM
Internal Journal of the S.P.G.B. - 6d.
JULY, 1954

22.1 THE PARSONS OF PADDINGTON
A criticism of the branch's draft election address, (see June issue).
It is a pity to watch the degeneration of a once responsible branch of the Party into what is rapidly becoming a revolutionary sect who apologetically admit to being revolutionary. The draft election statement is so innocuous that it can only be regarded at best as essay on the principles of morals. The bewildering factor is that Paddington branch have chosen to present this essay as an election address. It is even more bewildering that the branch should be in favour of elections at all, as they deny the issue involved in an election, i.e., capturing control of the machinery of government etc. by the S.P.G.B. This is not expressly stated. Had the drafters done so openly it would have given the whole game away and some difficulty might have been experienced in getting official branch backing, not only on this aspect but on all the other hobby horses well and truly flogged in the draft. The penultimate paragraph is proof of this reluctance to stress the need for political action based on socialist understanding : "We scarcely need add that we do not beg for your vote—we only ask you to consider seriously the ideas that we put forward." In other words it doesn't matter whether people vote .- for socialism or not so long as they have socialist ideas. This point is amplified in the final paragraph : "That is why we insist that it is necessary to change people's ideas in order to change the way we live to-day. This is the socialist revolution ..." This is not the socialist revolution, which is the dispossession of the capitalists of the means of production and their transformation into the common property of society as a whole. In short a change in the social basis. As this can only be achieved by political action it should be evident that socialist ideas in themselves are worthless without political manifestation culminating in political power. There are other serious errors in the draft particularly the definition of the class struggle and the ambiguous use of the word property. Political action for socialism means the securing of property for everybody (common property). This is the issue in the class struggle, and not merely trade union action which Paddington suggest is the entire class struggle.
The draft deplores the effects of class society without mentioning one of them apart from a vague mention of millions going short. There is not one substantive fact in the whole draft, but just a conglomeration of loose phrases literally oozing humanitarianism. Great care is takers not to offend anyone or any group; and the few useful things the draft has to say are well diluted and the edges so blunted that they will harmonise with the main content. The chapter dealing with "What socialism will be like" is purely negative and a literal fraud, and should be properly called "Socialism—what it won't be like. ' In spite of their criticism about the failure of the party to formulate a policy on Socialism and what it will be like, the best Paddington branch can do when formulating their own policy, is to re-state the old Party stuff of over 50 years ago, i.e., production for use, no buying and selling, no armies etc. It is no argument to say that space was limited; the draft is so repetitive that its message could be written in a quarter of the space. In addition to this there is an utterly worthless chapter headed "Equality" which will certainly raise more problems than it sets out to solve. The fact is that Paddington have nothing to say on "Socialism—what it will look like," and, according to the main theme of the draft, even less to add to party propaganda.
The branch circularised their criticism of Waters' address which they considered unsuitable. Certain criticisms could be and were made of Waters' address. In spite of this features of telling people what elections were
Waters' address did have the redeeming feature of telling people what elections were for and why we were contesting. And~ of the futility of reformism. This does neithen.*:fa Uriah Heep approach has emasculated aonr case to the point where it isn't worth saying. This invariably happens with those individuals who try to bring socialism in the back door : they must smother it in order to do so. Paddington's draft puts Socialism at a disadvantage by trying to make it 'respectable'. Moral reform replaces political reform as the whipping boy.
The draft literally begs the question on human nature and mistakenly assumes that this forms the basis of people's objections to socialism. We are told that human ignorance is the obstacle. What a glorious abstract phrase. Why not the old correct party answer—social and political ignorance. Note the reluctance to use the word " political! Human emotions (greed, jealousy, selfishness, love,) the whole stock-in trade of the politically frustrated, intellectual nomads and dilettantes are included; economics are avoided like the plague. The entire draft hasn't even the merit of being original and has been based on the first chapter of "Questions of the Day" (What Socialism Is). Had the chapter been inserted in its original form without being chopped around to cater for the "hobby horses" of sex, mass production and equality, the present volume of criticism would have been made from the standpoint of its suitability as an election address arid not its content. The chapter in any event was purely introductory and does not stand on its own. If the best Paddington can do at election times is to re-issue a chapter from a party pamphlet then why have an election address at all? One particular amendment from the orginal deserves a mention. Original: "Human energy is used up in advertisement campaigns ... in purely financial dealings, in attending on the useless luxury of the wealthy . . . (Questions of the Day, p. 7).

Amended version : "Effort is frittered away on advertising campaigns, in purely financial dealings and on frivolous luxuries,'' This takes the bite out of the original text which attacks the wealthy. Are Paddington opposed to this?
The disquieting thing about the whole draft is that a branch of the party is prepared to bring controversy within the party before the electorate. Is it that the branch is being used by a handful of members as a clearing house for the weird ideas the minority hold? The E.G. would be advised to think twice before contesting the North Paddington constituency at the next election in view of the present branch indecisiveness and confusion on the class struggle and political action.
In the meantime, Paddington members should rouse themselves and leave this cup ■and saucer socialism to the socialist parsons who for the time being, unfortunately, are still with us.
D'Arcy.
22.2 EDITORIAL NOTE
The following printing errors should be noted from the June issue of FORUM. In article by Reginald entitled Principles and Practice : From our comrade's head should read for our comrade's head. In article by W. Brain entitled Socialists and the Retreat from Reality: p.47, line 12, It is not more difficult should read Is it not more difficult. In article by Festina Lente entitled Questions of the Dazed: It does not run out of capitalism as a prisoner does out of jail should read It does not run after Socialism as a child would after a lolly-pop, but breaks out of capitalism as a prisoner does out of jail. In article by Paddington branch entitled The Case for Socialism : p.44, col. 2, under "Production for use"2nd and 3rd lines of paragraph 2 omitted, viz : By contrast, under Socialism everything will be made as well as they can be for their intended purpose should read By contrast, under Socialism everything will be produced solely for the use and enjoyment of people. All things will be made as well as they can be for their intended purpose. We apologise for these errors to readers and to the writers concerned.
22.3 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
Some comments
Frank Evans has put all of us in his debt by the series of articles which have been running since the inception of FORUM. Even if he never writes any more, and even if these articles had been the only ones ever published in these pages, their content would have fully justified the existence of FORUM.
This fact makes it all the more important to correct any statements in that series which fall below the high level of the whole. There are some of these, and this seems as good a time as any to point them out.
The first statement which one must quarrel with is that which puts forward the view that Hegel was a dualistic idealist. Evans says (Dec. 52, p. 5)—"What we still have to bear in mind is that Marx did not demolish the dualism of Flegel by inverting it, he only perpetuated it right side up. And it is dualism, the false separation (of ideas and action, mind and matter, etc.) which underwrites idealism." And again, on the same page , he says—"The analogy we take over from Marx, which, in inverting Hegel, still opposes base and superstructure (production and institutions) . . ." He repeats this in his Aug. 53 article.
This suggests that (a) Hegel was a dualist, and (b) that, in particular, Hegel talked about base and superstructure, but in the opposite way to Marx, putting institutions first, and production second.
It is, on the contrary, very difficult to think of any philosopher who was more opposed to dualism than was Hegel. His whole approach renders any dualism quite impossible, and in his Logic (Wallace trans, pp. 1 76-8) he produces a very simple and quite irrefutable argument showing that the dualistic position is an untenable one. It is obviously impossible in a short article to give a full discussion of Hegel's philosophy, but any honest reading of the Logic must reveal at once an adamant determination not to lapse into any dualism whatever. Even the shortest description of Hegel's philosophy brings out this fact: a 200-page work on philosophy states—"Hegel rejected the unknown thing-in-itself of Kant, He held that the entire universe could be 'penetrated' by thought. He held that mind and nature are not merely manifestations of an unknown absolute, they are the Absolute itself; nor are they two distinct realities, but integral components of one process of self-revelation."
Evans seems to see this himself a little later on in the same article, where he points out that iMarx himself abandoned, at his best, the dualism which he sometimes put forward.
For there is no doubt that, whatever Hegel may or may not have done, Marx and Engels both adopted a dualistic position when putting their case, on many important occasions, and Party writers have done the same. The celebrated passage in the "Critique", for example, can be riddled with critical holes on this score. It states that the relations of production are the base, and that legal and political matters are the superstructure. This implies that the relations of production are not legal and political matters, that they are distinct and separate.
Not only are they distinct and separate, but one determines the other. One is the real foundation the other is nothing but a superstructure. The word "superstructure" at once suggests something relatively flimsy and easily removed. One can easily alter a superstructure without changing in the least the solid base on which it stands. One can even destroy the superstructure—the base still remains.
Now it does not require any massive onslaught to show that this corresponds with nothing in real life. (In real life the base is not solid; everything changes subtly and shifts before our very eyes. In real life legal and political matters are not distinct and separate from the the relations of production; this is most obvious in the Communist countries.) But if one still wants a massive onslaught, it is there in the Evans articles.
However, Evans does not make the mistake, as others have unfortunately done, of supposing that to expose this dualism is to quarrel with Historical Materialism. As he says—"It remains that nowhere does Marx explicitly define 'mode of production' because with him it is implicitly society itself." Once we see that the mode of production is not a part of society, but is the whole of society seen from a special point of view, we can start getting somewhere. As long as we see it as a part of society, which is not some other part (the superstructure) we shall go on talking nonsense.
Luckily, Marx usually did better in practice than his theoretical formulations would have led one to expect. In practice, he usually did see society as a whole, and treated the historical and moral elements with as much deference as the purely economic ones.
To conclude this point, we may say that Evans was wrong both in calling Hegel a dualist and in calling Marx a dualist, though all of us may slip into dualism when we are not being careful.
J. C. Rowan
22.4 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THE OTHERS?

Is it that the S.P.G.B. is opposed to reformism? Is it that we are against nationalisation?:—or the Soviet Union?—or leadership ? The answer is no, since others .now or in the past have opposed all these things. The reason why we are different from (not just opposed to) all the rest is that we have a completely different aim, a different objective . . . .Or have we?
Having heard some members advocating the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"; "A transitional period"; and a lower and higher "phase" of Socialism; and others—'^Ministries of Culture"; socialist cops (and robbers?); judges et al., I begin.to doubt. And when I recently heard one member at a debate at H.O. disagree that in a Socialist Society "each will work according to his or her ability, and take according to his or her needt,,. each determining their own needs" I am forced to admit that some members (only a handful I hope!) do not want Socialism at all. They desire a glorified capitalism like the Stalinists! Or at least their conception of Socialism is so horribly conditioned by capitalism and its ideologies that they cannot conceive of a different way of life from the present one. These members are not Socialists; they are just .^nti-capitalist "Ninety fifty-four". Their . yargue—very vague—concept of Socialism turns out to be akin to George Orwell's "Ninety Eighty-four" !
22.4.1 A BLUEPRINT"
It is impossible to give a blueprint, we are told. I have said and written the same myself. Our ideas are determined by the real material world in which we Jive; we are creatures of our environment. We must change our environment (what into?) before we can spy what sort of world Socialism will be like. We can, then, only be negative in. our propaganda ; we can only show the world down v.hich road humanity must travel, but we do not know what is at the end of the road. (How can we tell that, it is really the right road?) These are the arguments of the 'so-1 called scientific "Marxists" of the party.
, . Of course, we. cannot give a detailed blue-,print of Socialism. We do not know what .capitalism will be like in five years—whether we will have press-button factories, or whether office work will be mainly done by electronic computers and tabulating machines. We do not know what form transport may take in the future. But all the same, as I pointed;.out, irra previous article, we can be more positive in .'our advocacy of Socialism. There is much that we can say. We }(now that money—a means of exchange—will be unnecessary; we know that war will be impossible ; that there will be no power or privelege groups, or coercion; that there will be no basis for'power or privilege with the abolition of property and ownership; no possibility of coercion or authority without state power to back it up. There are many things that we know novo will be different in the future—whether Socialism is established in five years or fifty.
22.4.2 CHANGING IDEAS
In order to bring about a new society, a new way of life, we must change peoples' ideas noW. We must help them to rid their minds of race, sex, religious and other prejudices. This is an aspect—a most important aspect—of the "new society developing in the womb of the old".UnfortunateIy many members of the S.P.G.B. do not seem to have achieved this "mental revolution" necessary for the establishment of Socialism. Some only hate the capitalists, or capitalist society, which is useless from a socialist point of view. Socialists are, or should be, scientific, objective. a hey cannot let their emotions get the better of; them; and hatred instead of analysis is more than useless to a socialist movement. Only by ridding ourselves of all prejudice and hatred can we achieve this mental revolution. Only by the mass of the people dropping all their prejudices and hatreds will they achieve a better world. Our job is to plant the seeds in which workers and others if possible can achieve their own mental revolutions. These will be the' qualitative changes within capitalism, along with the ever-growing contradictions, that will' result in the qualitative change—the dialectical 'leap'—to Socialism.
Men make history. But only by changing the real world around them in which they are brought up. But unless they have a pretty good idea of what sort of world they want in the future they will not make much of a job of it. Unless Socialists have some idea of what Socialism will be like, they will have no success with their audiences; and the Socialist Party will stagnate or atrophy. It will become apathetic.
Therefore, in my opinion, socialist propaganda must aim (1) at defining Socialism in a positive manner as we l(now it will be like; and (2) we should propagate the ideas of the kind of society we want Socialism to be like.
Although it would be wrong for a speaker to dogmatically say that under socialism there will be no big cities like New York or Moscow, it would be quite in order for the comrade to say why he does not want big cities, and why he thinks they would be unnecessary and undesirable. It does not matter whether members differ on these points so long as it encourages people to think about a better world. The sum total of these ideas when put into practice by the "immense majority" will be—socialism. That it may not be quite like comrade "X" or "Y" postulated or desired five or ten years prior does not matter, as long as they differentiate between (1) what they know will exist— production for use, equality, an absence of authority and coercion, etc.—and (2) what they want it to be like—no big cities, no belt system, greater nobility of people, of free love, etc. etc.
This positive approach to Socialism, this emphasis on Socialism as a completely different way of life, will really show our audiences where we really differ from all other organisations—not the silly and meaningless hostility clause in our Declaration of Principles.
PETER E. NEWELL.
22.5 NOTES ON CRISES
(Part One)
Marx was the first economist to give a systematic account of the nature of crises. Due to the less mature form of capitalism, Classical Political Economy never seriously incorporated a study of crises into its scheme of things. 1 he only thing we have on the subject at that period is the now famous controversy between Ricardo and Malthus as to whether over-production could arise due to deficiency in consumption and, as a result of this deficiency, lower prices, a fall in the rate of profit.
Ricardo vigorously denied this possibility. His denial arose from his acceptance of Say's "Law of the Market." This concept asserted that every supply involves a demand; that products exchange for products. Thus every commodity put on the market creates its own demand and every demand on the market so exerted, creates its own supply.
Ricardo saw only the unity and harmony of capitalist exchange relations not the contradictions and conflicts involved it them. For Ricardo the progressive accumulation of capital was a veritable "Golden Journey to Samarkand." Not only were crises impossible but the self-expansion of capital entailed no falling rate of profit. Accepting as he did the "Malthusian Population Theory," he thought—at least in the long run—that there would always be abundant reserves of "labour" able to serve the needs of capitalist accumulation. Because new investments would enlarge the productive process including "labour," and the supply of workers or the tapping of new sources of supply, would be equal or greater than the demand for them, no rise in wages need occur. So although each productive cycle would be larger than the previous one, the ratio in which capital was divided between productive equipment and wage payments would remain the same. Therefore no fall in the rate of profit need arise.
The only way the rate of profit would fall, he argued, was due to the "Law of Diminishing Returns." This he said would raise the price of food and so increase the subsistence cost of workers and thus reduce profits. Reduced profits would as a result, check the progressive accumulation of capital. The only way to offset this was to improve agriculture or to import cheap corn.
His charge against the landlord was that whereas all other persons benefited by cheap food, the situation for the landlord was never so prosperous as when food was dear, Thus he argued the interest of the Landlord is always opposed to the interests of every other section of the community.
Malthus, on the other hand, contended that increasing accumulation of capital might make it possible for production to outstrip consumption. This would result in a fall in prices and consequently profits. If then accumulation went beyond effective demand, and brought about "gluts," capital would fall into disuse and so cease to possess the character of wealth.
Ironically enough, this pessimistic author of a pessimistic population theory which held that the mass of the people must remain at a bare subsistence level, advocated the need for unproductive consumers (The aristocracy and their hangers-on; soldiers; judges; lawyers; clergymen; etc.). Only by increasing their living standards could these unproductive consumers take up the slack of effective demand and so effect a balance between production and consumption.
Malthus then fashioned a view which many decades later became a doctrine among the rag, tag and bobtail section of capitalist apologist that "luxury creates employment."
22.5.1 MARX AND UNDER-CONSUMPTION
It was Sismondi, however, who drew serious attention to the disrupting effects of large scale market production. Rodbertus followed later with an under-consumption treatment of a crises. Stripped of their learned sophistries, the under-consumption theories of Hobson and Keynes are the lineal descendants of the views of Malthus, Sismondi and Rodbertus. Keynes himself declared the Malthusian doctrine of "effective demand" to be a fundamental contribution to economic understanding.
My reason for giving this brief background is an attempt to put Marx's views on crises in perspective : Also to pose the question : Was Marx's treatment of the nature of crises only a more detailed and systematic
exposition of the under-consumption views already expressed?; Did Marx believe that the cause of crises was rooted in the inability of the workers to buy back the wealth that they produced ?; Or would it be truer to say that Marx's view on the cause of crises was not an under-consumption theory at all, at least not in the sense of the advocacy by Rodbertus, Hobson, Keynes and labour leaders and trade union officials.
Even a cursory reading of Marx on crises seems to show that he regarded under-consumption as merely a facet of a many-sided complex whole. Marx himself certainly regarded crises as springing not from one cause but from many. In short, crises were for him complicated phenomena only to be fruitfully studied in the totality of the class relations of capitalism.
I am aware that many Marxist writers have held that Marx's theory of crises was essentially an under-consumption one. It is true that certain statements by Marx on the subject might seem to lend support for this view. Nevertheless, viewed in the light of the whole context of Marx's writings on the subject, such interpretations seem highly dubious, especially when we have Marx's explicit repudiation of the Rodbertian doctrine which held that crises are caused by the scarcity of paying consumption.
I am not of course, suggesting that Horatio holds such Rodbertian views on crises. I merely venture the opinion that to say that crises are caused by the inability of workers to buy back what they produce, and leave it at that, might invite misunderstanding on the subject.
22.5.2 EARLY PRODUCTION
To try and understand the complex phenomena called crises it is best to begin right at the beginning. It is pretty safe to assume that the relatively low production level of primitive society never allowed for crises of general overproduction.
In a society where production for consumption is the rule the exchange of products takes the form of barter—e.g. two goats = one sheep. The act of barter signifies that some portion of an article is superfluous to immediate needs and constitutes for its owner a non-use value. Now although the act of barter can be expressed as C - C, commodity for commodity, it is one of form and not substance; they are in fact two use values confronting each other. It is only by the owner parting with something which has no immediate utility for something which, has, that barter takes the first step to acquiring exchange value.
In a society which has advanced beyond this stage to one of simple commodity production where money has become the universal equivalent, the form of exchange becomes C - M - C, or commodity, money, commodity. The introduction of money splits the act of exchange into two parts, C - M (a sale) and M - C (a purchase). The introduction of money represents a great advance. Now the owner of a superfluous article no longer has to find another who has something he needs, and who at the same time possesses something he himself wants. He can now dispose of his product for money and purchase his needs in bis own time.
In this way the introduction of money brought about a great economy of effort, thus making possible a more diverse sub-division of labour, and so providing the basis for greater productivity.
22.5.3 CRISES OF SHORTAGES
The circulation form of C - M - C holds, however, the possibility of crises. Thus, if a producer sells his goods to another producer, which is represented by C - M, but fails to purchase from him then, the circulation process is incomplete, because M - C is an essential link in the exchange circuit. As a result, the producer who has failed to sell cannot buy from another producer, who in turn is unable to buy from someone else, and so on. If the linkage break becomes widespread, it will in time affect the whole economy.
This rupture in the exchange equilibrium will then bring about features associated with crises, i.e. unsaleable stocks due to lack of purchasing power. In one sense it could be termed overproduction, but only in one sense. It must be remembered that the cause of overproduction was due to a rupture of exchange, and not vice versa as in modern crises. In substance it would be a crisis of shortages and not surpluses.
22.5.4 CAPITALIST MOTIVATION
In simple commodity production, each producer owns his own means of production.
In capitalism, ownership of these things is vested in a particular set of individuals. Those who are excluded from ownership have only their labour-power as a means of livelihood.
Capitalism is production organised for sale with a view to profit. Means of production and labour-power are then both commodities. The capitalist functions as a capitalist by purchasing means of production and labour-power. To do this he has to have a sufficient sum of money (capital). At the end of each productive process the result is realised on the market for money. Unlike the C - M - C process, which starts with a commodity and ends with a commodity, the capitalist starts with money and ends with money; or, if you like, he begins with exchange value and ends with exchange value. From this it follows that the major form of circulation in capitalism is M - C - M.
The aim of the capitalist is, however, to finance production in order that at the end of each productive act he will have a greater sum of money than at the beginning. This is represented by M - C - M', where IVF is a greater magnitude than M.
The motivation for production by the capitalist is not one of use value, but the expansion of exchange value. Capitalism is then a profit motive system. The facts of how profit is made and its realization via the profit urge is a universal motive. The drive market need not detain up here.
It is not true to say however that the for greater profit as a means of expanding capital accumulation is a motive peculiar to the economic function of an owner of capital. Because of the competitive compulsion of capitalism, each capitalist must try and keep in the race with his rivals, or, failing that, drop out. Thus his economic security, social prestige and status as a capitalist are inseparably connected with the process of accumulation.
22.5.5 THE WORKING CLASS
On the other hand, by far the larger number of individuals in capitalist society do not take part in the appropriation of surplus value in order to devote a considerable portion for the purpose of accumulation. Their economic function is of a different order; to produce surplus value, and receive payment for the maintenance of the energies required to do so. Starting as sellers of labour-power, they are concerned to get as many use values as possible in return for services rendered. Fheir motivation is then one of increasing consumption. This difference of motivation has its roots not in any abstract category of human conduct, but from the different role the capitalist and worker have in the social productive relations.
It is of course true that the capitalist is interested in consumption. As Marx says— "At a certain stage of development luxury enters into capital's expense of representation ... his expenditure grows with his accumulation without the one necessarily restricting the other . . . But along with this growth there is at the same time developed in his breast a t austian conflict between the passion for accumulation and the desire for enjoyment."
22.5.6 CONSUMPTION
Capitalism then can never be a system of consumption qua consumption. For the capitalist the need to convert a large portion— the largest portion, in fact—of surplus value to capital accumulation has priority of claim. Again quoting Marx—"The capitalist shares with the miser the passion for wealth as wealth." Unlike the miser who withdraws money from circulation in order to satisfy his passion, the capitalist seeks to gratify his by throwing money into circulation, in order to draw out at a later stage a larger sum.
The mainspring of capitalist motivation— the urge to accumulate—has been rationalised by present-day economic apologists into "the reward of waiting," "subjective costs," opportunity costs," "scarcity principle," etc.
It is true of course that orthodox economists have come to regard crises as important phenomena (the Business Cycle theory) but they treat it not from the class character of capitalism but from the neutral point of disequilibrium between supply and demand elements of investment funds. This arises from their notion that capitalism is a social arrangement which shares out its productive resources in the ratio in which they are necessary to the satisfaction of different needs. As Marx says —"This fiction arises from seeing capitalism not as an historical product but as production per se."
If all this seems to the readers of FORUM a rather long preamble to the subject of crises, I think it is essential if we are to put crises into perspective. In the next issue I propose to deal with some of the factors involved in crises and, later, to attempt to subject them to a closer scrutiny.
E. W.
FORUM
July, 1954
22.6 WHAT SOCIALISM MEANS TO ME
A Personal Statement
'Arguments proceeding logically from one point to another may drive the individual into a corner. But as a rule he will find some way —if necessary a very illogical way—to retain his beliefs. No change of convictions on any single point can be established in more than
an ephemeral way so long as the individual has not given up his hostility to the new set of values as a whole, to the extent of having changed from hostility at least to open-mind-edness.'
—Kurt Lewin.

• Despite their references and questions to me, I think that to attempt to answer D'Arcy, Lock and others point by point would not get us very much farther. Our disagreements so far revealed indicate that we have a different approach to such vital questions as what Socialism means, what socialist propaganda is, and why we are in the S.P.G.B.
I do sincerely want to resolve these disagreements, and think that this may be done by a comparison of ideas at a more fundamental level than hitherto. Accordingly, I shall try to state my views as positively as possible, and only to mention differing views so far as this is necessary for clarity. The following statements are not intended to imply that other members necessarily disagree with them.
First, I am in the S.P.G.B. because of its object. I think that Socialism is a desirable system of society, not just for myself or any class or group with which I happen to be identified, but for all people. I think of it as something positive to have, rather than as a negation of something to be got rid of. In contrast to the popular notion that discussion of the future leads us into controversy, I find that.it is our attitude to the present, not the future, that causes the most controversy.
My answer to the question 'What are you doing about the class struggle?' is ''trying to end it." The argument that the successful prosecution of the last class struggle means the end of all class struggle has never sounded convincing to me—perhaps it is too much like 'the war to end all war.'
The S.P.G.B.'s work is not to champion one class against another. It is propaganda for Socialism—no classes. It should always act in such a manner that it will be recognised on this basis. Any other standard of measurement of the S.P.G.B.'s progress will inevitably reveal its inadequacy by this other standard. The real danger in our trying to have a finger in every pie—trade unionism, sending messages to strikers, etc.—is that it will leave us with no appetite for Socialism.
I am in the party because it is helping to bring Socialism, and for no other reason. I do not ask, nor expect the S.P.G.B. to help me in any struggle with an opposing economic group. It seems that some members think that advocating Socialism is not enough—they seem to want the party to curry favour with non-socialist working class organisations by a policy of 'all that the others have got and Socialism too.'
May I therefore underline my view that all we can expect a Socialist Party to advocate, at all times and in all places, is Socialism. This involves criticism of other objects, though it does not mean that we are obliged to express either support of or opposition to these objects. When a socialist takes part in the class struggle he does not "oppose" his own actions nor need he justify them. His attitude should be that he wants to abolish Capitalism because it makes people enter into antagonistic instead of harmonious relationships.
Socialism means the emancipation of the working class, etc. But it also means a new system of society. I am more concerned with what there is to be gained than to be lost— the world to win rather than the chains to lose. And so 'socialist propaganda' is a term I prefer to reserve to mean 'telling about Socialism'; not just in the sense of what it will be like, but to show why it is desirable and possible as a new way of living; how even today people do want to live harmoniously, even if they don't want 'common ownership'; to avoid playing on the destructive emotions of envy and resentment which spoil our love of humanity.
Now a word on party membership and the D. of P. The party is essentially an organisation for propagating ideas. It has no dogma —nothing is sacred. The very concept of social progress (which socialists should, above all things, desire to expedite) demands that every opinion, theory and judgment—including the D. of P..—should give a reasoned account of itself, on peril of being superseded. To be critical of our principles today is not necessarily to oppose them. It is (as, I believe, the recent Conference recognised) the necessary prerequisite of better ones. Members should not be shocked at the proposal to rewrite the D. of P., as a living expression of what holds socialists together, in the light of 50 years' development of socialist thought.
My main criticism of the D. of P. is that it emphasises working class capture of political power rather than the basic ideas necessary to establish Socialism that are held by socialists. For a definition of 'socialist' I am quite content to make that given in the S.S. (Dec. 1949): "one who holds that Socialism is a practicable alternative to capitalism and who seeks to establish Socialism." The real test is whether the socialist objective is your objective, whether you refuse to compromise your advocacy of it, and whether you are prepared always to speak and act in such a manner as to promote it by making other people socialists.
Despite the 'fellow workers' form of address, I do not believe that the "class character" of the S.P.G.B. is a fundamental aspect of the socialist case. And despite its appeal to members of the working class, people do not join in fact as workers but as socialists. Workers who are not socialists are not admitted to membership, anybody who is a socialist is admitted. This appears to me to be the correct position for a socialist party to adopt, notwithstanding the D. of P.
22.6.1 SPECIAL ANSWERS
I hope that the above explanations will help to reduce the area of disagreement. Certain opposing points do, however, need soecial answers. First to D'Arcy, who thinks that "people in the economic circumstances of Feudalism cannot understand Socialism." If this is so, then what message does he think the S.P.G.B. should have for such people? Presumably we cannot ask them to work for what they allegedly cannot understand. So either we should advise them to do something about their form of property society (such as, to develop Capitalism)—or we should say nothing. It seems so easy to avoid such a dilemma by advocating Socialism in all circumstances.
22.6.2 PROBLEMS OF CAPITALISTS
D'Arcy further asks : what problems do capitalists suffer from and how will Socialism emancipate thern? Well, capitalists won't get killed in wars, they won't get ulcers from worrying about money or bored from living idly. Lots of what Coster called "innumerable individual and social difficulties and frustrations" are experienced by members of both classes. But unfortunately he got it the wrong way round; it is not that workers and capitalists have different things to gain from Socialism. They have different things to lose, but the same things to gain, namely, socialist conditions.
22.6.3 SOCIETY A PROCESS
I am at a loss to understand the attitude of those members who think of Socialism only as an economic solution to "physical" needs of members of a class, and their studied indifference to "mental" problems of members of a society. To me, these distinctions between the physical and the mental (mind and matter, evolution and revolution, basis and superstructure, etc.) are unreal and discussion around them singularly unhelpful. Society should be viewed as a process rather than as a sum of static institutions; thinking should be in terms of class struggle and co-operative endeavour rather than of the two classes and "common ownership.
22.6.4 NEW LOOK SOCIALISM
Lastly, I do agree with H.B. that Socialism is worth every effort. Don't however, blame the present half-heartedness on "new look Socialism." It is deplorable if our internal discussion becomes an incessant wrangle between two or more side">. emphasising and preserving differences rather than similarities. The true object of our internal discussion should surely be that tomorrow's propaganda should contain all that is worthwhile in today's plus new ideas. In I 954, no more than in 1904, has all been said that can be said on the subject of Socialism.
S.R.P.
22.7 A WORKING CLASS PARTY FOR SOCIALISM
In opposition to Turner's thesis as laid down in 25 points (February Forum), I present the following:
Socialism (the suffix "ism" = ideas or theory) is that critical analysis, of society, especially Capitalist Society, which lays bare the economico-historical causes of human exploitation and working class poverty arising from the social relations of production, and points the way to the solution of the problem through changing those relations to one of common ownership of the means of production.
Socialism does not mean "social equality of humanity" but advocates a society in which social equality shall exist. Socialism is not in the interests of all. Primarily it provides the method through which workers must, attain freedom from capitalist exploitation. This is against the interests of the capitalist class whose very existance as an exploiting class depends upon the retention and maintenance of the present social relationships, viz., wage-labour and capital. It is in the interests of the working class, not as wage-earners within these relationships, but through the revolutionary process to the complete change-over to Socialist society. Socialism teaches them why and how this process must be pursued.
Turner's statements (points 1 & 2) ignore the process of social evolution, the emerging from Capitalist society, which the Capitalist Class have an interest as exploiters in main-ju taming, into Socialist society in which, off course, the interests of all will be equal. During the process the Capitalist Class and their supporters put up some resistance.
Concerning (6) the implication is that Working Class interests are confined to wages and the cost of living as wage-workers. But their interests extend further, i.e. to solving poverty by ending the wages system through the establishment of Socialist Society.
In contradition to (8) : Working class interests ultimately do equate to social interests because only through the establishment of the new society can they end their poverty and degradation; i.e., Social Equality being the only way to solve their problems, it logically follows that herein their interests are in line with the whole of society into the future.
Turner's arguments in points (8—10) result from a formalistic approach, as he assumes some class or group interests apart from "Human Interests." The class or group interests are concrete, real, arising out of peculiar social circumstances, and are human interests. His "Human Interests" are an ideal
abstraction which ignores the social circumstances, the social relations which determine those interests. This is to say that class interests are something other than "Human Interests."
What are these "something other than?" Are not economic interests "human" because only humans have economic interests and such have only been evolved by human beirigs in association.
(11 to 15) : A Socialist Party, of course, comprises people with socialist ideas and while it is not an "economic unit" it certainly represents the interests of the Working Class, as I state above, and is consequently a Working Class Party.
Its propaganda is primarily an appeal to that Class because it is they who have most to gain in striving for the new society viz. : economic security.
The Capitalist Class possess the means of life and as a result have all the luxury of an exploiting class. Consequently they look upon this society as the best possible and are determined to hang on to their property, privilege and prestige by every possible means.
"Humanity" and "Mankind" are just empty abstractions when considering the capitalist world, and to talk of appealing to ALL human beings to think and act as equals in s such a world is just nonsense.
(17 to 20) The question of coercion and "the use of armed force would depend upon the kind and quantity of resistance put up by capitalists and their supporters. As State power is essential to Capital the job of Socialists is to disarm them (the Capitalists) by getting control of the State.
As the police and army consist mainly of workers, when the majority are socialists, those in these forces will simply fail to function in the interests of the Capitalist Class and the latter will be rendered practically helpless.
To talk of using Government as it is used by and for the Capitalist Class just shows a failure to recognise that in a situation as above described 'Government' ceases to exist. The general trend of governments within capitalist society to control social economy, e.g. transport, postal services, radio, railways, banking etc. .becomes completed in socialist society into economic-social administrative institutions but without the character of government.
While a Socialist Party relies upon the socialist understanding of the Majority that majority cannot ignore the importance of having control of government. It is not a qu:s-tion of "relying" upon the use of law and armed force to establish the new system or of maintaining it, but of disarming the Capitalist Class. The final word, of course, is in the desire for change always providing that the conditions of production are so far developed as to warrant it.
Finally, the logic of Turner's thesis is that the Socialist Party should renounce politics, cease to be a Party and become a mere philosophical society.
H. G. HAYDEN
22.8 CORRESPONDENCE
22.8.1 Dear Comrades,
Nobody has complained, but I am sure some members think that two articles by me in the June "Socialist Standard" was one too many. I should like through "Forum," to say that I think so too, and to give an explanation.
On the day when the Editorial Committee met to make up the June "Standard" I had reason to telephone to them. They had already one article from me, but told me they had insufficient material of any sort and were in an extreme predicament. Somebody had to write something in a hurry, and I promised that I would. Hence "The Edwardians," which I had intended for the following month and did not incorporate nearly as much material as I wanted to collect.
I think there is value in the sort of article I've been writing for some time now—the investigation of minor social phenomena. At the same time, I think one in a month is sufficient. Hastily written articles, too, are unlikely to be good ones; in spite of my past —and no doubt my future—criticisms of it, I think the "Socialist Standard" is a paper with a remarkably high standard, and I certainly can't approach that standard when I -am rushing my literary cojones off.
The Branch-room critics of the Party paper—and the advocates of planning each issue—might think on these things. Perhaps I may say something else. A lot of members believe —I used to believe it myself—that the Editorial Committee "rejects good articles." By invitation, I have been attending the Committee's meetings for nearly eighteen months, and that simply isn't true. Most months there are just enough articles to fill sixteen pages; some months there aren't enough. And an article is rejected only for one of two reasons : it says incorrect things, or it is just God-awful.
R. COSTER.
22.9 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
The main object of this month's contribution to "Principles and Practice" is an endeavour to show further why the controversy around the D of P calls for early Party consideration and decision.
It is probably not realised that misgivings as to certain words and phrases have been entertained for a very long time; a desire to avoid controversy, and "get along with the business," strengthened perchance by a small pinch of mental reservation, has inhibited open expression; Stella Jackson's scathing remarks re "diametrically opposed" were an exception.
The circumstances under which the first D of P were formulated must be taken into account in considering this question. Generally speaking, the early Manifestoes were a justification for the splendid revolt against the execrable "leaders" of the SDF; firmly planting for the first time in history a truly democratic Socialist Party (do we adequately recognise what a magnificent, momentous event this was?) the new Party inherited certain unmistakable features of its unholy parent; the solemn crooning of the dismal "Red Flag," to mention one very minor, but still significant item, soon disappeared. The assumption that the SP was committed to VIOLENCE, if only of the police variety, was a clear inheritance from their forebears, and carries implications demanding earnest attention.
It is quite understandable that a Declaration which has preserved itself intact for over 50 years should acquire a sentimental value. And there is a useful place for the Romantics in the Party, but the danger of becoming a political Fundamentalist must be guarded against.
In the event of a relatively drastic revision of the D of P, I must point out that other changes would necessarily follow: the word "OBJECT" would make its bow. I suggest (in all humility) something like this at the head of the actual D of P.
WHAT SOCIALISM IS ^ SOCIALISM is a SYSTEM OF SOCIETY which will utterly supersede Capitalism.
ALL the means and instruments (fields, factories and workshops) producing wealth will be COMMONLY OWNED.
GOODS will be produced for USE; profit will disappear.
The production of Wealth and its distribution will be DEMOCRATICALLY controlled.
There will be NO distinction between RACE, SEX or COLOUR . TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED: FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY. I propose next month to begin examination of the separate items of the D of P.
Reginald
22.10 ARE THE WORKERS BETTER OFF
The following quotation from "Wage-Labour and Capital" by K. Marx is pertinent to the discussion. The final paragraph in my view gives the answer to the question.
D. W. LOCK
"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighbouring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirements for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks into a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilisation, if the neighbouring palace rises in equal or even greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
"An appreciable rise in wages pre-supposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the workers, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature."
(Chapter VI. Relation of Wage-Labour to Capital.)

23. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B
No. 23 August 1954

23.1 A CRITIQUE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
" No analysis of the parts and no mere addition of the analyses and abstractions will ever give any insight into the pattern or purposive configuration! that endows
them with special significance; indeed, this organic relationship will not even be suspected when methods of abstraction and isolation are the sole ones employed."
—Lewis Mumford.

It is difficult to select a satisfactory brief statement of the M.C.H. from the extensive writings of Marx and Engels. As good a summary as any is Engels' view that of all the factors determining historical development " the decisive element is pre-eminently the production and reproduction of life and its material requirements." (Origin of the Family).
23.1.1 Complement to Idealism
The M.C.H. is essentially the complement to idealism rather than its opposite. It is comparable to the working-class movement which struggles with the capitalist class but perpetuates classes. The M.C.H. struggles with idealism, but perpetuates its fundamental error of separating ideas from material conditions. Since this is the kernel of my criticism, I must first document the charge :
" the ideal is nothing other than the material world reflected by the human mind " (Capital, vol. I, p. 25 Kerr).
" our materialist view .... does not explain practice in terms of the, idea, but explains the formation of the idea in terms of practice " (German Ideology, p. 28). " the dialectic in our heads is only the reflection of the actual development which is fulfilled in the world of nature and of human history" (Selected Correspondence, p. 495).
These, and similar statements, make it clear that we are being asked to accept the separation (although only, it is claimed, for the purpose of analysis) of ideas from the material world. In fairness to Marx and Engels, it should be noted that there are also passages which appear to be attempts to replace the isolates whence they were abstracted. For example :
" In nature, nothing takes place in isolation. Every thing affects every other thing and vice verse " (Anti'Duihring, p. 91).
The word ' interaction ' appears fairly often in their works'—the word ' integration ' never, to my knowledge. The former emphasises parts, the latter the whole. My contention is that both idealism and historical materialism are attempts to separate the parts from an indivisible whole in order to study those parts as if their sum were the same as the whole. Idealism says ideas are the basis, the M.C.H. says the material world is the basis. There can be no objection to using the terms ' ideas ' and ' material world ' to connote different aspects of society. The objection is to supposing that the one has any meaning except in relation to the other, or that one necessarily is basic, or real (in the sense that the other is a mere reflection of it), or the determinant of history, even ultimately.
The basis of society is the mode of production, say our exponents of the M.C.H. The mode is defined as the productive forces
together with the productive relations. Now, the concept of a basis implies a correlative concept of a superstructure, i.e. that which, added to the basis, forms the whole—in this case, the whole of society, (It is sometimes held that the mode of production itself is divisible into basic forces and superstructural relations, thus positing successive layers upon the basis, each more basic than the next. This does not materially affect the main argument.)
If we accept, for the moment, that society can be divided jnto basis and superstructure, it is pertinent to ask what constitutes the claim of any given factor to be included in either category. Why, in short, is the mode of production basic ? I have heard the following answers : because life is impossible without it; because it is the most permanent and stable feature of society; because ^-k is linked directly and indirectly with every other factor, and because it lends itself best to scientific examination.
23.1.2 One-sided Approach
These are no doubt very good reasons for stressing the necessity of understanding the mode of production (analysed statically) of any epoch. But they are not reasons for asserting its primacy over other ingredients of society, e.g. ideas. Human life is equally impossible without ideas, and their permanency, relativity and accessibility to study are equally demonstrable.

Theree is, however, an even more cogent objection to calling the mode of production the basis. It implies that ideas are not in the basis. Yet the definition of mode of production is : " productive forces .+ relations. Assuming that we all agree that forces and relations are reciprocal and therefore constitute a unity. I await to be told how there can be productive relations without ideas and, by extension, how there can be a mode of production without ideas.
The question arises: why should such a theory such as
the M.C.H. ever have been propounded?
I suggest that, in addition to being an antidote to idealism, it seeks to explain, in the light of past changes in society, the next change to Socialism. The theory of expanding forces of production and constricting relationships is intended to demonstrate the necessity and inevitability (not necessarily in the mechanical sense of Socialism. Turning to the S.P.G.B. interpretation of the M.C.H.
We find the following in Socialism (pamphlet No,9):
" The very ideas current among us take their shape from the property basis of society for the possessors view all things from the standpoint of property owners: and even the revolutionary idea, inasmuch as it is reaction against the present form of society, arises, finally, from that property condition " (p. 31).
_
" The substitution of this new property condition for the old one will abolish the existing basis of the social system and provide a new one. This is what we call the social revolution. It results in a revolution of the social structure—a complete change from top to bottom" (p. 34, my italics). the face of it, the first quotation is reasonable, and seems to be saying little more than you can't get the idea of abolishing property unless there is property ". But see where it leads in the second one: since " property is the basis, the "revolution " is a new property condition! The "revolutionary idea thus conceived to the no more than an attempt to alter its own basis, to shape when its own function is allegedly to be shaped. By such reasoning do our socialist eyes fail to see beyond our M.C.H. nose.
23.1.3 False Separation
In an article on the M.C.H. (S.S., May, Gilmac wrote that " according to this theory ideas are the product of conditions, and not the other way round." Later in the same article, however, it was the other way round " social progress is the result of the mental activity of man exerting itself on the material provided by the external environtment. Here we can see clearly how the unfortunate separation of mental activity from material conditions leads to a contradictory position. It may be resolved either by dropping-and not the other way round " (i.e. acknowledging the reciprocal action of ideas and material conditions)—or by integrating the two factors in a functional whole.
I hold that the latter is the more fruitful position to adopt —mainly because the former leads to many wrongly stated questions, such as which factor is basic, decisive or indispensable? ' Evans neatly summed up the main drawback of the " factor " view in FORUM (Aug. 1953): " our materialism remains still suborned to the idealism of a single, sudden, separate political act." Also the result of the M.C.H. is the omnipotent role assigned to one factor in history. Thus, Waters, in a paragraph on the M.C.H., wrote:
"If we isolate the technological aspect of man's history we can see how he has progressively extended his control over nature by invention and the discovery of more efficient tools and processes. Furthermore, we shall see how this aspect has been the foundation of all other human activities, determining their condition and defining their limits." (S.S. Jan. 1954, my italics)
We must assume that the Ed. Comm., having read and aprpoved this passage, also takes the view that the technological aspect the foundation of all other human activities. The absurdity of this view illustrates the folly of isolating parts from a whole, this destroying their organic unity.
23.1.4 Relative Validity
The examples I have quoted of applications of the M.C.H. show that the theory itself possesses only relative validity, and is by no means the 'Open Sesame' to an understanding of society. What, then, is the extent of its validity.
As a theory that material conditions are the determinants of history we may integrate it with another Marxian theory that man has not yet made truly human history.
History reveals no society which has gained a consciousness of the mechanics and dynamics of its institutions sufficient to prevent their operation to undesired ends. But it would be foolish to extend this to saying that man is as impotent as he ever he was to control the forces of society. Mankind is, sociologically speaking, on the brink of achieving — in Socialism — the largest measure yet of such control. From this we see that the Marxian production of the immediate material means of subsitence " is at all times a factor in society— : less a limiting one in Socialism than in Savagery. This is but another way of asserting that there is progress in man's conscious control over his conditions of existence.
A member once described Socialism as Capitalism without its contradictions ". This desire to avoid thinking about Socialism as a new way of living seems to be a typical result (or cause?) of the M.C.H., which arose from the need to meet the defenders of Captialism on their own grounds. The socialist idea, being only partially free from the errors of the old capitalist one, at first offer them the tribute of inverted perpetuation. Thus, for example, our old attitude to violence stems from what they might do, instead of from what we want to do. Similarly, the M.C.H. is the reason for Socialism in their language. " This last class to achieve its emancipation ", etc., is for us to learn a few historical lessons from how it was done last time—only the trouble is IT wasn't done last time.
23.1.5 Socialist Revolution
The Socialism we want is compounded of ideas and potentially realisable material conditions. Our dilemma is that we are not afraid of ideas becoming more like Socialism— indeed, we are keenly desirous of propagating them—but our M.C.H. outlook forbids us to acknowledge that material conditions (on which these ideas are allegedly based) can become more like Socialism prior to the political dominance of the socialist idea. It is inconceivable to me that the socialist idea will grow without a correlative development of material conditions approximating closer to Socialism—for it is only in thought that man and environment can be separated.
The proper place for human agency in the M.C.H. scheme of things has long troubled its advocates. Those who have Communist Party sympathies usually deny the ability of the mass of people to institute intelligent action (" they must be led "), while the S.P.G.B. traditionally denies that capitalist institutions can be modified prior to the revolutionary act (" they must be dispossessed "). A more reasonable attitude—and one which, I believe, many members are giving favourable consideration—is that socialist ideas, and actions resulting from and causing those ideas, constitute a socialist movement whose acceleration will be the Socialist Revolution.
S.R.P.
23.2 SOCIAL INSTINCT
Frank Evans, in his February, 1953, article in FORUM, refers at some length to various aspects of the gregarious nature of man. He says : " The physical apparatus of sociality are the sympathetic mechanism, the imitative faculty and suggestibility." He also speaks of the " social instinct " as being " paramount ".
Now there is certainly a most important truth in this. If we treat human being as isolated individuals, we shall go much further wrong than we shall if we treat them as members of a herd. The herd qualities of man shout aloud, as Evans rightly points out, in every sphere of his activity.
There are also ways, however, in which men behave in ways very unlike those of a herd. Let us look a little closer at some of these terms that Evans uses.
23.2.1 Needs and Demands
If there is one thing that one can say about an instinct, it is that it is pretty well invariable in its operation. Faced with a red shape of a certain size, a female bird at the chick-, rearing stage will endeavour to push food into it. It is not true that, faced with this stimulus, one will react according to plan and another will not, or even that the majority will and a minority will not: the instinct operates in all equally. As the book says: "An instinct is an elaborate pattern of successive reflexes, which occurs as a whole in response to certain stimuli " (Penguin Dictionary of Biology). If this is so, and I see no reason to question the formulation, MANKIND HAS NO INSTINCTS WHATSOEVER . It is possible to put this the other way round, of course, as William James did, and say that men have so many instincts that they cancel each other out (Margaret Knight, William James, p. 1 58), but this come to the same thing in the end . Either way, there is no question of a " social instinct " (or any other instinct) operating as a determining factor in man's existence.
If we posit any of these things, and even if we drop the word " instinct " and insert instead the word " drive " or " fundamental need", we place something rigid and fixed at the base of man's activity. Not only is it something rigid and fixed, which determines without being determined; it is also something unexplained, and indeed inexplicable. To say that something is done " instinctively " (certainly as applied to human beings) is to say that we really cannot explain it. Abram Kardiner says of instincts : " We assume that they are present, and once we make that assumption, we tend to blame the behaviour on the instinct. Behaviour can be observed; instinct cannot. One can draw conclusions about behaviour; about instinct one can only philosophise" (The Individual and His Society, p. 62).
If instincts are unexaminable, like God, then also, like God, they cannot be changed. They will continually give rise to the same needs and demands, or needs and demands which, though apparently quite different, are " derived " from the basic drive, and are therefore "the same" in real substance. This is not, however, the case, as Krech and Crutchfield point out: " The number and kind of man's needs and demands are not permanetnly established but are, on the contrary, constantly subject to change. As new tensions arise, new needs and demands may appear, old ones may disappear, and these new needs and demands do not derive their present driving power from prior needs and demands out of which they developed " (Theory and Problems of Social Psychology, P. 45).
This view is a relatively recent one in modern psychology, and has only reached adequate formulation since the more intensive development of social psychology. It is, however, a view which is clearly right in line with Socialist views on the matter. It is well stated in J. A. C. Brown's new Pelican, The Social Psychology of Industry, more particularly in pp. 46-5 1. As he says there : " The modern view is that human behaviour cannot be understood purely in terms of the satisfaction or frustration of biological drives, because social life generates new needs which may be as powerful or even more powerful than the original biological ones."
This is not to say that human nature is infiinitely changeable. As Evans well insisted in his November, 1952, article: "The equating of human nature with human conduct—the view, that is, that environment is the sole determinant of human capacities, is a political weapon of the Communist, not of the Socialist. It is the official cult of Russia, whose academicians teach that there are no natural boundaries to the behaviour of wheat, cows, or men, that man is what the State enjoins."
23.2.2 The Basic Law
But if man has no instincts, and no fixed needs, what, it may be asked, are the basic laws of his existence and activity? There is only one, and it is very simple: RESISTANCE TO LIMITATION.
Of course, stated in its simplest form, like this, there is nothing specific to man—or even to life—about it. Philosophically-minded readers will remember that as long ago as 1677 Spinoza was saying: " The effort by which each thing endeavours to persist in its own being is nothing else but the actual essence of the thing itself." More recently,
E. S. Russell put it in a more determinate form as applied to animals, stating: " If in a living animal normal structural and functional relations, cither external or internal, are disturbed, activities will usually be set in train that are directive towards restoring structural and functional norms, or establishing new norms which are adpated to the altered circumstances " (The Directiveness of Organic Activities, p. 44).
When we come to man, of course, we have to bring in psychological and social considerations. Krech and Crutchfield have a good formulation: " Instabilities in the psychological field produce ' tensions ' whose effects on perception, cognition and action are such as to change the field in the direction of a more stable structure ". We can still see the use of referring to our first simple conception, however, by saying that men, like other things, resist limitation, but have found better methods of doing so than the others. "Better" simply means more variable, more complex, more highly controlled and more creative.
Some of these better methods are innate— " an upright posture, opposable thumbs, a pound of brains, extraordinary social sensitivity, acute colour vision, and prolonged postnatal dependence "—among others (to quote Evans again). Other better methods are socially acquired—the use of fire, the wheel, geometry, the steam engine, the integers, electricity, logic and atomic energy, among others. Others again are both innate and
acquired—the family group, social learning And the process of maturation, in particular.
Krech and Crutchfield show clearly how such a general concept can be worked out into the details of daily life and the interpretation of experience; and W. Ross Ashby, in his Design For A Brain, shows that it can be reduced to rigorous mathematical terms.
We are here presented, therefore, with a view of human nature which is in complete harmony with Socialist, views, which is academically respectable, which has been applied with success to the analysis of a great body of experimental data, and which has a sound mathematical foundation. -
23.2.3 Attitude and Ideology
With its help, we are able to see that the term " social instinct " really refers to a set of attitudes carefully instilled by society during the maturation of a child, and mainly during the long period when the child is dependent upon others for survival.
It is precisely because it is an attitude and not an instinct that sociality is so variable. It has to be given and received, and as with other things which have to be given and received, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. At a time when "everybody wants a televsion set, there is always a vocal minority who do not; at a time when "everybody" is war-mad, there are always a few who object; at a time when telling the truth is a social
necessity, there must always be those who will tell lies.
It is this very failure ever to achieve complete conformity that is the strength of human ..ociety. Faced with a sudden change in the situation, where existing attitudes will not "erve, society can always find an attitude, or set of attitudes, or ideology, to fill the bill. This ideology may have been pushed around unsuccessfully for many years, and its full-time protagonists may have become tired and dispirited. But let the day come when it fits society's needs, and it will blossom like the rose.
It is in this way that the Socialist ideology will be adopted, if it ever is adopted. The reason why we feel it will be adopted is that we see possibilities arising, ever more forcefully and plainly, which will require Socialism for their realisation.
If sociality is an instinct—if " the impulse to accept what others accept, in order to be accepted by them, is the all-powerful mechanism of social survival, the centre of gravity of human mind "—then Socialism is impossible. To regard it as a set of attitudes is to raise once again the question of its possibility, in what seems to be a more hopeful form.
In a further article, I hope to deal with the concept of suggestibility, raised by Evans in the same article.
J. C. Rowan.
23.3 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
7 — The Socialist Movement
The main propositions contained in these articles are that Socialist society is not " established " by a single act (what we speak of as the legislative act of revolution by the delegates of a class-conscious working class), but evolves; that the phrases " revolutionary act " or " establishment fo Socialism " are to be understood are convenient verbal summaries of social processes in prospect (as past "revolutions" are summaries of social changes in retrospect); that the essential theoretical background of the Socialist movement is not political strategy but historical materialism; that the Party's too literal interpretation of the ' political act ' means that it still has one foot in Communism which, by undermining its materialsm, makes its concept of Socialist society likewise idealist (Anarchist); that the Party therefore remains a compound of Communism and Anarchism, opposing each with the arguments of the other; that the Party nevertheless is a step forward in the evolution of the Socialist movement (concurrently with the evolution of Socialist society) because, first, it has a more complete grasp of capitalist economy, and because, secondly, it is concerned not solely with productivity, value, quantity (the pre-occupation of Communism), but also with the quality of human labour ('art') and human relations ('equality'); that the more coherently Socialist movement which must develop as the ideological counterpart of Socialism evolving may therefore conceivably develop within the Party (provided, I think, we maintain channels, responsibly use and responsibly edited, for free discussion without penalty); that in proportion as it is grasped that what we call the Socialist movement is in fact only the ideological counterpart of a social process, in the same proportion will it be seen that this ideological movement is essentially cultural and only incidentally political; that, accordingly, the militant proselytising propaganda as we at present understand it will become more and more subordinate to clarification of the socialist foetus developing within capitalism, prognosticating Socialism (the criterion of science) and developing a philosophy of society (of man, of history) which permits anticipation of the Socialist outcome of current social process, and by anticipating to precipitate it.
The change in practical Party activity which would accompany such a change in outlook must be left for the moment, until the " Socialism evolving " has been more concretely pin-pointed. But before even that, let it first be recalled, for those who have waded through these brief and mutilated penny numbers, that each has been an essay on materialism. For the weakness of the Socialist movement at present is its inadequate sense of social evolution.
23.3.1 Evolution
All forms of evolution (and all kinds of growth or development) consist of successive unifications (integrations) of continuously accumulating differentiations. The continuous resolving into integers, of parts differentiated or separated, as these accumulate, is the essence of evolution (inorganic, organic, and social) and of individual growth. The integration is the emergence of quality out of quantity. For instance, the separate digits 1 to 9 are each different, but add one more to and you suddenly come back to one again, on another level, which the Arabs showed by writing 10 as 1 in a higher place (the base ten being of course conventional). Similarly, 100 is a unit, one thing, one hundred. So is a light-year, a man,, a universe. So are walking, talking, writing and potting the red : each is a number of different things integrated, reduced to an integer; and each is an integration of integrations, at successive levels, the integrations at lower levels being the integers which are in turn integrated into higher units. And it should be noted that integration is the necessary outcome of accumulation of digits; co-ordination is compelled by plurality of parts; quality is the outcome of quantity. All differences, in the end, are differences of magnitude—whether of atoms, organisms or societies, of evolution or of individual growth.
The infant accumulates sensations. Development of skills (crawling, talking) is the integration of accumulated component dexterities into minor skills, whose accumulation congeals into major skills, at successive levels.
In this succession, as every teacher or student knows, the rising curve of progress is not continuous, but is punctuated by flat (latency) periods. " plateaus " on the upward curve, followed by another upward sweep of new progress, another plateau. A shorthand student reaches a speed of 60 words a minute by smooth progress, then sticks. Then suddenly 70 and 80, then stick. The reason for these halts is that the components of a given level of skill do not necessarily develop at the same rate. Up to 60, increasing knowledge of the shorthand rules is enough to ensure steadily increasing speed; then the hand has to develop certain rhythmic habits before 70 or 80 is possible; for 90, the ear has to learn to register what is being said while the hand copes with what was said several words earlier; and for high speeds these earlier skills have to combine with others (wider vocabulary, etc.). At each stage the new quality of skill awaits the appropriate accumulation of component lesser skills: it is nothing but the right sum. Each new " quality " of performance is an iteger, a one in the tens place, sprung into that place by the addition of 1 to 9.
There are comparable " plateaus " in organic evolution. The bricks of minute individual variations build up to different varieties of a species—life spreads as it were horizontally to every cranny in a given plane. The jumps to different levels of evolution occur when an aggregate of specialisms strikes just the combination appropriate to a radically different mode of existence—a different class of creature emerges, whose species fill every corner of the new plane.
23.3.2 Quantity and Quality
The mode of existence for the species, man, is the social operation of tools. In this (as in all the physical specialisms behind it) he differs only in degree (amount) from bee or beaver or baboon. He has a greater weight of brain than the anthropoid, but no additional convolutions; a greater uprightness of posture than gorilla or chimp, a greater divergence of hand from foot, of male from female, of each from each, and (for each) even of left hand from right. It is from the aggregation (coordination) of the quantitative differences that emerges the qualitatively new integer, man. It is, especially, the sum of greater individuality and greater sociality that lifts man in a sense out of the animal kingdom, for it enables him to accumulate tools. This new kind of accumulation (of artefacts) signifies a new kind of evolution (history), for multiplication and integration of the means of labour continuously modifies the mode of co-operation in labour (society).
The emphasis in these examples is on the continuous resolving of multiplicity into a new simplicity, seen again in the evolution of language "from the complex to the.simple" : out of verbal accumulation conies both syntactical simplification and the reduction of pictographs to the symbols of mathematics or shorthand. Primitive societies are likewise more complex in relation to their mass; modern society, enormously more massive, has a relatively simple structure. (If the notion shocks, it is a sign that the mass of trees still defies our effort to sse the wood, and that, on another plane, we are like those tribes who have no notion of " tree ", and no generic word for it, but only a different name for every kind of tree.)
23.3.3 Act of Production
All growth and evolution (inorganic, organic or social) is the continuous resolving of aggregates into integers, where the integration at each level is the sweet bloom of skill, the ' jump ' in nature, the ' revolution ' in history. And this reduction to a new simplicity is therefore the character also of all those " irreversible enlargements of thought " such (in our time) as we associate with Newton, Darwin, Marx or Einstein : irreversible because they are counterpart of the actual enlargement of social artefacts, and enlargements because they add leagues to our boots by reducing a world to a digit. Hence, also, the common greeting to all discovery is " why, of course, how simple!"
" The first historical act is the act of production itself." Here Marx has stated historical materialsm. Flere is the integer, the new succinct simplicity, Companion of Honour with law of inverse squares and E = Mc2. But what heavy weather we make of it. To what dialectical indignities do we subject our materialism, dragged by the hair upstairs and down between our Communist and our Anarchist idealism, boxed around the ring with words, seeking the phrase which permits historical materialism to mean the decisive role of the idea, our wisdom foxed by the knowledge that we think!
It is consciousness of deliberation in activity (confirmed and aggravated by our pre-occu-pation with " conversion " propaganda and the myth of rational man) which leads us to seek the social dynamic anywhere but where it is—in the act of production and the marriage of its progeny. The wheel of history turns — new form of evolution evolves—because the centre of gravity of men's mode of existence is (eccentrically) ex-centric : production by socially operated means of production out of whose social copulation more means are begotten. At the point of production, our acts are purposeful and predictable, but history is made behind our labouring backs, out of the social permutation of a myriad purposes and products. To say that " men make history " is to say nothing unless it means that change in the quality of society issues from accumulation of men's products. Yet it is this we are afraid of, for it offends our status as Creator, possessor of the ' sole dynamic ', the Socialist Idea. It touches off the fear of all children and barbarians and idealists—necessity. It is the fear that labels materialism " mechanical " (for what is the alternative to mechanism but God ?) and calls determination " teleology "( !). And it is this fear which renounces the only possibility of making the idea a conscious agent of history, acknowledgement that still the world moves, and that revolution is the summing up of its direction, to be seen for the looking. But the labouring back, bent with consciousness of labour, feels this beckoning tap on the shoulder as the cold touch of a ghost—like one who on a lonesome road doth walk in fear and dread, and having once looked round walks on and turns no more his head, because he knows a dreadful fiend doth close behind him tread—necessity outside men's wishes! Socialist theory rises to the level of science, and the Socialist movement to the level of historical agency, when it occupies itself with discerning in the social integration of artefacts the emerging new simplicity which is Socialist society.
F. EVANS
To be continued.
23.4 NOTES ON CRISES (2)
I have suggested that crises are highly complex phenomena. As such they are inseparable from the extant social productive relations. They cannot, however, be viewed statically, but always in the light of the changing configuration of class relations and behaviour. That is why no particular crisis is merely a replica of any other. There is no fixed and unalterable pattern to which all crises must conform. Each crisis has a pattern of events peculiar to itself. For that reason we cannot provide a priori proof of how a particular crisis will originate or deduce it from mechanical assumptions based upon a given set of facts. Consequently any adequate account of the specific train of events which brings about a particular crisis can only be arrived at after the event.
Again it must be emphasised that a crisis is not the outcome of one factor but many, all of which are intimately connected in some way or other as well as being influenced by the actual circumstances of the time. Thus a set of crisis factors in one situation might diverge from a set of crisis factors in another and dissimilar situation. So although some general propositions can be advanced of the cause of crises it cannot be inferred from these propositions what specific combination of factors will bring about a particular crisis. While there are elements common to all crisis situations, the way these elements will interact in a given situation cannot be known in advance.
This, however, does not prevent us from formulating a number of general propositions which have a crucial bearing on the emergence of crises. To begin with, capitalist production is production for profit and the conversion
of this profit into investment funds for actual or future use (accumulation of capital). It is also true that the volume of investment seeking employment either in the intensifying of old avenues of exploitation or the opening up of new ones is significantly related to the profit expectation which will induce the capitalist to invest. This profit expectation or, to put it more concretely, the anticipated rate of profit, is not a fixed percentage, but may vary fairly widely within certain limits. If, however, it falls outside a certain range, it will constitue a dis-incentive for investors.
23.4.1 Curtailment of Investment
Because in capitalist society a certain set of individuals hold the key positions so far as the decisions for investment are concerned, any acute disappointment with regard to profit expectation will have a decisive bearing on curtailment of investment and hence production. The sharper the anticipated profit fall, the greater, generally speaking, will be the curtailment. To use modern economic idiom such a state of affairs will have a marked dis-equilibrating effect.
Should the curtailment of investment operate in an important industry or group of industries leading to a decline in pay rolls and displacement of workers, it will generate cumulative effects, causing a decline in pay rolls and employment in other spheres. As a result, reduced purchasing power (under-consump-tion) will emerge as a crisis feature and bring about a deepening of the crisis situation leading perhaps to a general depression. As a corollary of a decline in purchasing power there comes a slackening off of demand for consumption goods, and the phenomena common to all crises—unsaleable stock.
To say, however, that this type of crisis just sketched was caused by a lack of purchasing power or the inability of workers to buy back the wealth they have produced, would certainly be putting the cart before the horse. The contraction of demand for consumption goods resulting in unsaleable stock was not the cause of the crisis starting, but a consequence.
Relative over-production in the form of market surpluses arising from a deficit in purchasing power did not originate the crisis, but was simply one of the facets of the situation which could only reveal itself after the originating factors of the crisis had been set in motion. To put it another way, the underconsumption aspect of crises is the second stage of the crisis situation. This does not mean, however, that as a contributory factor its influence on the whole course of a crisis is negligible. Quite the contrary, under-con-sumption as an aspect of a crisis can play an active role in intensifying and deepening crisis conditions and also in retarding the return of trade recovery.
It may be asked why investors should not continue to invest even at an abnormally low profit yield rather than as a result of no investment, have "idle money" which earns no profit at all. The somewhat superficial reasons put forward by orthodox economists is that acute profit disappointment has such a psychological impact on entrepreneurs as to change former confidence and buoyancy into lack of confidence and unreasonable pessimism. The trouble with such an explanation is that it does not take into consideration the underlying conditions which bring about decisions for the curtailment of investment.
A sounder view than the irrational and unpredictable behaviour of the investor as the reason for curtailed investment is that the capitalist has over-invested as the result of faulty calculation on a continuance of the anticipated profit yield. In other words, he has entered into commitments which he would have avoided if he had known that changes in the profit rate were likely to occur. As a result, he will attempt to offset this situation as far as possible. Hence he seeks to adjust himself to the existing state of affairs in the only way practical, i.e. by an abrupt conversion of investment funds into holding money. It is only by holding capital in its liquid form —money—that the capitalist can make the necessary adjustments for both present and future activity. The stampede for liquidity preference at such times is not, as some economists think, a prime condition of crises, but merely a sign of an interruption of the productive mechanisf peculiar to capitalism. As Marx says: " On the eve of the crisis the bourgois with the self-sufficiency that springs from intoxicating prosperity declares money to be a vain imagination. Commodities alone are money. But now the cry goes up, money is alone a commodity! As the hart pants after water, so pants his soul after money, the only form of wealth " (Capital, Vol. I, p. 115).
23.4.2 Rate of Profit
It is true that one can speak of this type of crisis as one of over-production, but the genesis of such a crisis lies in the fact that it is over-production of capital which expresses itself in the fact that the volume of investment seeking profitable employment is in conflict with the maintenance of previous profit levels. Again to quote Marx : "There is periodically a production of too many means of production and necessities of life to permit of their serving as means for the exploitation of the labourers at a certain rate of profit ". Marx goes on to say : " It is not a fact that too much wealth is produced. But it is true to say that there is periodically over-production of wealth in its capitalist and self-contradictory form . . . The capitalist mode of production for this reason meets with barriers at a certain scale of production which would be inadequate under different conditions. It comes to a standstill determined by the production and realisation of profit, not by the satisfaction of social needs " (Captial, Vol. II, p, 303).
E.W.
23.5 THE MYTH OF BLOOD
In the " Socialist Standard " for May, 1954, Comrade " S.H." holds forth on the subject of Race. 1 o the astonishment of this reader it seems that neither the author of the article nor, we presume, the editorial committee of the S.P.G.B. is fully acquainted with the facts of life, at least on the question of blood and its connection or rather its complete lack of connection with heredity.
Should we be wrong about this, the only other conclusion we can arrive at is that both Comrade S.H. and the editorial committee should be more careful about the words they cause to appear in a scientific socialist journal.
Let us get down to specifics : in the second column of the first page of the article in question (p. 76), third paragraph, appears the following statement:
" The fact is that man's wanderings over the earth have promoted such a mixture of blood that there is no such thing nowadays, even in remote places, as genuine blood purit];."
Ye gods and little fish-hooks! Do the comrades responsible for writing and editing this article not know that Blood is Blood and that outside of the different blood types or groups and the so-called Rh factor (which have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that man has wandered over the face of the earth and intermarried with his fellows of all types and stocks), there is no difference between the blood of one person and another? As Professor Ashley Montague so well puts it:
" The character of the blood of all human beings is determined not by their membership in any group or nation, but by the fact that they are human being " (p. 216, Man's. Most Dangerous Myth, Harper).
To be even more specific. There is no such things as a blood relationship or connection by blood. The embryo in the mother's womb manufactures its own blood within the placenta independently of the mother's blood stream and there is no connection between the two blood streams. So we see that blood has no connection with heredity and certainly does not become "mixed" because of intermarriage between the so-called races of mankind. This incidentally is indeed rather fortunate, as most of us would certainly have become slightly dead before we had a chance to live, because of having blood of different agglutinating properties and different Rh factors mixed. I: or even within a single family the groupings are generally different. So we can say that the blood of a "half-breed", a "quadroon", an "octoroon" or for that matter the blood of any of us human mongrels is not now, nor has it ever been in all human history and prehistory any different because of this so-called racial impurity.
In this connection, we can assure the most die-hard opponents of " racial mixture " such as we have in the Southern United States or their equally misinformed counterparts in South Africa, that they need have no qualms whatsoever about accepting blood transfusions from negroes, Chinese or Eskimos; that their sole possible worry could be that the blood injected into their veins is of the correct grouping. The fact that such qualms do exist and that even the American Red Cross segregated blood according to "race" during the Second World War is just one more proof of the utter ignorance that stalks the world even in our scientific times.
Such an attitude becomes even more ridiculous when one con:-iders that the same people who refuse transfusions from humans of a different " race " will permit themselves to be inoculated and vaccinated with serums manufactured from the blood of horses, monkeys, etc.
No, one does not look to " blood ", but to the genes in the chromosomes for the answer to how physical characteristics are transmitted. An even if one desired to accept theLysenko theory which seeks to contradict that generally held by most of the world's scientists, there would still be nothing whatsoever to say for blood as a medium of transmitting characteristics throughout the human family.
At this point, I anticipate that some of the comrades who have read thus far will accuse me of being a quibbler, a splitter of hairs and of accusing Comrade S.H. and the S.S. editorial committee of something for which they are not guilty. Let me hasten to point out that if the comrade had been guilty of using the offending expression only in this one instance I would probably take the attitude that is was an unintentional slip and something not worthy to be challenged. But silas! we read further in the same paragraph : " A name may be carried down for generations, but the blood associations of that name through the female side are beyond calculation."

Which would seem to indicate that the author seems to think that there is some sort of blood connsction between mother and child, contrary to all scientific information.
Furthermore, towards the end of the next paragraph :
" But Aryan is a language and not a blood connection." While some comrades may disagree, I think the comrades who are responsible for the writing and editing (or lack of editing) of the Myth of Race have definitely prove themselves to be in the clutches of the Myth of Blood.
And just one parting shot. The comrade ends his effort on the following note :
" It may perhaps be as well to add in conclusion that we all use the word "race" loosely for want of better terms. This does little harm as long as prejudice is not tied to it."
I would respectfully like to point out that there is something much more important than lack of prejudice and that is a scientific understanding of the lack of any rhyme or reason for the concepts most people have of the subject.
Even those who do not tie prejudice to the the use of the word are for the most part either uninformed or misinformed as to the question of " race ". It will take much more than lack of prejudice or toleration among the " races " to wipe out this dangerous myth.
It will take, rather, a little mental effort on the part of the working class in particular to realise that the only race so far as mankind is concerned is the human race or species. That differences of skin colouring have nothing to do with blood and are only skin-deep. That whatever other differences that exist, as for example in cranial measurements, shape of nose or slant of eyes, are just as meaningless.
So far as the workers are concerned, these artificial divisions within our species must be recognized as completely unimportant and the real division of society into economic classes must be understood as the only issue worth getting worked up over. But care in the use of language cart play a considerable part in bringing socialism a little more quickly, and those of us who speak and write for socialism should definitely watch our facts and our words. H. Morrison,
Massachusetts.
23.6 SOME MORE PROBLEMS OF PROPAGANDA
Action Please Comrades!
Comrade S.R.P. seems singularly worried about a supposed lack of jobs within the S.P.G.B. to keep members occupied and " make them feel wanted " (see " Problems of Propaganda ", June FORUM). Yet I doubt very much if this is truly the case.
Speaking, writing, clerical and committee work, and literature canvassing are but some of the jobs which our organisation offers its members and which sadly lack the necessary support to make them a success. Comrade Parker should rest assured that whatever the reason for people's failure to come forward and take up these tasks, it certainly does not lie in an absence of " being wanted " by the Party.
Further, this silly idea should be scotched, that the individual member is somehow separate from the Party as a whole. The S.P. is a collection of individuals and should work as an integrated whole. We cannot rely on intellectually immature men and women whose main concern when signing their forms "A" is " to be wanted " and who lapse into " post enrolment apathy " soon after joining our ranks (notwithstanding " bureaucratic and inconsiderate enrolment methods " —whatever that may mean).
About the hardest organisational job to-day is to get members to worl( for socialism. It is well known that the proportion of active members is small (no more than about 25%, I think) and new hands to help are always more than welcome. I have yet to meet the active party member who has ever done anything to discourage new entrants from playing as full a role as possible. The reverse is true.
As an example of the difficulty of arousing the members from their slumbers, take the committee with which I am associated, namely the H/O Literature Canvassing Committee. Our title may suggest to some people that we canvass as a body, but this is only partially true. Most of our time so far has been spent in encouraging (note that word, S.R.P.) members and branches to indulge in this very worthwhile activity. Yet a glance at our correspondence would show that reactions to our efforts range from lack of enthusiasm to actual scepticism and even mild hostility. We do our best to make personal contact—to make comrades " feel wanted " in this work (as indeed they certainly are), and meet with a multitude of evasions and excuses.
My committee will continue with their attempts, of course, in spite of the sometimes painful silence which greets our innocent enquiries. It is hoped to inaugurate a large scale drive for September to step up the sales of the " Socialist Standard " for the anniversary publication, of which more elsewhere in this issue. Those persons suffering from the malady known as " post enrolment apathy " are therefore invited to try the following remedy: one canvass per week (preferably each Sunday morning) throughout the month of September. Even the poorest results so far achieved have been shown to be well worth the effort involved, and we are always prepared to give active assistance to anyone sufficiently interested to desire our support.
Let none imagine that he will not be wanted should be come forward. He has pur guarantee of a warm and comradely greeting with open arms, and the assurance of a rich reward. I refer ,of course, to the satisfaction in the knowledge of a valuable job well done. We can offer no more than that.
E. T. Critchfield (for H/O Literature Canvassing Committee)

24. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B
No. 24 September 1954

24.1 IDEAS AND ATTITUDES
In a previous article, I distinguished three usual meanings of the word "Socialism" : —
Socialism (1)—A future system of Society.
Socialism (2)——A body of theory.
-An attitude or set of at-
Some may have thought this a little unnecessary, an over-subtle ravelling out of something very simple. An example will show, however, that it is useful to make this distinction. Take the common sentence — "Our job as socialists is to put across socialist ideas in order that people shall adopt those ideas."
When one examines it, this sentence turns out to mean— "Our job as socialists is to put across Socialism (2) in order that people shall adopt Socialism (3)."
And putting it in this way enables us to see at once what was hidden before—that the word "ideas", as usual, has been used twice in different senses. This dangerous word "ideas", which means everything and nothing, is always used by Party speakers, because it is a word which their outdoor audiences can easily understand—or think they understand. But it would be better, perhaps, to insist on accuracy, as we have in many other instances.
In this particular case, having made plain that the object of propaganda is to get people to adopt Socialism (3), we can go on to discuss the question of whether or not the putting across of Socialism (2) is necessarily the best way of doing this. We can discuss what parts of Socialism (2) are most likely to do it, what methods of putting it across are the best, and the reasons why.
We can't discuss any of these things so well if we talk about "ideas". To talk of a person adopting Socialist ideas is to throw up a picture of a person accepting a coloured slide as a present, and fitting it neatly into his own private magic lantern. It is to put Socialist ideas into the same category as the information that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, or that all triangles have three sides.
But if, as I pointed out in an earlier article (Aug. 53) "Socialist ideas" are really a set of attitudes, the position is a very different one. An attitude does not only consist of knowledge of facts : it also makes those who have it want to do something, to take some action; it leads to feelings of liking for some people, institutions, action etc., and distaste for others; it makes one see some things very clearly, and ignore others completely, and interpret events one way rather than another.
How do people adopt, hold and change their attitudes? That is the sort of question which is thrown up by an analysis like this, and which is never thrown up by a discussion in terms of "ideas". It is a most important question for us to answer.
24.1.1 Social Psychology
Let us see what we can find out about this.- The first place we shall look is among the works of social psychologists because they devote a great deal of attention to this sort of question. Much of this attention has been aroused on behalf of the Gallup Poll, and similar attempts to measure people's beliefs and attitudes, but latterly the theory has been made more general.
Here are some of the more important features of attitudes which have so far been unearthed in this field.
1. Attitudes can be more or less precise. People's attitudes will not all be alike : some will be clear, explicit and highly differentiated, while others will be loose, vague and relatively unstructured. A party member, for example, may have very well-defined attitudes towards the economic structure of society, the field of left-wing politics or racial genetics, and at the same time have very ill-defined and hazy attitudes towards religion, modern art or psychology. Every attitude can be placed somewhere along the scale from utmost clarity to utmost vagueness. This clarity means only a high degree of differentiation, and must not be confused with strength. In fact, a very strong prejudice is an almost certain sign of a relatively unstructured attitude.
2. Attitudes can be more or less isolated. With one individual, all his attitudes on every subject may be unified into one meaningful pattern, so that each one bears a definite recognised relation to each other one. This is very rare indeed. Where it exists, we may properly speak of him having an ideology. It is much more common for attitudes to be relatively disconnected, and for an individual to have loosely organised groups of attitudes, though none will be entirely independent of the rest. In such cases, a single attitude may be very quickly and easily changed without much altering the rest, and if left alone thereafter, will gradually swing back to its former state under the weak influence of its nearest unchanged neighbours, and the influence of social pressure. In the case of the individual whose attitudes are very closely connected, however, the reverse is true. It will be very difficult to change one attitude; but, once changed, this one will affect all the others, until the whole idealogy alters to a greater or lesser degree. Where a high degree of connectedness and unity exists, it will either be because of an individual's unusually strong urge to find meaning in life, or because the world m which such a person lives is a relatively simple one. It can be "simple" in two ways: either it is a narrow existence which avoids the complexities of the world, or it is carried on in a highly organized state with a well-publicised official ideology.
1. Attitudes can be more or less strong. One attitude may persist for a long period, in spite of the impact of contradictory views and the pressure of contrary motivations. Another may be held for only a short time, and be easily changed. It will normally be found that a much higher degree of emotional tension is attached to the former, and this makes it stronger. The strength of an attitude must not be confused with its precision, or with its importance to the individual.
2. Altitudes can be more or less important. Not all of anyone's attitudes, no matter how strong or weak, are of equal importance for his day-to-day actions. A person's attitude towards gas warfare may be precise and may be strong, yet it may be, of little importance in accounting for most of his behaviour in the world. On the other hand, his attitude towards equality may not be very precise, but it may be of tremendous importance in accounting for much of his social and political behaviour. An attitude will be important, in this sense, as it is given opportunity for expression in the events of an individual's existence.
Many other things could be said about attitudes, but from what has been said so far, we can at least see this : that the ordinary conception of attitudes as simply being for, against, or neutral" is very far from containing the whole truth about attitudes. Attitudes, then, can be precise or vague, isolated or connected, strong or weak and important or unimportant. How do we go about changing them?
24.1.2 Change of Attitudes
In connection with this, the first thing which must be realised is that an attitude always fulfils some need, or set of needs, of the individual. Attitudes cannot be imposed on a person by social conditioning, by capitalist propaganda, or by any other means, unless they do hold some definite functional value for that person. All the attitudes which a person holds actually perform some service in that person's life, and any attempt to change them must take full account of that fact.
The second important point is that some attitudes are being constantly reinforced by influences in the general social milieu, whereas others may only find support in relatively inaccessible situations. The attitudes held by the majority of people in the group to which an individual feels he belongs—these are what constitute the major portion of what we call "social pressure". Of course, it doesn't even need to be the actual majority by direct count—it will be enough that the individual believes it to be the majority. The attitudes of individuals in a group are connected in much the same sort of way .as the attitudes of a separate individual—see para 2 above. It is these factors which ox-plain the phenomenon which most of us have encountered, of arguing a point with someone, making the point, getting him to agree, and thinking we have changed his whole attitude on the question. Next time we see him, he puts the same arguments he did before; one reminds him that he had agreed to something different; and one finds that his memory of the argument seems quite strange, and quite divorced from one's own impression. There should be nothing in this to cause the least surprise, and yet it is usually found io be a source of great annoyance.

The third important point is that, as attitudes involve perceptions, cognitions, emotions and motivations, any attempt at large-scale changes in attitude must work through numerous means. Change in the objective environment will be necessary, as well as changes in the facts and fact-relations presented verbally to the individual. However, just because we can enumerate and define and in principle control the factors which it is necessary to change, we can be sure that inadequate or detrimental attitudes are not due to "the contrariness of human nature" or other unchangeable—because indefinable —factors.
So long as attempts to change attitudes are confined to verbal propaganda, therefore, they can only move individuals who are, for various personal reasons, ready to accept the new way of looking at things. Only where other influences co-operate in the same direction can verbal propaganda have any mass effect. This is what is meant by the old tag—"Nothing is as strong as an idea whose hour has come."
Ultimately, it is true to that changing any one attitude held by the broad mass of the people means altering, to a greater or lesser extent, all the attitudes which are similarly held. And this means a complete change in culture. I his view is put forward by such a great thinker as Kurt Lewin, in his paper "Conduct, knowledge and acceptance of new values" (with P. Grabbe, 1945), and also by Krech and Crutchlield in their monumental "1 heory and Problems of Social Psychology" (1948).
24.1.3 The Socialist View
It is very interesting to note here that science has confirmed the Socialist view. We have pointed out for many years that reforming this or that particular feature will not produce any of the marvellous results predicted by reformists, and have insisted that only a complete chance in culture will fill the bill.
We may doubt, however, whether many Party members have really understood the position here. 7 he assumption is still made that one can change attitudes without any major cultural change, and that the people with new outlooks will proceed to change the culture from top to bottom. Action based on this assumption, of course, leads to nothing but frustration.
The traditional Party view that the material conditions for Socialism are ripe, and that all that is needed is the adoption of Socialist ideas (those damned ideas rearing their ugly heads again), the fantastic notion that all the changes taking place in Capitalism are irrelevant to the establishment of Socialism.—these must go if the Party is to be more than impotent.
A party writer has satirized this woe fully inadequate view very well : —
"Since 1904 all that has happened adds up to nothing—fundamentally. Corporative State, Welfare State, New Deal, Nazism, Titoism, Russian, Chinese, Indian and African revolutions—these have motion, but no direction, for they are capitalism—fundamentally. The new industrial revolution of spaceships and atoms, of plastics, cybernetics and electronic brains, and the new industrial, political and international integrations which accompany them—the mind staggers at the dizzy speed with which, today, nothing happens (fundamentally)."
He might have added modern management methods to the list; I am thinking particularly of the line of work pioneered by Elton Mayo which attempts to apply under capitalism the sort of attitude to work which will be most common under Socialism, and has achieved tremendous success in actual practice.
We must start thinking about these things and wondering whether perhaps they do have something to do with Socialism after all. In a further article I want to deal with the question of when a change is a fundamental change, and when it is not.
Socialist articles have often ended — "Speed the Day!" Some of us—soon, I hope, most of us!—can begin to see that there is no question of speeding the day; because this is the day.
J. C. ROWAN
24.2 THE S. P. AND PARLIAMENT
In his article "Socialists and Parliament ' Comrade Carnell gives a number of reasons why he thinks that socialists must get control of Parliament in order to establish socialism.
His arguments are similar to those he put forward in a previous article (Forum, Nov. 1953) when he defended coercion and authority in a socialist society.
• * •
In his most recent article (June, 1954) he writes: —
"We, who wish to establish the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living in the interest of all, must needs make a law to this effect."
But why? Surely, when the "immense majority" are conscious of the need to replace capitalism by a new society—socialism—they will not need to bother making laws. When the mass of people are thinking about, and working for, a completely new way of life such as socialism will be, they won't even give Parliament a thought. There will be too many important things to think about pertaining to the problems facing the future socialist society.
If, of course, as I pointed out previously, Carnell or others envisage a recalcitrant minority of well-organised counter-revolutionaries, then of course they would need to control the armed forces of the state, through Parliament. But I contend that this would be impossible (and it is up to them to prove me wrong). It assumes that all or almost all the capitalists, because of their understanding of socialism will be hostile to it, and that a section of the workers, because of their lack of understanding of socialism will also be hostile to it. And that these people will be in a position to disrupt the establishment of the new society.
This is a very dangerous point of view. It is typical of the bolshevik attitude towards revolution. The Socialist Party has always claimed that the working-class must emancipate itself; that the capitalist class cannot
do it for; them; that they are not likely to do it for them anyway. But we have never stated that no capitalists can understand and desire socialism. Neither can we say that sections of the community will be in a position of active hostility to socialism. That large numbers of people may not be in favour may be true. But there will be absolutely nothing that they can do when the majority refuse to be exploited any longer; when they refuse to work for wages?—except to not work themselves ; and this they will soon get fed-up with. Everyone who is mentally and physically capable (ex-capitalists included) will, in my opinion, be doing some useful work within a month or so after the establishment of socialism—and there will be no privilege groups, authority or coercion!
The only reason for keeping some form of Labour Exchange would be to give people information and help in finding work to do. Not to convert non-existent idlers to the idea of doing useful work!
• * *
In his last paragraph Comrade Carnell says that after the establishment of socialism the S.P. will control distribution, "make rules and enforce them" and "use the already existing machinery for this purpose."
Now, either Comrade Carnell is a very recent member of the Party and does not fully understand our case, or the S.P.G.B. had some very peculiar ideas when he joined; because, to my knowledge, no Party speaker has ever said that the S.P.G.B. would exist in a socialist society. We have always said that the S.P.G.B. would go out of existence with lhe\ establishment of socialism.
The more I read of Carnell's ideas on socialism, with his Home Secretaries, Ministries of Fine Arts, all the paraphernalia of the State, the more I dislike it. If what he has defined in his twd articles (Nov. 1953 and June, 1954) is socialism, then I'm 'agin' it!
If, on the other hand, socialism is a free, classless, world-wide (not the "Socialist Society of Great Britain", Comrade Carnell), equalitarian society, then the use of force— and that means the armed forces of the state —and violence, can take no part.
When the masses abolish capitalism they will not need the armed forces as "an instrument of emancipation," and they won't bother about Parliament either.
Peter E. Newell.
24.3 CORRESPONDENCE
Comrades,
There is a minority in the Party putting forward the view that those members who disagree with the Declaration of Principles should not remain in the Party.
At first glance their statement appears quite reasonable, but when we look further into it we can see the way in which a slight modification renders it far from harmless.
Members of the Socialist Party who have shown they have a real understanding of the Party case, who want socialism, and are willing to accept Party discipline, but who have come to doubt the truth or value of some or all of a statement formulated in 1904, should be expelled from the Party.
This is a very different kettle of iish. But on examination of the first statement and discussion of it with the comrades concerned; we find it is the second statement which they are in fact defending. Let us examine the first statement together with a recapitulation of what has been the Party attitude to disagreement.
When an individual presents himself for membership of the Party the Branch concerned examine him to see whether he has any serious misconceptions about the Party case. In no case however, is the examination conducted along the lines of—"Do you adhere to the first Principle?" etc. In all cases, it is an examination of understanding, not of mere adherence.
The Party does apply a more systematic test to those who may be going to represent us on the platform, or at debates etc. There have been several versions of the speakers' test since it was first instituted in the early days of the Party's existence, and in all cases it was and is an examination of understanding, not of blind acceptance,
From its earliest days then, the Party has been concerned not with acceptance, but with understanding what we are accepting. And when we come to look at "Principles and Policy" we find that it is not mere acceptance that is required after all. We don't want someone who accepts but someone who "intelligently accepts" (p. 27) the principles of socialism. "The strength of the revolutionary Party (p. 26) depends upon the number who understand what socialism means, and whose adherence is founded upon this understanding."
Understanding differs from acceptance in that one can understand without accepting, and can accept without understanding. It also differs in that understanding involves a questioning attitude, a truth seeking attitude, a critical attitude which acceptance does not. And there is no way of preventing a questioning, critical, truth seeking attitude—which we encourage people to apply to all other phenomena—from being applied to the D. of P. itself..
As it happens the Party has recorded its opinion of the correct position to adopt when the situation arises. In 1 949, over the case of Comrade Ross, the vote was quite definite that holding views contrary to the D. of P. was not in itself action detrimental to the Party's interests'. Hackney Branch at the following conference, tried to have this decision reversed, without success. The same question was raised at this year's conference, with the same result. Quite consistently, then, for at least five years, the Party has explicitly laid down, by a conference vote, that remaining in the Party does not depend on acceptance of the D. of P.
At every point, therefore, where Party practice, whether in the past or at present, has touched this matter of acceptance of the D. of P. it has treated it as of only partial importance.
Now a minority of members are trying to change all this. They are trying to overturn the generally accepted and orthodox view that socialist understanding is the all-important condition of membership. And in order to do so, they are being forced to maintain. That the whole Party case is summed up in the D. of P.—in fact, the D. of P. is the Party case. Having done that, they can now go on to say that (a) those who question the D. of P. are opposed to the socialist case; and (b) those who criticise the D. of P. are opposed to the Socialist Party. Those who are not satisfied with the D. of P. are then, anti-socialist.
This however, will not stand up to critical examination. The socialist case contains for more than the D. of P. Each phrase in the D. of P. sums up a whole volume of theory, each of which is more fundamental than the D. of P. itself, just as a book is far more important than its title. The D. of P. is based on the work of Marx and Engels. Other pioneers, including William Morris, have made their contribution to the Party case. Both historically and theoretically, the D. of P. is the visible tip of a vast iceberg. Historically because of the long history of socialist ideas and theoretically, because the D. of P. is an up to date expression of the general theory of the class struggle, which in turn is a particular expression of historical materialism, which in turn is one application of the general world view of dialectical materialism. All these things are more fundamental to socialist understanding than the D. of P. In fact, if the D. of P. is equated with the socialist case, there were no socialists before the S.P.G.B.—which is fantastic.
From the above it can be seen that socialist understanding and accepting the D. of P. are not the same thing. It is the Socialist Party that we joined not the D. of P. Party. Socialism as has been shown, is more fundamental than the D. of P.
In conclusion, I would suggest that the requirements for membership of the Party, and membership of course involves speaking for the Party are as follows : —
1. Understanding of the Party case.
2. Desire to help in the achievement of Socialism.
3. Willingness to accept Party discipline.
JOAN LESTOR
24.4 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
7 — The Socialist Movement (continued)
The Socialist movement still has an idealist attitude to the class struggle with which it is pre-occupied, holding that the class struggle is the dynamic of history—mistaking class motives for the social motor—and that between successive class victories societies remain fundamentally unchanged. Underneath the verbal dialectic is a discontinuous, catastrophic, quixotic and highly personalised outlook on history and society.
Yet evolution is so much simpler than Genesis. And until we recognise that social evolution is continuous (because the motor is accumulation of artefacts) and that its direction is foreseeable as the integrations ('social relations') immanent in this accretion of products, we do not begin the work of prognostication which alone makes socialist ideas an agent of Socialism. The job of the scientific revolutionary is to further the precipitation, out of particles in social solution, of the new grand integration by sharpening the awareness that the particles are in fact thus coalescing. Some measure of what we wish must already be knocking, or it would not be wishable. But the wish is offspring not father to the fact, and in acknowledging necessity outside men's wishes we have a world to win and nothing to lose but our apostolic status. Meanwhile, political partisanship, like other forms of organised religion, repulses science. Hence, for us, like the planets in feudal times, "each society has its own laws of development"! We do not understand social change as issuing from increase of products, nor, therefore, capitalist production as increasing the momentum (out of mass of product) of the process which has been continuous for half a million years, held to its socialist orbit by social man.
As we do not understand the labour theory of history in general, we do not understand its particular capitalist application,, the labour theory of value. Girded with a wish, we will create Socialism in defiance of nature, unaware (and unwilling to be aware) that capital itself moves in a social-
ist direction. Scientifically imancipated from moralism, we see in the accumulation of capital only its more wicked concentration into fewer hands, not the qualitative changes contained in this increase not the expropriation of individual capitals which give rise to capitalism and which cap— talism accelerates. We see the aggregation but not the integration -which depersonalizes production property and diffuses power and privilege. We see quantity of trees but not not quality of wood.
24.4.1 Are Workers Worse Off?
Moreover, in urging expropriation of the capitalist class, as the limit of our purpose, we merely extend to its arithmetical limit the Communist claim for a bigger share. True (as a further step in the evolution of the Socialist movement), there is an implicit undercurrent of concern with the human quality of socialist life, but it is secondary, sentimental and suspect, subordinate in propaganda to the slogan "take the lot," the Socialist concept still Com-munist-cocooned in "food, clothing and shelter", "standard of living", "poverty and insecurity", and "increasing misery". Thus our theory of valus is conceived in the merely quantitative terms required to expose exploitation. We deal with magnitude of value, surplus value, unequal shares of value, and do so very ably, but always in a closed system which ignores the increasing proliferation of use-values progressively the undermining the value relations of society from the inside, from the very heart of capital, as a necessity of capital.
Horatio's treatment of value in the May issue ("Are the workers better off?") excellent of its kind, is typical. He shows that the workers are worse off in that they receive in wages a continually falling pio-portion of the values they produce. This happens (briefly) because competition between capitals compels a rising rate of exploitation, achieved by increasing relative surplus value, by raising the composition of capital (by taking on more machinery at a rate faster than than the taking on of more hands). What is ignored, however, is that a rising rate of exploitation compels a rising standard of living, and 'compels' in every determinist sense of the word, for this higher rate of exploitation is nothing other than the production of more use-values each contain ing less value: the values of commodities fall, while their mass increases, and the value likewise of the commodity labour-power falls while the mass of use-values required to reproduce it increases. Thus the workers receive as wages a rising mass of use-values containing a falling proportion of the value they produce, and this movement inheres in the mode of production : a rising standard of living is a necessary reciprocal of rising relative surplus value — they are the same thing from different angles.
"Increasing misery" is a piece of Communist claptrap. If misery is to be measured, it can be measured only in terms of things enjoyed or not, that is, used or not—in terms, that is, of use-values. And it is the continuous proliferation of use-values, pressing up the standard of living (and narrowing the differences between better and worse-off in relation to mass of use-values), which kills the force of exploitation propaganda in terms of poverty and misery.
But we are stuck with the dead horse. For as with "capital", so it is with "value" : our half-Communist version of revolution does not let us see the Socialist direction of the effects on value-relations (in the institutions of class, property, law, religion, fam-il)') brought about by the increasing mass of use-values in which value is embodied.
Profusion of use-values undermines power and privilege as between classes and individuals by reducing the social importance of social differences arising from different shares of value. Value, which historically emerge:
from use out of aggregation of wealth, suborns use to the service of profit, making use a mere vehicle for expanding value, and thereby promotes the proliferation of use-values which eventually strangles value. For capital's appetite for value means the continual displacement of expensive prototypes by cheaper alternatives. Velocipedes and time-pieces, cars and cameras, typewriters and telephones, are obvious examples of what start as expensive luxuries and become commonplace necessities—any example will do, because it applies to commodities in general. Through profusion of cheapening products, the more universal accessibility of use-values, profit and property and privilege and power and politics dig their own graves. For one man's capacity to consume is much the same as another's, and whatever the difference of wealth, in values, the cheapening of commodities means the more equal accessibility of use-values, in relation to capacity to enjoy, between one sun-up and the next.
Capitalism accelerates the equal diffusion of use-values, because cheapening of products is capital's specific mode of existence. In proliferation of artefacts capitalism differs only quantitatively from earlier societies (since increased productivity inheres in the human productive act which produces the surplus which raises productivity), but by accelerating the more equal diffusion of use-values it increases the social equality of persons. In the earlier, less productive stages of commercial society, class domination has a more awful majesty, a greater personal and autocratic impact. Of all class systems, capitalism is the most egalitarian, humane and democratic, capitalist power the least patriarchal, personal, arbitrary and autocratic, capitalist privilege the most vicarious, anonymous, and irrelevant.
24.4.2 Rising Standards
Socialists we claim to be, and dialectical materialists, yet we seem to have a poor sense of social metabolism, of the subtly organic relationships between products and behaviour, and remain only the ablest exponents of value theory in the narrowe t economic sense, allowing the sterile dualism which argues the precedence of ideas or economics to obscure the fact that both are coexistent and congruent aspects of the current sum of artefacts. Our social vision is too narrowly blinkered between exploitation and misery to see the increasingly humane relations of everyday life as counterpart of the increasing mass of use-values and its concomitant relatively more equal diffusion of them. We are happy to show that if there is a fall in brewers' profits, the tea merchants are making more, but are little concerned to ask what is happening to a society where the ubiquitous caff has displaced the streetful of Saturday night drunks. Humane relations are the relations of sufficient equality in everyday life, rooted in the certitude, independent of another's handout, of a suflicient modicum of everyday things. In our own short time we have seen the continuation of the increase in humane behaviour, of respect for the person, of equality of consideration. All the current bogies that bother and bewitch the 'public mind' — "breakdown of marriage", "teddy boys", "child cruelty", "perverts"—all can be shown to spell rising standards of respect for persons, wider toleration of individuation, increasing equality of consideration independent of size ,age, shape, colour, sex, income or property, all'reflect the receding of repressive sanctions and power attitudes and privilege relations, washed away by the flood of use-values piped like common water into every mouth.
Obsessed with value, and the need for an external act of expropriation, we ignore the dynamic, Socialism-creative effects of the increasing mass of use-values which dissolve value-relations from the inside, by more and more equal diffusion of use-values in relation to mass of value. Soft drinks displace hard,, and softer manners the harsh and autocratic, as between parent and child, teacher and pupil, foreman and gang, sergeant and rookie, customer and counterhand, mistress and maid, ruler and ruled, class and class, in proportion as productive power, panting for profit, showers indiscriminately on all an increasing deluge of cheap use-values, on quick or slow, bright or beautiful, black or white,male or female, young or old, dissolving the power of persons to withhold or bestow, dissolving the cruelties of charity and the stupidities of status, changing social relations essentially, fundamentally, universally, continuously and consistently in the direction of socialism, daily and hourly announcing the possibility, necessity, imminence and shape of socialist society, and offering a gift of the only propaganda that can hasten it— acknowledgment that still the world moves, and that the revolution is the conscious of its direction—while we enter the field of political action to play out a charade of St. George and the Dragon called Clause Eight and Class Struggle.
F. EVANS
(to be continued)
24.5 HEREDITY AND ABILITY
On thinking. F. Evans chides writes (June '54) —"The carelessness which permits him to say in one breath that we think as in race we
I wrote (June '53). "Thinking almost exclusively involves the use of words . . ." "Man, by means of a social inheritance of technique of his own making, thinks with his tools."
Evans' comment about the role of the brain in thinking appears to square admirably with the somewhat narrow mechanistic biology of the 19th Century. My alleged carelessness however, seems to have led me into good company as the following quotes,show.
(a) "Let us, however, not forget that words are but tools of the mind ... It is by means of words that the expansion of the human mind has become possible: but words may distort and limit thought and ideas, as well as expanding them and promoting their efficiency."—("The Science of Life" Bk. VIII, p. 1254—Wells, Huxley Wells).—and again on p. 1255 :
"For certain purposes mathematics is the best of all languages, because it enables us to think in the most general terms possible. It is only with the aid of the 'words' and ideas of mathematical symbolism that the physicists have been able to make many of their recent discoveries about the structure of matter and the perplexing nature of the space-time universe."

3."Really language is essentially a social product"—p. 28. "The capacity for what is termed 'abstract thinking'—probably a prerogative of the human species—depends largely upon language"—(p. 31., "Man makes himself" V. Gordon Childe).
4."We do not think with the brain, or at least as we have seen, not with the brain alone. Thought requires the whole body, the whole activity, and even the whole of social activity. Man, whose relations with the world have been characterised since his origin by tools of his own making, thinks with his tools"—(p. 1 72, "Biology and Marxism", M. Prenant, Professor of Zoology, The Sorbonne, University of Paris).
5."What it amounts to is that by the use of words we learn to see the connection between things that are not obviously related to each other. In fact, like all tools, words lead to the satisfaction of needs in indirect ways."—(p. 91, "Doubt and Certainty in Science", J. Z. Young, Professor of Anatomy, University College, London),
Perhaps I was not so careless after all. Causality.
I stated that every difference is not a cause. Comrade considers this an error and says—"every difference is a cause of something."
Evans' particular difficulty here is that he evidently does not appreciate that while difference may have a subjective significance, we are concerned only with differences between things in casual relationship. Thus I can be aware of difference between a pebble on the sea bed in Sydney Harbour, and the half-crown in my pocket. But the two objects are not in any direct causal relationship, one with the other. Evans considers it a valid criticism of my examples of causal relationships to point out that only part of the effects are the same. What escapes his observation is the fact that in every example of a causal chain of events we care to consider, we are dealing only with causes and effects which are partial; precisely because we are abstracting from a totality of causation, in which no particular series of causally related events exist in isolation.
24.5.1 Leadership.
The crux of Evans' naive treatment of the leadership issue was his statement (April'53) —"The absence of any need for it rests on the irrelevance of differences of ability, innate or acquired, to the common capacity of ordinary people to understand and want what is
understood and wanted by other ordinary people—Party members." Boiled down this just means that where common qualities exist, qualities which are different are irrelevant to them. A fair example of begging the question I think; and repeated two lines later in his analogy of differences of gait being irrelevant to the common capacity to walk, it being quite clear that the term 'gait' includes by definition the capacity to walk, anyway.
I thought it clear that what I considered important were not differences in ability in general, but difference in mental capacity. Evans (April '53) recognises that leadership is not needed if "a common capacity to understand and want what is understood exists'. Also that the understanding of Socialism requires the existence of common sense. Mathematics tells us that that which is common to all terms is equal in all terms. 1 hus the capaciity for common sense, being common to all is equal in all. Absence of leadership is dependent on an equal capacity for understanding. Leadership exists i.e., is necessary, in those organisations where, in their constituent members, that capacity is undeveloped. Differences in ability are irrelevant, but any difference in the ability to understand is relevant to this issue. In case I should be called to order for equating a common capacity with an equal capacity, I put the question to Comrade Evans—Is there a sense which transends common sense ? Or alternatively—Can some individuals receive through their genetic endowment the capacity for common sense in a somewhat 'diluted' form ?
24.5.2 Variation and Natural Selection.
In no statement have I implied that I reject natural selection. Natural selection is one factor of biological evolution, but Man unique in that he is undifferentiated for function, has largely escaped from the filtering process of selection. We can see this when, we observe that for most living forms variation has followed divergent radiating lines; whilst in Man variation is reticulate, due to recombination of genetic structures. Assuming that Evans regards natural selection as a considerable force in the evolution of civilised man, it is difficult to follow his conclusion that variation enriches the possibilities of co-operative labour. Natural selection is essentially a conservative force, operating through competition and survival value in general. Further there is abundant evidence that intra-specific selection i.e., selection between genetically different types within a jpecies, is totally or umost totally, of no use to the species as a whole. But I do not accept the suggestion that there is in general any selecting of human types in the evolution of civilised man. Nor, we find, do leading authorities on human evolution, (see Huxley, Haldane, Prenant).
Apparently what Evans had in mind when he wrote (Nov. '52)—"the rich genetically determined variation in innate individual abilities"'—"a myriad multiplication of opposable thumbs" are the variations resulting from crossing and recombination. He could not have meant mutations, because these are rare events—not myriad multiplications. But the basis of biological evolution at the genetic level is the mutation. Moreover, not only is the mutation a comparatively rare event, but the majority of them present disadvantageous features, particularly in species which have had a long evolutionary history. For in their cases advantageous mutations would generally have already been incorporated in the genetic endowment of the species as a whole. Thus evolution shows a series of adaptive radiations ending in blank walls.
Evolutionary progress being defined as greater control over, and greater independence of environmental change; all the possible progressive mutants within each level of organisation and environment have been offered and accepted, ending either in stable species or extinction. Man can by selective breeding produce new varieties of organisms, as he frequently does in the laboratory and on the wider field of agriculture and animal stock breeding, but this Nature alone cannot do. Only in and through Man is progress being continued in Man, who possesses as Huxley points out, 'a biologically unique capacity for tradition, providing a modificational substitute for genetic change.'
Man's increasing control over and independence of changes in environment are in general non-genetic in character.
RAY BOTT

24.6 PEN TO PAPER
The intention of these notes is to help writers for the Party. That does not mean only potential contributors to the "Socialist Standard"; it means, I think, all members. Rightly, we think of oral expression as the chief means of communicating ideas—so much so that we have a habit of saying "verbal" when we really mean "oral" . Nevertheless, we all write about Socialism at times, and there is every reason why, like Socialism, it should be done.
After saying what this is about, it is worth saying what it is not about. I am concerned with the craft, not the art, of writing. If you can see an overlap, that's fine; the fact remains that art consists mainly of communicating feeling, and our sort of writing has the different aim of informing and explaining. As I see it, it is a matter chiefly of workmanship.
A lot of people are sufficiently misled by the talk about art to imagine that a good writer simply sits down and turns it out. Don't believe it. The only man I knew who claimed he did that was the worst regular contributor the Standard had in recent years (no longer with us—still, no names). For what it is worth, my own way of working is something like this. First I make and arrange copious notes, as if I were preparing a lecture. Usually I find I have insufficient knowledge of some of the points, and have to spend a day in the British Museum or some other library looking up the things I don't know. Then I write it out on foolscap, crossing out every other line, until I am satisfied that I've said all I want to say. I copy the article and go through it to weed out vaguenesses and ambiguities and look for better phraseology; and finally I type it out as the finished job. There is no universal method, of writing articles, however, and what suits me may be hopeless for somebody else. The important thing is that, whatever one's approach, there is no analgesic for the throes of composition.
If I were devising maxims for writers, the one at the top would be : Don't write unless you have something to say. The only reason I know for writing is to tell something or explain something to people. "I want to write" means nothing until it is expanded to "I want to write about . . ." There is scope enough : socialists, after all, are people with a different viewpoint on most things, and the world is our parish. That does not mean any socialist can write about anything—on the contrary, another golden rule should be to keep within the limits of one's own knowledge. There are some things I should not dare to write about, because I know too little about them; I can only say the boldness of writers who raise two-thousand-word edifices on the basis of a smattering amazes me. One other thing about choice of subject —it ought to be worth while. It is not difficult to find something a Cabinet Minister has said and sneer at it, or to quote a paragraph from the "Reader's Digest" and say it confirms our case; most times, however, these articles are not worth even the small amount of trouble their writers have put into them. When an item of the sort seems too good to be missed, the best way of using it is as a reference in an article on a larger topic.
Subject and subject-matter are not the same thing; or, having a subject, you must gather accurate, interesting—and therefore carefully chosen—information about it. The worst way to "gather" information is to paraphrase factual items from papers and magazines— i.e., to set up as a journalist on the back of another journalist whose journalism you say you despise. If you are borrowing, say so. Facilities for fact-gathering are available in most areas. The public library is the obvious and convenient place, and in London there are several very good reference libraries. By specifying research on a particular topic you can get a one-clay pass into the British Museum Library or the Newspaper Library at Colindale, and there are several small libraries with special collections. subject-matter.
In its presentation, good grammar and usage are essential. Some people argue the reverse, that you can play hell and Tommy with the rules and still say what you mean. 1 hey are wrong. Grammar is the logic of a language, and gives precision that is not otherwise attainable. Precision is less necessary in speech, where hearing is helped by sight and words may be spilled usually without harm being done; in writing—particularly explanatory writing-—it is all-important. Grammar is a bogey to most people because an elementary education is too brief to give any sort of mastery of it, but there are a few intelligently written books about it. The best I know is Eric Partridge's "English: A Course for Human Beings". It's expensive, but most libraries have it. At this point it may be worth mentioning the books which I think are necessary to a writer. Fie must have a dictionary (the most popular is the Concise Oxford, but Chamber's Twentieth Century has much more in it) and he should have Roget's Thesaurus, which provides the right word or phrase for almost everything. The more books he has in addition to these, the better.
Perfect phraseology is a consummation devoutly to be wished; the avoidance of bad or hackneyed phraseology is a more modest but most desirable aim. I should like to see some expressions banned from the "Standard'' for a very, very long time : "bloodbath" for a war, "sheeplike" for compliant workers, "woolly-minded" for idealists, and so on. And there are the loo-often-meaningless asides: "obviously" followed by something which certainly isn't obvious, "needless to say", another lie, and "of course", which can usually be reckoned the precursor to an absolute non sequiiur. The best phraseology is the clearest and most concise, and weighty terms seldom help in that direction. Nor do long words : too many people think "commence" and "terminate" are better than "begin" and "end". They aren't. As a socialist is reputed to have said to a ponderous speaker, call a spade a spade and not a metallic implement for penetrating the earth's crust.
Such matters as tone and style arise from the consideration of phraseology. Tone is the attitude, real or assumed, of the writer to his readers, and it is extremely important to a writer about Socialism. When you are being critical of people and beliefs it is only too easy to sound supercilious, self-satisfied or just contemptuous, but none of these approaches wins anyone over. On the other hand, a patronizing, sure-we-understand-each other-John tone implies just as clearly that you have a low opinion of the reader. There is no question of "adopting" a tone to strike the right note, any more than you can borrow a style. Both are integral parts of any piece of writing, and have meaning only when they are at work with the subject-matter.
Innumerable chapters have been written about style without anybody becoming much wiser. More than anything else, it is the written expression of personality. Therefore, try to write as you speak rather than develop a special manner for writing. A good style is never obtrusive; its effect is of making the subject-matter pleasant to read, without drawing attention to itself. I have said a style cannot be borrowed, but every writer is influenced to some extent by those he has read, and there is great value in reading the masters of style. Probably the best modern writer in this respect is George Orwell—a beautifully clear, direct style, almost athletic in its easy, unhampered movement. Whatever else one thinks of Orwell, he is good to read. E. M. Forster is very good; and so, in a different way, is Jack London—economical with words, reporterlike and forceful. Farther back, Charles Lamb is worth reading as a stylist (and for pleasure), and among the ancients there was no one better than Tacitus—no word in his writing that is not usefully employed. And, as we are interested in writing about Socialism, it is worth mentioning that the "Socialist Standard" has had good stylists, too: R. W. Flousley was a particularly able writer, and I hope H will not think I am buttering him up by referring to him, too,
Of the many devices for appealing to readers, humour is the one which tempts writers most. Don't do it. If you want to know why, try counting how many successful funny writers there have been. Oral humoui is not so difficult because tone of voice, facial expression and the mood of the moment all help it. Max Miller in person is uproarious, but his jokes in print (those which are printable) fall flat. Witty comment is a different thing, but again, it isn't easy; and even when the wit can be seen to sparkle, it is only valuable when it is used to sharpen a comment, and not as an end in itself.
There are a good many verbal devices which can heighten effect and even, used skilfully enough, contribute to style; roost of them have long been classified as "figures of speech." It is worth knowing about them, and a text-book such as Partridge's will explain and illustrate them. The presentation of contrasts and analogies and the construction of phrases that will really tell are worth all that can be put into them.
Finally, a writer needs to keep writing, to be self-critical and to obtain criticism. Show your writing to other people and don't argue with what they say about it. One useful means of self-criticism is to put away or forget something you have written and read it a few months later; one way or the other, you'll be surprised. And there is a writers' class at the Head Office every year—like all the Party's classes, it is very good.
R. COSTER

25. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B
No. 25 October 1954

25.1 ON THE MATERIALIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY
The MC of H is a theory of history—a theory put forward to explain the struggles, the changes and the developments in history. S.R.P., in his article in the . August FORUM, completely ignores this. He should have come down to cases and shown where, in his opinion, it did not fit. Writing of basis and superstructure, integration and interaction, may look profound but it. gets him nowhere. He has so wrapped himself round with words and phrases that he has shut himself off from the real world of action and counter-action.
25.1.1 Historical Development
To begin with, he does not explain why he has put the quotation from Mumford at the head of his article. What is it supposed to convey? Unless we analyse a machine into its parts how can we gain "any insight" into the pattern or purposive configuration that endows them with special significance? Anyhow, what has it to do with the application of the MC of H?
I would be interested to know why he calls his article "A Critique of Historical Materialism" but says nothing in it about the historical element. There is not a single critism throughout his article of the application of the MC of H. He is up in the clouds all the time. After all, it -is a materialist conception of history; and history is a relating of things that have happened in fact and not phantasy. It is a theory put forward to explain the changes and direction of social development; why the Athenian Empire developed and then collapsed; what brought about the internal struggles and collapse of the Roman Empire; why Feudalism grew out of that collapse, and how Capitalism developed out of Feudalism. Has S.R.P. a new theory to explain the cause of modern war, and the class struggles of to-day and the past? If the MC of H does not give us a clear picture and an explanation of past epochs, will S.R.P. explain where it has failed to do so and put the picture right? Let him tell us what he thinks brought about the struggles of the Cromwellian period, the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the American Civil War and the social struggles in Germany, if he believes that the MC of H does not do so. Let him get down to earth. In his first paragraph S.R.P. tells us that as good a summary of the MC of H as: any 'is Engels' view that of all the factors determining historical development 'the decisive element is pre-eminently the production and reproduction of life and its material requirements". Then there is a full stop, and not a single criticism of this statement in his article. Just for the record let us call his attention to the fact that, in the above statement, of the many factors determining historical development one of the factors is decisive; that is all it says.
In his second paragraph he takes three quotations from Marx and then adds—"we are being asked to accept the separation of ideas from the material world". Whatever "we are being asked to accept", what is wrong with the three quotations? S.R.P. does not tell us. He plays about with 'parts' and 'wholes', with 'interaction' and 'integration', and so on.
Let us take a look at his first quotation— "the ideal is nothing other than the material world reflected by the human mind." What else is the ideal than this? If S.R.P. is making the fatuous contention that because we can't have the human mind without the material world, it is all of a piece, and
therefore we cannot distinguish one from the other, then he has reached a point where he is temporarily incapable of really understanding' anything that is put forward on the subject. Are we to take it that as we cannot have buses without people, roads and destinations then, if we want to discuss the construction of buses, we are asserting that we can separate buses from people, roads and destinations ?
25.1.2 Formation of Ideas
In all statements a reasonable interpretation must be taken for granted, otherwise every statement would have to be qualified and qualified until it became a book. In the statement in question Marx took for granted that the reader would understand that he was referring to the mind and the world outside of it. The mind, or the brain, or whatever you like to call the thinking faculty, is that part of the world which pictures, analyses, and generalises about the rest of the world. We are born with the faculty of thinking, just as we are born with the faculty of moving our limbs. In order to think we must have material to think about, and this material comes from the world around us. We are not born with ideas, they are developed out of our contacts with the world. According to the MC of H our principal contact with the world concerns "the production and reproduction of life and its material requirements" and S.R.P. has not denied this. Hence, the formation of ideas can only be explained in terms of practice, and the principal part of our practice consists in get-' ting a living. Even the wildest ideas are built up out of the world around, only the parts are stuck together in an incongruous manner—like sticking a fish's tail on to a woman's torso in order to make up an ideal mermaid.
I can't chase every drugged hare S.R.P. has raised, none of which has anything to co with the application of the MC of H, so I will only concern myself here with one or two more.
25.1.3 Basis and Superstructure
He is in a jam over basis and superstructure. The basis is that part upon which the other part rests—in buildings the foundation. Someone wrote somewhere in FORUM that superstructure suggests something flimsy —I thought of the Woolworth building, the Battersea Power Station, St. Paul's, the Houses of Parliament and otl>sir superstructures ! The fact that we can't have a building with only a foundation, or only a superstructure, is no reason why we can t divide it into basis and superstructure. Further, the nature of the foundation is the principal factor in determining the size and shape of the superstructure.
Now let us turn to society. If, in a particular society, cultivation, construction and the rest of the social work is performed by slave labour then it is proper to state that that particular society is based upon slave labour, because without the slave labour that form of society would not. exist. Furthermore, the nature of the relations of all those within that society—master and slave, legal enactments and the rest—is determined by this slave labour basis, and the ideas of the time are moulded by it. If S.R.P. has any doubt about this latter point he should look up Aristotle or Cicero, Demosthenes or Martial, or, in later times, the protagonists of the Southern States of America before the Union.
We are out to build a new social form. What is the basis upon which the new society will be built? That everything thai is in and on the earth will be the common possession of all mankind. That will be the basis of the new society, and upon that basis there will be a super-structure of relations and performances in harmony with it. In other words, the most important factor of the new society will be this basis, because without it we cannot build up the superstructure we want, as it will determine, in the main, the nature of the superstructure.
25.1.4 Material Conditions
Later in his article S.R.P. accuses me of a contradiction. Alas, he does not think sufficiently over what he reads. Let me assist him. "Social progress is the result of the mental activity of man exerting itself on the material provided by the external environment." Out of this mental activity man derives certain ideas. Thus "ideas are the product of conditions and not the other way round.". It is the interaction of man's thinking faculty and his environment that produces ideas, but the nature of the ideas is determined by the material about which he thinks, the conditions of his time.
At the end of his article, S.R.P. tells us that material conditions will become more like Socialism as time goes by, and that the acceleration of the resulting Socialist ideas
will be the Socialist Revolution. Now what does he mean by that in terms of the actual? Does he m ean that private property, classes, wars and the rest, will gradually disappear? If so, let him spread himselff and tell us in fact, in terms of property, classes, wars and so on, what he really does mean. And while he is doing so he must remember that an important part of the material conditions is the way the working class is thinking. I notice that, in spite of his superior and mistaken prods at separating man from his environment, he separates thinking from material conditions.
Which reminds me. S.R.P. says that "It is inconceivable to me that the socialist idea will grow without a correlative development of material conditions approximating closer to Socialism". What am I to understand by this, that S.R.P. is not yet a socialist or that he is a superman? Where did he get his socialist ideas from?
Finally let me remind him once more that the subject of his article, in spite of the title, is the MC of H. Show us where it has failed, and show us any reputable modern historian who does not base his description of past epochs upon the use of it.
GILMAC
25.2 A DIALOGUE
Comrade Spencer : Of course one of our troubles is that we have a theory of history but don't apply it to the coming of socialism. That is one important reason why so many people say we are not really Marxist.
Comrade Marks: On the contrary, I would say that we are the only Marxists. Not only do we understand the theories but we apply them and act in harmony with them.
S. Perhaps if I give you an example of what I mean you will show me where I am mistaken.
M. Yes, certainly.
S. Well now, take the MCH for example. It shows broadly that new attitudes to morality, politics, human nature, life in general, can only be explained from changes in the prevailing mode of production—the economic foundation of society. That within each past social system, conditions have arisen which have undermined the old ways of doing things; and made new ideas and attitudes necessary.
M. Ah! now, stop there. Just let me elaborate on that to make sure you understand what you are saying. Take Feudalism for example. -Production was mainly for local use, not for wide exchange. The obligation of the exploited peasant was fulfilled by him giving part of what he produced, or part of his labour-time, to the church and/or the local landowner. Morality helped to preserve this relationship, and many others, such as the peasant being tied to the land. In course of time, with changes in the method of production, etc., the local fair or markets became increasingly important in the lives of people and gradually there emerged a new class living by buying and selling goods— the merchant capitalist class; ultimately, of course, goods began not only to be sold for profit but produced for that purpose—the capitalist motive for production. This required a free working class and the old ways of doing things were broken down. Morality also was changed—for example, in its attitude to money-lending and producing things for profit. So we see, comrade, the MCH is proved to the hilt in its application to history. It is in fact our guide or key to its mysteries.
S. Splendid, comrade; a first class statement ; now would you do one thing for me— apply the same historical principle to the emergence of socialism.
M. Surely that is self-evident. With the developement of capitalism from small units to large scale production the contradiction between social production and private ownership becomes ever more glaring. The working class is compelled to organise to preserve itself, and ultimately to establish conditions of life in harmony with the new ways of doing things. The new productive forces today, hampered and restricted by capitalist relationships, will then operate freely to satisfy the needs of all. In order to achieve this new world, we must first get people to understand and want it. Until then capitalism and all the problems that go with it will remain.
S. Do you mean then that the new relationships between people can only emerge after the old ways have been completely swept away? That you cannot have the new relationships existing side by side with the old and becoming ultimately the dominant ones?
M. Exactly.
S. Then you have not applied the principle at all. In what you said about the emergence of capitalism from Feudalism you showed that new methods of production and new relationships evolved within the old feudal framework and that a commodity society emerged "within the womb of the old society ' as Marx put it. But when you come to socialism you throw this overboard and assert that the new mode of production cannot emerge within the old society. Earlier you showed that new moral attitudes arose and triumphed as a result of the needs of a new economic class, with their method of doing things already existing and growing. Now you have dropped this; you haven't shown what new class has come on the scene, you haven't shown wdiat new mode of production they are initiating or representing. In fad, in every important aspect you have violated the principle you tvere supposed to be applying. How do you explain that?
M. What you don't understand, Comrade, is that whilst the revolution from feudalism to capitalism was a revolution from one property society to another, the socialist revolution is one from a property society to a non-propertied society. It should be obvious that whilst different kinds of property societies can co-exist, socialism, common-ownership, cannot exist within a private ownership world.
S. Be that as it may, the MCH. which you claimed you were applying, gives no historical precedent for the emergence of socialism as you see it coming .The only kind of change it describes or caters for is for a new social system to emerge within the womb of the old. I therefore conclude that you are not applying the MCH but have some other justification for your views.
M. But my justification is the MCH. We know that societies come and go. That in the past new revolutionary classes have emerged from the exploited in Society, and have revolutionised their world. Every day we see that the only solution to the problems is for the mode of production to become socialist. That, as in the past, the forces of production must be unleashed from their fetters, by the only exploited class left, the working class. I therefore conclude that the working class must organise to achieve the social revolution, the culmination of the class struggle: and you say that it violates the MCH. Comrade, I am afraid that you are very confused indeed.
S. I think we have reached stalemate here. I maintain that the MCH tells us how-societies have changed in past history and I say that our ideas of how the new society will emerge should be in harmony with the MCH if we claim to be Marxist. Socialism, if it is to emerge at all, will do so within the womb of capitalism. If not socialism,—then some other society. I can see no justification for the view that the new world will come as a result of people making a sudden break with the old.
M. Now don't misunderstand me, comrade. The fact that the change from the capitalist to the socialist mode of production is sudden, does not mean that the process of maturing of people's ideas towards socialism is not a gradual process. Surely the existence of the S.P. shows that the changes in the ideas of more and more people is a lengthy process. When we have the majority on our side, however, the qualitative change takes place, the revolution in the mode of production. This idea of quantity-quality change is completely Marxian as you must surely know. It is in that sense that Socialism matures in the womb of the old society—no other.
S. But if we explain people's present attitudes and ideas as appropriate to the kind of conditions they live in, it is only right to think that ideas can only change as institutions change and institutions change as ideal change. But you a'e saying that capitalism will remain fundamentally unchanged until we get socialism and in spite of this, people's ideas will change fundamentally before we get socialism. Surely this is a separation of thought and action that racial hatreds and nationalism from the existence of society organised along private property lines in which groups struggle and compete for a place in the sun. These attitudes we say must be expected where capitalism exists. This applies to those attitudes and a host of others. Now, comrade, you are saying in the next breath that you can keep the social system that produces these attitudes, and within that system (which depends for its existence on those attitudes) have a vast mass of people with the socialist outlook. Surely you cannot maintain that, with capitalist conditions as they are, you can have a vast socialist movement.
M. I'll go this far with you, comrade. In my opinion capitalist development has a long way to go before we get a socialist working-class, although I'm quite certain the position I take up is fundamentally sound although you may be able to criticise superficially here and there.
S. Well comrade, that really begs the question. Anyway we will continue it an other time. OPTIMUS
25.3 NOTES ON CRISES 3

What can be said of all underconsumption theories, past and present, is that because they make an abstract separation of production from consumption and supply from demand, they are unable to give an adequate explanation of crises. 1 o put it another way, the underconsumption theorists see society essentially from the standpoint of consumption, and fail to see that the consuming power of society is subordinated to a form of income distribution generated by a particular set of social relations called capitalism. That is why the under-consumption theory tends to disregard the fact that in the relationship between production and consumption, it is consumption which plays a subordinate role.
Recent trends in economic theory emphasises, however, the primacy of supply over demand and the precedence of conditions of production over conditions of distribution as a prerequisite for any realistic analysis of present day society. Indeed this 'recent trend' sees "Market demand" and "consumers' choice" not in unreal abstraction but as factors which stand in a dependent relationship to production. So while a subjective theory of value—whose underlying assumptions rest on a pain/pleasure principle—might still be entrenched in the citadels of academic teaching, its inability to explain the significance and movement of economic events is generally recognised.
One other point might be made in passing; that the advocates of naive under-consumption theories put themselves into something of a dilemma. If it is true that there is insufficient purchasing power generated to buy back the goods which have been produced, then it follows that lack of effective demand must be a characteristic feature of the economic situation. The most significant question then to ask is not how crises start, but how it can ever be possible for booms to begin?
While Marx recognised the conflict between the productive powers of capitalist society and the distribution of its products, for him it was but an aspect of the more basic conflict between the productive forces and the productive relations of copitalism. It was in the detailed analysis of this basic conflict of capitalism that Marx sought to discover the prime agencies which bring capitalist production into crisis.
That is why Marx never treated crises in terms of supply and demand, i.e., productive output and aggregate consuming power. For him these were merely a facet of a many-sided economic situation. To view them as the whole would give a partial and distorted picture of the conditions which bring about crises. While a deficit of market demand stresses the antagonistic relations of production and consumption in capitalism, it cannot explain them. It can only serve as an expression of the underlying conflict of productive class relations. Because the under-sumptionists fail to see this they mistake the sympton for the disease; they fail to see that relative over-production merely reveals, and does not initiate, a rupture in the normal process of capitalist production.
But, it may be objected, surely consumption cannot be disregarded, no matter what form of society it is? Even capitalism cannot be based on production per se? It is true, of course, that the aim and end of all production must be the appropriation of use values, and capitalist society is no exception to the rule. Yet it is true to say that capitalism is so constituted that while of necessity it must produce use values, its motive for production is exchange value. This antithesis between use value and exchange value is its basic contradiction.
Let us see how it works out in practice. Capitalism being a profit-motivated society, any sharp fall in profit expectation evokes a general reaction from capital investors in the form of the curtailment of investment, and hence production; as a result the rate and flow of capital accumulation is choked off. When this is of sufficient magnitude, crisis conditions emerge. Because capitalism is a profit-extracting system, the rate of profit has a vital connection with the rate of capitalist accumulation. If there is a profit incentive, then capital accumulation will expand; and consequently production. If there is no profit incentive, then accumulation will contract, and production also.
The requirements of capital accumulation set, then, limits of expansion of the Droductive apparatus. Not because of lack of productive labour, or exhaustion of economic resources, but due to its need to inhibit any encroachment on capital funds as the result of a decline in the rate of profit. It is when investment has outrun any further profitable utilization of the existing technical and productive methods on a sufficient scale that crises conditions emerge.
Again, because capitalism is not a system based upon production for consciously designed social ends, but for profit extraction, it also sets limits to the level of employment and the size of the pay rolls, i.e., purchasing power. The expansion and contraction of production (whether it be violent as in booms and slumps or only the incidental fluctuations of industry) is not regulated by changes in purchasing power, but changes in purchasing power are themselves the result of the inherent compulsions of capitalism—its own law of motion. Capitalism does not then produce too much or too little purchasing power even though a surface view seems to indicate it. In actual fact, the way capitalism generates aggregate purchasing power at particular times is subordinated to the essential requirements of its economy. (The consumption of the capitalist class will be dealt with later in this respect, but it does not invalidate or seriously qualify what has been said).
Capitalists will strongly react to adverse changes in the rate of profit, and curtailment of investment is one of the ways of compensating for this. Curtailed production means not that too much wealth has been produced, but too much capital. Capital has become temporarily redundant and with it wage labour as exploitable material. It is here that the reverse side of the picture comes into view—decline in employment and reduction in pay roll. Not because nature is niggardly and population presses hard on the means of subsistence, but because the volume of investment is inconsistent with profit expectation. "The real barrier of capitalist p-ocluc-tion is capital itself."
At the peak of the boom, just when the powers of production seem capable of being geared to the absolute consuming requirements of society, a halt is called. Just as soon as the mass of producers are on the verge of a real improvement in their standards of living, they are denied the fruit of their efforts and the labour market is "glutted". Thus capitalism, in the way it functions, inhibits the progressive and uninterrupted development of the productive and technical forces of society, and consequently the continued and increasing improvement of living standards for the wealth producers. The loss in capital values and the decline in the ratio of constant to variable capital, i.e., allowing more primitive methods to become profitable again, are one of the necessary conditions for a boom.
Capitalism is, then, a system of organised scarcity and must remain so. Only in this sense can it be said that capitalism has its font in underconsumption an underconsumption which is not inconsistent with, but inseparable from, and indispensible for, its continuance.
All this, however, has little revelance to underconsumption theories. Underconsumption theory does not critically examine the structure of productive class relations, but contents itself with an analysis of what it thinks is a flaw in the distributing mechanism of the present order. Just as crises are the result of deficient purchasing power, so they can be cured by making good that deficit in some way or other. An examination of the claims made by Hobson, Keynes and the "Welfare" economists would, at the present, take us too far from the subject. What can be said is that their beliefs are rooted in the fiction that capitalism is a productive system motivated by social ends.
In the light of what has been said, one cannot fit Marx's views on crises into any past or present underconsumption theories. The one passage which might be given an underconsumptionist twist is that which occurs when, criticising the view that shortage of capital causes crises, he interpolates with the remarks : "The last cause of all real crises remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared with the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit". (Vol. 3).
But against this must be noted all that he said about crisis elsewhere. Finally, there is his explicit repudiation of Rodbertus' view that crises are caused by lack of paying consumption :— "It is purely a tautology to say that crisis are caused by the scarcity of solvent consumers, or of a paying consumption. The capitalist mode of production does not know any other mode of consumption but a paying one, except that of the pauper or of the ' thief '. If any commodities are unsaleable it means that no solvent purchasers have been found for them, m other words, consumers (whether commodities are bought in the last instance for productive or individual consumption). But if one were to clothe this tautology with a semblance of profounder justification by saying that the working class receive too small a portion of their own product and the evil could be remedied by giving them a larger share of it, or by raising wages, we should reply that crises are always preceded by a period in which wages rise generally and the working class actually get a larger share of the annual product intended for consumption. From the advocates of simple ( !) common sense such a period should remove a crisis. It seems, then, that capitalist production comprises certain conditions which are independent of good or bad will and permit the working class to enjoy that relative prosperity only momentarily, and at that always as a harbinger of a coming crisis." (Vol. 2, pp. 475-6).
There are other factors bound up with the emergence of crises, i.e., existing wage levels, the extent of unemployment and its influence as a competitive force on the labour market, also the extent to which new sources of cheap labour can be tapped. These will be dealt with later.
Finally, of the general propositions in respect of the cause of crises, there are the two most important which have not yet been mentioned, "the anarchy of production" and "the disproportionality of production". With out relating all that has been said to these two fundamental features of capitalism, an adequate understanding of crises is impossible.
In fact, one can go so far as to say that, whatever the type of crisis that emerges, it can be shown to be, in one way or other, an aspect of disproportionality. But an examination of these two features of capitalist production will have to be left to the nextissue. E.W.

25.4 EDITORIAL-
With this issue, FORUM enters upon its third year of life. It.is better now, we feel, than it has ever been. But there is still room for much improvement—and here you can help. We need more articles on such things as better public speaking, where speakers can hand on hints and tips that they have found useful to other speakers; new scientific developments of interest to Socialists; notices of books which members think may be useful to Socialists for one reason or another; and so on. We also want more articles from young comrades, and those who have not written before. All except one of the contributors this month is already a contributor to the S.S., and we want to encourage new writers to come out of hiding. Writing for FORUM can be excellent practice for writing in the S.S. Members can also help to make FORUM fulfil its proper function by reading it thoroughly and by criticising what they read in writing, by sending letters in to us about it. FORUM can be either a help or a hindrance to the work of the Party. It all depends on the kind of support it gets from Party members in general. With the right kind of support from members and branches, FORUM can be one of the best things the Party has ever done.
25.5 IMPROVING THE SOCIALIST CASE
11 the Declaration of Principles
This is the first of a series of four articles, the purpose of which is to clarify and collate some of the criticism that has been made by members of its formal principles and their implications. The first two articles will be a detailed critical examination of the D. of P. itself; the third will be a discussion of what the function of a socialist party involves; and, finally, some indication will be given of possible alternatives to the present principles.
25.5.1 Clause 1
The Party provides, in its pamphlet Principles and Policy, " an explanation, as simple as possible, of our Declaration of Principles." The first clause deals with the basis of Capitalism, and is an application of the M.C.H. Its analysis of society is a materialist analysis. It starts with what it considers to be the basis (private owership of the means of living) and builds the superstructure (everything else) upon it. For example, " the possession of the means of living by a class sets up the wages system . . . sets up the whole range of relationships between employer and employed . . ." Even commodities are a " striking characteristic of the present social system (that) arises out of this basic property condition." (p-8)
The quarrel with this kind of explanation is that it implies a wrong conception of what a social system is. Society is not a pyramid built upon a particular form of ownership of means of living, nor indeed it is built upon any other basis. It is an organism, which means that the parts of which it is composed are interdependent upon each other, and that they are to be understood only in relation to the whole.
Admittedly this indicates that an understanding of society is a rather more complex matter than Clause 1 makes it. It is as well to remember, however, that the oversimplified " this arises out of that " kind of explanation makes us, not society itself, simple. Having made a faulty diagnosis we prescribe a wrong remedy—we say that only the basis, not the whole social fabric, is the concern of the Socialist Revolution.
25.5.2 Clause 2
Men cannot witness the strengthening of the barrier which shuts them ever more completely out from the circle of luxury, leisure and comfort without becoming more clearly conscious of the class division." (p. 1 3 my italics)
This makes the growth of class consciousness dependent on the class division becoming more marked. It is a dangerous argument for socialists to use, because the class division has only to remain the same or to narrow and that " incentive to Socialism disappears. This type of propaganda creates the impression that people should resent being shut out from the " circle of luxury, leisure and comfort ", i.e. should resent not being capitalists. It is extremely doubtful whether " becoming more clearly conscious of the class division " has very much to do with becoming a socialist. A worker may realise how different his lot is from that of the capitalist, but, lacking knowledge of and desire for Socialism, he may do nothing to change these social relationships.
The pamphlet's explanation of this clause concludes
" So the class struggle, as time goes on, assumes a different aspect, in strict correspondence with the changing visage of capitalism. When the capitalist class stood as revolutionaries at the inception of the capitalist system, their victory was essential to further progress. But when they had overgrown the reactionary system of the period and etablished a new social system, that system in its turn, and the class who ruled under it, became reactionary.
And as this reactionary character has become more pronounced, as the system and the class have become a greater clog to progress and more fruitful of social injury, so the character of the class struggle becomes revolutionary. While the fight for the possession of the wealth pro- ' duced under the system is not less bitterly maintained, the class struggle finds its highest expression in the movement for the overthrow of the capitalist system of society, and the establishment of a new system in which economic interests will be in harmony.
This, then, is the true meaning of our statement that there exists a class struggle in society. It is a struggle on the one side to maintain and on the other side to abolish a social system." (p. 13)

As the capitalist system and class become " more reactionary ", so the class struggle becomes " more revolutionary ", and ;n support of this contention we are asked to consider the change from feudalism to capitalism. This popular comparison is a fruitful source of error. Note :
1.Although the class struggle is supposed to change as capitalism changes, it is also the Party case that capitalism doesn't basically changed. [" The present base started in essentially the same form that it now possesses, and it must retain that form until it finishes its career." (p.24)]. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to argue that the class struggle doesn't basically change?
2.That the capitalist class stood as revolutionaries to the reactionary system (feudalism) is strictly true—but they qrilp became the capitalist class to the extent that feudal relations were superseded. The members of this revolutionary movement, as of all revolutionary movements, derived their status from the new society, not the old.
3.The working class as such do rot stand as revolutionaries to the reactionary system of capitalism—they are constituted as the working class only in relation to that system and within it.
4.The " clog to progress " referred to must be progress to classless society. In order to make the working class the " progressives " the pamphlet changes the character of the class struggle and the fight for possee-sion of wealth becomes the fight to overthrow the system.
5.If the " true meaning " of the class struggle is that the contestants are for and against capitalism, it follows that workers are socialists and capitalists are anti-socialists. In reality, most workers support capitalism, whereas a capitalist has been known to be a .socialist. This is because there are two struggles, one an economic struggle between capitalists and workers in regard to the running of capitalism, and the other a struggle of ideas in regard to the establishment of Socialism.
25.5.3 Clause 4
Why the assertion that " the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom" ? Has the other class already achieved its freedom, or does the clause refer only to subject classes? The pamphlet does not enlighten us. Perhaps we should start with another line of questioning. Why is " the emancipation of the working class " made the starting point? To what extent is all mankind involved?
From the standpoint of the Party's object, we might reasonably infer that working-class emancipation is only a part of a larger whole,
namely the emancipation of all mankind. But -then we are set another riddle : why is the part, not the whole, made the object? The only satisfactory explanation seems to be that the Party is determined to present its case as an appeal to the working class. The reason for making the distinction between working-class emancipation and all mankind's emancipation is that the former is supposed to be an immediate object, and the latter a consequence and therefore a more remote object. Whenever an object is divided in such a way (as, for example, into lower and higher stages) it is because the higher is thought to be " too Utopian ", " too extreme ", " impracticable ".
The reasoning goes something like this: " What is the best way to interest people in Socialism? Answer—talk to them in their own language, see things from their angle. Never mind that this is capitalist language and a class angle. Take advantage of that—make it a class appeal. Leave the trickier part about a new society and all men being equal until later ".
Probably few members would agree tnat they reason in this way. That is not the point. We have to discover the reasoning behind the D. of P. Today, fifty years after it was written, we can detect, if we can bear to look, just how far we have left it behind. That we have not left it farther behind pays a great tribute to the farsightedness of its authors. It must be remembered that the D. of P. was written prior to the existence of any real socialist organisation. This helps to account for the fact that Clause 4 is written from the working-class standpoint (which pertains to the present) rather than from the all-mankind standpoint (which pertains to Socialism). We can change this emphasis by putting " the emancipation of all mankind " in its rightful place—as the prime object.
(to be continued)
S.R.P.
25.6 REFLECTIONS ON THE GROWTH OF THE SOCIALIST IDEA
In reflecting on history in general and the changes that have taken place in forms of society, most of us find no difficulty in following those changing forms in the field of production and general economics together with the political 'set up' that accompanied them and indeed 'fathered' the next change in economic change.
We begin to suffer with blurred vision, however, when we begin to analyse the question of Ideas and the world of philosophy in relation to the world of action, and S.R.P. demonstrates this quite well in his query on the importance or otherwise of the cut and dried and neatly parcelled formula of the M.C.H. so beloved of the orthodox Marxist. His critism is timely and comes at an opportune moment when so many ideas prevailing in the minds of members are being given air in FORUM.
Socialists are of course, for the moment, theorists; they cannot be otherwise in a world not yet given over to applied socialism, and their theories belong to the world of Ideas. // and where Socialism becomes a fact then it will be the result of the acceptance of the Idea. Ideas—when all is said about them— cannot exist in a vacuum—they must have soil in which to grow, and the soil is the world of men and women, together with the accompanying environment.
The Socialist Idea as we now know it is an old-fashioned plant and has gone through various stages of growth. If we care to glance at the growth of the Socialist Idea we should begin with early forms that derived nourishment from ethical sources, both pagan and christian. Virgil yearns for a return to the way of life of primitive communism when "no fences parted fields, no bounds divided acres of litigous grounds but all was common. Together with Seneca and Josephus and other philosophers of nature, the early Christian thinkers interpreted the inequalities of their age as symbolical with the mythology of Cain and Abel—Cain personifying the man of possessions, and Abel the shepherd exploiting the pastures of the earth while occupying none.
The advent of Christianity in an organized manner, representing a combination of Greek philosop'hy and Jewish monotheistic ethics, expressed also a form of communist doctrine that appealed to the poor. Paul is quoted as saying "all were of one heart, neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own but that they held all things in common."
This early ethical doctrine of equalitar-ianism can be traced through to the Middle Ages and up to the present time. John Ball in the 14th century denounced the corruntion of the Church as being the chief villain responsible for the economic position of the peasantry in such speeches as the following : "My good people, things cannot go well in

England until all goods are held in common . . . and we shall all be equal . . . they have handsome manners while we must brave the rain and wind in the fields and it is from our labour that they get the means to support their pomp." Ball was hanged for his pains.
Thomas More in the 16th century, preached the evils of money :
"Money is the root of all evil. All crime would die if money perished. Attempts at palliation by reform measures must lead to nought. 77ie only remedy is a complete
change of the rvhole social system." (our italics).
Objections may be raised at referring to anything outside the scientific socialism, based on Marxist materialism, being called socialism. These early teachings were sincere attempts at alleviating distress and called upon social participation to bring it about; in that sense they were socialistic. Let us never forget in the course of our modern teaching with its highly scientific explanations and jargon-ridden formulae, that these early reformers were men of ideas acutely "tuned in" to their environment. What they did is what socialists are doing to-day. Our socialism is really very simply a better world for humanity to live in with the ending of exploitation.
It appears, therefore, as S.R.P. says, that it is socialist ideas and action arising from them that will bring about Socialism—always bearing in mind that ideas must have the material world in which to grow.
W. BRAIN
25.7 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
7—The Socialist Mavement (continued)
The expansion of human knowledge is marked by the establishment, in one field after another , of 'laws' which express predictable, deterministic relations, in place of freedom, choice, chance, will or wish: spirits which please themselves are replaced by necessity which can't. The elucidation of 'law' in social relationships, and in the evolution of these relationships (history), is Marx' contribution to sociology. In this field, more particularly than in others, the induction of the 'laws' which integrate facts or phenomena reflects the actual integrative processes of the objective social world. Before the two-fold character of the commodity (usefulness and value) could be clearly distinguished in theory, the actual polarisation between commodities and money had had to be completed socially, out of the various forms of exchange in which, in earlier times, these elements had been fused, more or less. Before labour-power could be clearly distinguished from labour, the commodity form of labour-power had had to become the sole and universal form, oat of the mixed and intermediate forms of earlier times. Before abstract homogeneous labour could be perceived as the substance of value, the multiple character of craftman's labour (say, in making shoes from start to finish) had had to be reduced, by manufacture, into the simpler operations of push and pull.
This close correspondence between the philosophical and the social integrations is equally aparent in Marx's wider application of labour theory to history in general, by which he lays bare (see Prefaces to 'Capital') the "law of motion of modern society", dis-
covers " the natural laws of its movement viewed as "a process of natural history", shows "the necessity of successive determinate orders" governed by laws "independent of human will", "tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results", and states explicitly in ' Capital ' that " the absolute, general law of capitalist development is the increased productivity of labour", and implicitly ('German Id. , 'Crit. of Polit.' Ec, etc.) that the dynamic if history is the creative character of human labour.
These philosophical integrations reflect the reduction of class struggles, within the unified nation State, to a simple dichotomy. But they also reflect the incompleteness of the social integration, both within the physiology of society (class struggle), and in the disarticulate anatomy (conflict of national powers). Marx reflects the dichotomy, even to the polarisation of the social scientist and the political platform Communist whose eyes have seen the glory and the terrible swift sword. Thus, history is "governed by laws independent of human will", but "the time has come to change it". Or again, "the dissolution of old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of old conditions", but "sooner or later the relations of production come into conflict with the forces of production". The social scientist who warns us that he uses the terms landlord and capitalist only as "personifications of economic categories" reverts, as political Communist, to the personalising of social processes : "the whole history of mankind . . . has been a history of class struggles"; or (in determining the 'normal' working day) "an antinomy results wich only force can decide "; and the grand sum ot social intergations, Socialism, is reduced, for the Communist, to Dictatorship.
The personalising of social forces disintegrates the social science whose materialist determinism is made possible only by its resolving of personal relations into statistical regularities (institutions). This still remains the weakness of the Socialist movement, but irreversible enlargement of the social processes which in Marx' time were writ smaller (the further depersonalising of capital, out of accumulation; further diffusion of equality, from mass of use-values), re-shapes the social determinants of socialist thinking. The Dictatorship in the Manifesto of 1 848 does not appear in the Manifesto of 1905; counter-revolutionary violence is reduced from a probability to a hypothesis; and now even the hypothesis is challenged, as a concept of revolution emerges which does not have to adjudicate between 51 % and the last Hottentot, or between snowball and avalanche. The Socialist movement conceives the revolution first as coercive, then as legal, and from then on as social; from then on also it begins to conceive the. act as a process.
Every advance in science is a verbal achievement, because the homespun language of everyday life lacks the precision which science requires. The Socialist movement is therefore a struggle also for the verbal determinante of socialist thinking. We lack the terms for expressing the metabolism which digests into institutions the plankton of artifactually-determined daily acts, and the osmotic function of institutions which filter varying activity into common outlook.
Because we cannot hold in sharp verbal focus the idea that the substance of mind (beneath the thin cortex which deduces) is the unconscious induction from the miniitiee 01 activity, we still think of thinking as haying " independence " (and therefore as " reacting ", and therefore at that point "decisive "), and still do not see activity as the substance of society, and that since activity is determined by the things acted on and with, the roots or growing points of society are the products of production. Our political language has moved from the picto-graphic to the hieroglyphic, but hardly yet to the alphabetic; thus, while history with us is no longer a chaos of events self-determined or accidental, our determinant categories are still " class relations " and " ideas " and " modes of production ", which are intermediate categories, distinctively shaped crystals of the same molecules and not themselves " related ", but undergoing concurrent molecular change with the continuous creation of atoms (artifacts). And the effort at reduction to a new simplicity cannot be wavqd aside as word-play, for we deny our own thesis if we do not accept our present controversies as historically determined and therefore as socially portentous.
Meanwhile, differences of opinion, as on the question whether " each society has its own laws of economic development ", are largely verbal, classificatory. Once it is understood that such a view is justified within a given taxonomy, it need not conflict with the effort to raise generalisation to another level, as an enlargement of thought which enables us to see not only the dynamic effects, within Capitalism, of the profusion (and hence diffusion) of use-values, but to see this also as a particular capitalist) form of a general trend of social evolution; that is, to see the movement towards Socialism as inhering in the act of production.
Capitalism repeats in another plane the theme of earlier class societies where, in each case, it is the proliferation of products which compels the droplet changes in detailed process which coalesce into new techniques which integrate into new modes of production, concurrently precipitating new classes and dissolving old ones, as a diverted stream may ruin some and enrich others. The settled three-field economy of Feudalism, as compared with the locust nomadism of communist tribes, raised the output of trading surpluses whose accretion transformed feudal society " economically ", " socially " and " ideologically " step by step and hand in hand, as accretion of capital does to-day. The world-wide Feudal or Staende relations were not abolished by decree, but dissolved century-slow in crucibles of silver.
Not only does the dynamic of Capitalism (the solvent use-value whose diffusion seeps in and under the " iron laws " of value) repeat, in its special way, the general law of social evolution (diffusion of artefacts), but its movement has the same general direction—the socialising of personal power and privilege. The extrinsic, personal character of feudal tithe and tribute is replaced by the instrinsic, impersonal character of contractual exploitation; status, formerly based on personal heredity, becomes more and more an incident of social function; and the more anonymous, less personally autocratic mien of power under Capitalism than under Feudalism stands out in even further contrast with the intensely personal nature of social relations in still earlier times. For it is essentially the dearth of artefacts, the uncushioned nakedness, the rudimentary thinness of social connective tissue, which gives to primitive society the animistic and personal character of social relations and institutions, where even the elemental qualities of person (age and sex) have social potency, and every person, even to his name and shadow, is rich with majesty and mystery and magic.
The commodity is the cell unit of Capitalism, and the changes in its organic composition—shrinking of the value nucleus relative to the mass of its continuum, use —affects the whole body of Capitalism.by attenuation of the value relations between men. This effect is reinforced by the progressive taxation which moderates differences in final income (that is, evens out the distribution of value itself) in order to maintain the administrative apparatus of Capitalism, the political connective tissues and the sinews of war. To call this State apparatus the property of the capitalist class is a misnomer which reflects our personalised attitude to social forms and process. If it is property at all, it is social property, its operation delegated : the very size and ubiquity of the apparatus compelling the delegation which diffuses power and subordinates privilege to function.
(to be continued) F. EVANS
25.8 HEAD OFFICE MEETINGS

At the A.G.M. last year Com. Kersley and myself pleaded for the continuation of the Sunday evening lectures at H.O. and we were warmly supported in our proposals that we should use H.O. for this purpose every Sunday evening, instead of alternate Sundays. We further suggested that the meetings should start at 7 p.m. instead of being advertised for 7.30 and eventually starting at 8 p.m. or later. What was the result of this? Last year was a fiasco in this respect. A few poorly attended meetings were half heartedly started, and the rest were abandoned. The attitude has become—why go to H.O. Sunday evening if it is so uncertain whether there will be a meeting on.
If we are going to succeed in the lecture form of propaganda— it must be continuous. In pre-war days I used to go to the Doughty St. discussions because they were continuous, and one could rely on there being a meeting as arranged.. Every Summer the titles of the winter meetings should be arranged—but this is never done. Nobody knows anything about them until the night of the meeting—yet other organisations can and do arrange lists of winter meetings during the Summer months. I have invitations to give lectures to various organisations and associations as far ahead as next May, and lists of these fixtures will be sent to members concerned.
We have all heard the moan about meetings starting at 7 p.m.—members can't get there in time. Strange enough they can always get to Dennison House to start at 7 p.m. In this case we have to be out by 10 p.m., yet with premises of our own we have to hire Dennison House to hold a meeting to talk to a few party members— rather an expensive adventure.
While in a grumbling mood, it is deplorable how some party members spend (or waste) most of their time in attacking other party members. I scarcely give a lecture or write an article in the 5.S.I or Forum, that is not the target of some malicious attack, usually by someone who is almost unacquainted with the aspect of the subject. If the critism was helpful, it wouldn't matter— but it mostly takes the form of "you don't know what you are talking about, all your facts are wrong and you ought not to be in the party."
If members would blow off their steam against our opponents, instead of arguing so fiercely against one another, we might get somewhere. If we were to centre our attention more on converting the unconverted, and discussing with those who are not so familiar with the party's case out persuasive efforts should reap better reward. It is our task to spread Socialist ideas, to convince those who are not yet socialists. Let us concentrate more on this objective. H. JARVIS

26. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B
No. 26 November 1954

26.1 SOCIALISM - OR CLAUSE 6?
Before I set out my criticisms of the Declaration of Principles, as requested by the resolution moved and earned at the meeting of party members held at the Holborn Hall on Sunday, September 12th. there are several things I wish to make clear.
For the benefit of those members who like myself were unable to se present at the meeting the resolution referred to was: —
" THAT THE E.C. CALL UPON COMRADE TURNER TO PUT IN WRITING HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, AND THE E.C. CONSIDER WHETHER IT COMES WITHIN RULE 33."
26.1.1 Untrue Statements
It- would appear from this resolution that the members who voted in favour of it wanted me to place my criticisms of the Declaration of Principles in order to see whether a charge of action detrimental to the interests of the party could be preferred. To put it mildly this is a very shabby trick, some might even think that it is sharp practice. I should have thought that the only reason for requesting a member to put his views in writing would be for those views to become the grounds for discussion, to adopt those views if considered correct or to put him right if the views are considered incorrect. I can only hope that most members were unaware of this distasteful purpose of this resolution.
It has been said by a number of members that I am opposed to the party, that I am campaigning within the party in order to disrupt it and that I do not put the Socialist case when I am on the platform. May I state at once that not one of these statements is true. If the members who have made these statements really believe them to be true why have they riot used the machinery of the
party which exists in order to dea. with members who are deemed to have acted in a manner which is considered detrimental to the interests of the party? These accusations must be considered irresponsible unless the members who make them back them up in the manner laid down in the rule book. In case there are members who may be thinking " that where there is smoke there must be fire ", I must state my position. I hold that Socialism alone is the solution to the many problems that vex society today.
By Socialism I mean a universal system of society, or way of living, in which no human being, or group of people, stands in a privileged position to others. No group of people will own the means of production, nor will they own things that, will be produced. All things will be held in common and all people will have access to things according to their needs and all people will contribute to society according to their. abilities. From the standpoint of sex groupings, neither sex will stand in a privileged position to the other. Racially no groupings of people will be privileged, nor stand with power over others. In snort, equality tvill be the thread running through tvety conceivable hitman relationship.
I hold with the Socialist Party that a person is a socialist who recognises the practicability and desirability of the above objective. I also hold with the Socialist Party that no other organisation in this country has Socialism, as I have outlined it, as its sole objective and therefore membership or support of these .other organisations is incompatible with Socialism. A perscn who claims to be a socialist cannot support war under any circumstances. Nor can a socialist organisation put forward reform programmes in. order to obtain members or get support on such programmes. There are of course quite a number of other issues with which I am in agreement with the party, but I think
I have enumerated enough to eiove my fitness to retain my membership.
26.1.2 The Object
The criticisms I have of the Declaration of Principles are where, in my opinion, they depart from the objective as set aut above. To put it another way, my criticisms are not from the standpoint of an anti-socialist, nor are they criticisms of a nosi-sociahst, nor arc I' saying that the party is non-socialist, bu'. I am saying thai, in ny opinion .the Socialist Party could be more socialist in its message to people than it has been during the past fifty years. As far as this contribution of my criticisms is concerned I propose to restrict it to those clauses which deal with action. My criticisms of these, clauses spring from my conception of Socialism as staled above and which, to the best of my belief, would be agreed to by most, if not all members. 3 repeat Socialism means to me a universal system of society in which all human beings stand equally to each other, where all privilege and pow'er of people over other people no longer exists.
26.1.3 Clause Six
My major criticism of this principle is in two parts. The first deals with the words " the working class must organise " in relation to the objective. If the objective \? to establish Socialism then only socialists can organise for its establishment, whether these socialists in other fields are workers or capitalists, men or women, American, British. German, etc., black or yellow, is quite irrelevant. The test of being a socialist is solely that oi recognising the practicability and desirability of Socialism and of the desire to work for its establishment. I hold that the economic classification, worker or capitalist, plays no part in rendering the people wrho qualify under the above test fit or unfit for organising for Socialism. If, of course, we hold that only wage and salary workers stand to gain by the establishment of Socialism, then it is understandable why ihe appeal is directed to the working class. But if this is the reason why the appeal is directed exclusively to workers then we are at variance with ihe proposition that Socialism means the emancipation of ALL MANKIND.
The second part of my criticism of this principle is where it states that " conquest of powers of government national and local in order that this machinery including' 'the armed forces of the nation may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation ". All governments and their powers exist to perpetuate privilege in one form or another. All. forms of privilege carry with them the machinery io maintain the privilege and this machinery is coercive. If we mean by Socialism the emancipation of all mankind, then such an emancipation cannot be achieved by coercion. It can only be brought about iby mankind as a; whole understanding and wanting this emancipation.
26.1.4 Agent of Emancipation
We cannot convert instruments of oppression into agents of emancipation. The on-y agent of emancipation of which I am aware is men and women armed with knowledge and desire of Socialism, not soldiers, airmen and policemen armed with bombs, guns and truncheons, nor statesmen armed with. lies. We could, however, capture control of the machinery of government including the armed forces and shift oppression from one set of people to another, but if this is not what we want then why retain a clause which makes it appear that we do. Socialists rely upon the socialist understanding of. people everywhere in order to make social equality a living reality. Coercion is the doctrine of those who despair of others ever undemanding. We cannot rely upon both understanding and coercion.
The whole of the Declaration of Principles leads up to the objective contained in Clause 6, namely that the working class must consciously capture control of the machinery of government. I want to draw your attention to what this phrase is actually postulating; it must mean that the governmental machinery including the armed forces is a constant institution and yet the ideas of the overwhelming majority of people will have so changed that they no longer want nations, classes, nor antagonisms.
26.1.5 Fundamentals of Capitalism
Are we to understand that the fundamentals of capitalism,- including the state machinery, will remain the same as in 1904 and yet changes will take place in people's ideas so revolutionary in character as to want a system of society for which there is no -historical precedent? How will these ideas be changed? This question cannot be answered on the postulates of Clause 6. The governmental machinery is a fundamental of privileged society. In the language of the Declaration of' Principles, it enables the capitalists to conserve the monopoly of the v~.'ea!th taken from-the workers. But so are the ideas of people fundamental to society, that is why we state that the majority of people must hold ideas of Socialism in order to establish it.
It would appear from the Declaration of Principles generally and Clause 6 in particular that there is no connection between ideas of people and the other factors of capitalism, bearing in mind that the other factors remain . fundamentally unchanged but the ideas pf people will, change revoluticnarily. This contradiction shows itself in our statements jn the Socialist Standard and on the platform on the subject of Clause 6.
A very small number of propagandists argue we would use the state machine against capitalists and their supporters. A larger number argue that we would use the state machine to pass the first and last law " the abolition of private property ". A few argue that we will capture the state in order to abolish it. . Every members of the party has at some time or. another heard these views expressed from the platform. One thing stands, out clearly from all these pronouncements that is that they do not take into account the dynamic character of ?cc

27. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B.
No. 27 December 1954

27.1 THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
8 – The Revolutionary Act
The view of history put forward in these articles is that social co-operative labour is the biological mode of existence of the human species; that society therefore is the organisation of the means of labour; and that the mainspring of social evolution is the specially creative character of that labour, which produces a surplus beyond what is necessary for mere survival and thus permits the creation of means of production, whose accumulation changes the organisation of the means of labour, that is, changes society.
Every act of labour creates history, and every product of labour modifies society. Social evolution is the procreation of artefacts. A productive act is mechanical, a displacement of matter, but social change has the kind of slow and integrated character which in the organic world we call growth. Out of accumulating products, society evolves slowly, continuously and wholly (simultaneously in all its parts).
We cannot deny this unity of society and continuity of history unless we abandon the labour theory of value which follows from it, but we may take exception to the more integrated form in which that view is expressed in these articles, and their application to our own times. We do not accept historical continuity, or organic unity, absolutely: history (we say) is punctuated by relative catastrophic changes (revolutions), and revolution is relatively a separate political act upon society. Thus for our own times it is urged that whatever the social changes that take place within capitalism the " fundamental " relationship of owner and non-owner, of worker and capitalist, remains unchanged, that this relationship cannot grow into the relationship of common ownership, but must be removed by surgical operation.
What is " fundamental '', however, is a matter of degree. It is useful and necessary to distinguish between what is more and what is less fundamental, and to accept that what is more fundamental changes more slowly than what is less. But a more fundamental relationship is only a larger aggregation of smaller component relationships, and the larger, more fundamental change is only the sum of the smaller changes. To exempt the " fundamental " relationship from continuous evoluttion is to abandon materialism in favour of the " decisive idea ", to abandon unity and continuity in favour of discontinuity and separation of parts. The class relationships of the past, and the class struggle to-day, are facts, but the elevation of class struggle to the position of social dynamic, and the vehemence with which class relationships are held to be immune from evolution, only mean that socialist theory has not yet cleaned up its Communist afterbirth.
27.1.1 Political Parties
History (as I see it) is accumulation of products, its starting point the act of production itself, which continuously creates more wealth out of less labour, thus compelling more and more equal diffusion of wealth as certainly as creation of heat is followed by its equal diffusion. As I see it, all history (including, of course, what is called prehistory), has been the continuous expansion of social equality, accelerated by capitalism and whose outcome (within our horizon) is " absolute " social equality, based oa " absolute " common ownership of the means of production. The evolution of class (privilege) society is the evolution of " value " and of the " universal equivalent " (money), and the evolution of classless society is the dissolution of that universal equivalent and its replacement by " need ". Where the Communist saw the State " withering away " only after the revolution I see it doing so now, as political parties and partisanship go the way of other forms of organised religion.
Society moves towards Socialism, and the socialist movement moves with it. Its last and most revolutionary act is the sloughing off of its Communism. The Party in .1 904 did not abandon violence when it jettisoned the barricade and the Dictatorship, but translated physical violence into intellectual and emotional (ideological) violence. It raised the concept of violence to a more civilised level, prelude to the final elimination which is now taking place, as the growth of socialist society becomes recognised and the myth of political revolution loses its hold. The last revolutionary act of the socialist movement is the abandonment of the revolution as an act and its resurrection as a process. This last revolutionary act is itself a process although, as natural son of 1 904, it momentarily repeats at its inception, in its attack upon the Party Principles, the violence of its ancestors. But neither this short-lived attack, nor any " opposition " to the Party, is the essence of this revolution. It recognises that whatever vestiges of Communism have been carried over into the D. of P., the social relationships which these principles summarise remain substantially with us. No statement, and no re-statement, can remain untarnished by time; no summary statement of history and society can be made which does not require interpretation, and which does not leave itself open to varieties of interpretation and to the development of its interpretation. Re-statement would be only a repetition of the old error—or rather, an anachronism turning into error what was in its time a work, of social inspiration. If we accept without cavilling, for a moment, that the S.P.G.B. broadly represents the type of local socialist movement, then the D. of P. is the last of all manifestoes. The revolutionary act which follows fifty swift years on its heels signalises the beginning of the absorption of the movement by society, of its identification with society—which is also the beginning, for the movement, of membership by identification with the socialist aim (Socialism) instead of by card and number. That is why, in the revolutionary act now begun, there is no talk of " forming another party ", but on the contrary a recognition that revolutionary kinship is (or is becoming) independent of particular party membership. This revolutionary act signifies integration, not schism, issuing both from the Party's own evolution and from the evolution of confluent tributaries outside the Party, as society itself becomes more socialist.
27.1.2 Socialist Action
This revolutionary act, as always, is a process, an orientation within and by the Party, continuing the outrageous bravado of those sketched in the September " Standard ", by which, as it grows, the Party exchanges identification with the working class for identification with society's incipient socialism. In propaganda activity it exchanges the dead horses of poverty and politics for the study of the evolution of the socialism which it sees taking place, and therefore with the study of Socialist society as a concrete way of living— not simply as an economy but as a culture. It does not attach itself to reforms, for none of them are socialist, but by exchanging the analysis of Socialist society for the analysis of capitalism it reconciles the revolutionary socialist aim with the fact that reform is the mode of evolution of society. By exchanging, for exposure of the limitations of reforms, the clarification of their socialist direction, by seeking out and plugging their socialist-leaning element, it extends the horizon of men and movements without slapping them down. By providing, in the analysis of Socialist society, a focal point which is valid in terms of the nature of society, the nature of history and the nature of men, it provides a magnetic current which draws the disparate partial aims of men towards the final issue which is " what no one wills "—Socialism. The revolutionary act is one which exchanges the nugatory policy of sympathetic opposition to reforms for the positive function of socialist participation in the ordinary affairs of ordinary men, catalysing and precipitating the Socialism which society necessarily generates.
While we cling to our kingship of a puddle, there are seven seas of socialist propaganda to be navigated, for which we have no compass, oceans of social research misnng the socialist point by a hairsbreadth while, and because, we stay outside it. And because we stay outside society, in opposition to it, we provide an asylum for the political delinquent, for chips on shoulders, for the Communist who wants a better cosh, for the renegade Christian who threatens Hell-fire in increasing misery and imminent destruction. But it is rising standards which make possible the vision of higher standards, and generates the moral indignation which is the driving force of men and movements. It is the socialist direction of past and present which makes Socialism conceivable. The minor, residual, power of propaganda to hasten its " completion " lies wholly in seeing and proclaiming the direction of history, which capitalism continues, and this depends on the study of socialist civilisation, which is the study of what makes men tick and history move.
The vigour and imagination of one member, particularly, has held our attention to the need for this discussion. One member, particularly, has justified it in terms of our own materialist and labour theory. But in these two cases, as in all the others, it is a Party product, a Party phenomenon; it is the Party becoming more socialist. It is Socialism growing. However right or wrong individual contributions may be, there is no going back. History is a sum : it moves only one way.
FRANK EVANS
THE END
27.2 THE RESPECTABLE IDEALIST
S.R.P's " Critique of Historical Materialism " brought to light two points. I. That S.R.P. has never understood Historical Materialism. 2. That by virtue of his idealism, S.R.P. is not competent to criticise it.
That he has never understood it is obvious. He poses the " Which came first, the chicken or the egg? " problem in the guise of which came first, the idea or the material world. He prefers that the egg came first and imagines that the M.C.H. claimed that it was the chicken. He is the nebulous romantic looking for causes which are not also effects, and effects which are not also causes. In short he has started on the metaphysical road which leads to an ultimate cause . . . God.
Compare S.R.P.'s meaning, " In the beginning there was the idea." with that of Genesis, " In the beginning was the word."
It may not be clear to all that his meaning is this. Indeed very little is clear from his article.
But how many comrades have heard S.R.P.'s contention that " freedom " is an ultimate idea. He has claimed that socialism will mean " freedom " also for the capitalist.
Since the capitalist imagined that he had obtained freedom three hundred years ago, what can S.R.P. mean but that there is an ultimate thing called " freedom."
Why not then an ultimate morality, an ultimate justice. Why not an ultimate everything irrespective of economic development and outside the stream of history. In short, why not . . . GOD ?
It appears then that S.R.P. is himself an idealist despite his attempt to reconcile idealism with materialism. The conflict in his brain is but the conflict we all experienced while struggling to grasp the breadth of the Party case. Our ego demanded that we should adapt the logic of materialism to our own semi-capitalist ideas. As we understood more about dialetics, our ego diminshed in the battle with this complete integrated philosophy. If S.R.P. continues reading, and I suggest an immediate need, Engels, " Notes on Dialectics of Nature," he will perhaps become a socialist.
To see S.R.P.'s difficulty, note the following : —
" Why, in short, is the mode of production basic? I have heard the following answers: because life is impossible without it: because it is the most permanent and stable feature of society, because it is linked directly with every other factor, and because it lends itself to scientific examination."
S.R.P. August 1954
If the above answers were received from socialists, then it is sad. The correct answer, often given by Engels, is as follows: —
There are no causes which are not also effects, no effects which are not causes. An integrated philosophy must contain arguments in a circle, for everything turns back to itself. We may commence our argument from any part of the circle, in short, make ANY part of our circle our starting point, our THEORETICAL basis. Socialists choose the mode of production as a THEORETICAL basis because it lends itself best to scientific examination.
This is dialectics in a nutshell. The Communists and Labourites pay lip service to the M.C.H. but it is the dialectical aspect of the philosophy which they and S.R.P. do not understand.
With the same idealism, S.R.P., in his last chapter called the "Socialist Revolution", propounds again his almighty belief in his almighty " Idea."
". . . but our M.C.H. outlook forbids us to acknowledge that material conditions can become, more like Socialism prior to the political dominance of the Socialist idea. It is inconceivable to me that the Socialist idea will grow without a correlative development of material conditions approximating to Socialism."
S.R.P. August 1954.
Here, S.R.P. joins with our erudite comrade F. Evans in advocating an " Inevitability of Gradualness " to socialism.
His argument is that conditions can approximate to socialism without an alteration in the ECONOMIC structure of society. He can conceive little bits of socialism, like the Vegans or other brotherhoods perhaps. He believes apparently that the threat and practice of war will gradually diminish, that the standard of living will continually rise, that unemployment become scarcer and scarcer, that the housing shortage will be overcome, that old age pensioners will gradually be allowed to live a little longer—all within capitalism. He believes that the Hydrogen bomb will gradually slip out of use, that capitalists will gradually reduce their number of servants. Is this not his argument? What are these things but " Material Conditions."
And all this comes from a MEMBER OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN!
27.2.1 CONTROVERSIES
My own belief about such party controversies as such is that workers are being allowed to join the party before they are ready. But again, there is a fantastic idea at the back of my brain which suggests the possibility of an ALIEN attempt to cause schisms. If the latter is true, it is an attempt doomed to failure and the solution lies in the branch to which the member belongs.
If there existed a member of Birmingham Branch whom I believed to be a non-socialist, whether from lack of study or ulterior motives, I would have no hesitation in moving that his membership be rescinded. If the motion were lost, I would feel that I had at least cleared my own conscience.
The lack of efficiency in dealing with applications for membership however, is more likely the trouble. The white collar worker will often intellectually accept the party case but finds the appeal to the working class emotionally distasteful.
The socialist will always be regarded as " a working class agitator." In the press, stage and cinema he is laughed at. These are the things socialists must accept. The rationalisation of the white collar workers' distaste for such epithets is the cause of many of the so called controversies. Their ego tells them that they are not " working class agitators " but SOCIAL SCIENTISTS: that they are not pro working class, they are pro HUMANITY. It is the worst form of snobbery because it is working class snobbery.
There is no need or possibility of MacCarthyism in the Party. Since no member has power, he cannot abuse it. If a member believes there are non-socialists in his branch, there is adequate machinery within his branch to salve his conscience.
And there is nothing irrevocable about the decision to expel a member. He may criticise the declaration of principles alongside millions of other workers. He may attend meetings and if he finds a better solution than us to the problems of capitalism, or a better solution of history, then we will ALL RESIGN and join the NEW PARTY with the NEW PRINCIPLES.
P. J. McHALE
(Birmingham)
27.3 ALL CHANGE FOR PADDINGTON

In December, 1951, Paddington Branch pupped a comical absurdity, conceived by a muddle-head—S. R. Parker. It was one of those schemes, or stunts, periodically suggested by immature members to solve the Party's problems, and put it quickly on the road to Jericho—or limbo. Experienced members have had a bellyfull of them.
The Plan to Use the Air, The Great National Publicity Campaign, the Concentrated Propaganda Drive, the Bristol-Vickery Plan, The New Head Office Plan, and the proposal to employ professional publicity experts, all have had their day.
The only result of these Plans is the resignation of the author from the Party, piqued at the obstinate refusal of the members to back his fancy.
Paddington Branch's " Questionnaire " was not essentially different from these " plans " It was a plausible fallacy, looking all right on the surface. The idea was a simple one. A Questionnaire was to be sent to all members asking them five questions : —When did you become convinced ? What were you before joining? What aspect of our propaganda most helped to make you a Socialist? What part of our case did you find most difficult to accept? What type of article do you want in the S.S.?
(To their credit, it should be said that the E.C. when asked for the Register of members for this lark, refused to play.) When all the members had answered all the questions, then the results could be " analysed ", and tips worked out, just like Mass Observation, the Gallup Poll, Prince Monolulu and Gipsy Rose Lee.
Hey Presto! At last the Philosophers' Stone was discovered! Knowing what had made people join, which part of our case they liked—we could soft-pedal the nasty bits, and make converts like Billy Graham. And in their " analysis " (so " Scientific " !) of the results of their " research ", this is exactly what they say : —

We should not over-emphasise our criticism of other parties." FORUM
No. 9
Why there had to be a special discussion in Paddington Branch, a " verbal quiz ", and 200 reply-paid forms sent out to discover that anti-Socialist parties dislike Socialist criticism of their capitalist policies, a member of Paddington has yet explained. How the cause of Socialism is helped by watering it down into something its opponents like is not stated.
Wherein consists the mistake of Paddington Branch? They do not yet fully understand that you cannot cut Socialism to bits. You cannot accept parts of the Socialist case, and reject others. Socialism is all or nothing—there is no half-way houee. The mere fact that Paddington Branch sat down and solemnly wrote letters to members asking them if they liked one aspect of the case, or which part "it is hard " to accept, proves that they are not yet clear on the Principles of Socialism.
The idea of Socialism arises out of the growth of Capitalism. It is workers' experience of the entire environment of Capitalism which makes them Socialists. Paddington Branch's attempts to divide up Socialism like the curate's egg (good in parts) are completely foreign to Socialist mentality, and stem from the methods of the advertising agent, or pill-pedlars, " market reasearch ". To them, Socialism is not the outcome of social evolution, but a Utopian notion in some reformer's head. This case shows that many members of Paddington are still gullible simpletons, without the political knowledge which sharpens the critical faculty of the Socialist. Curiously enough, when the 55 replies were received and " analysed ", they did show a certain result; but exactly the opposite of what Parker and Co. had intended them to do. To the question— " What aspect of our propaganda most helped to make you a Socialist? ", 56 per cent, replied — " That explaining the economics of Capitalism ", or in other words, attacking opponents. Only 11 per cent., or in Paddington's own words, " only 1 in 9 ", said that " what Socialism will be like " brought them into the Party. Incidentally, if Paddington will let me have the names and addresses of. the six members who joined because they were told what Socialism will be like, I should be obliged. I can then ask them to tell me.
Therefore, the result of Paddington's " research " was that 1 in 2 (of 55 members) joined because they learned the economics of Capitalism. 1 in every 9 joined because they heard what Socialism
would be Like. Surely, on their own showing, and by their own method, the case for explaining the economics of Capitalism is overwhelming—being at least four times better than telling them what Socialism will be like.
But is it? No! The above figures "proved" to Paddington Branch that: — 1 in 9 may seem a small proportion for those who were concerned with the Socialist future, but it is not so small when related to the amount of our propaganda devoted to this." FORUM No. 9.
Could there be a more obvious example of special pleading? If the facts don't fit the theory—you just dump the facts.
A further " conclusion " by Paddington Branch was (FORUM No. 9) on the " Socialist Standard ".
' The preference appears to be for the positive aspect of explaining world events and our case in detail, at the expense of the negative one of attacking opponents."
27.3.1 "POSITIVE" PROPAGANDA
Readers will note that we are still on " aspects ", which now acquire a new name. Attacking opponents is now " negative ' . Attacking the Party is therefore " positive ". " Negative " and " Positive " propaganda-are our old friends " the parts ", or
aspects of the case.
Thus in FORUM No. 13, G. Hilbinger presented the Positive Case, a repetitiion of the same boring theme. The draft election address of Paddington states that our case does not rest on " mere criticism of them " (opponents): One may ask, what does it rest on, then? If you stop criticism—you throttle the Party. An analysis (Paddington style) shows that their conclusions, although pompously numbered 1 to 6 (not 1 to 25) are these:
(1)That we should not attack opponents.
(2)" We should talk more about the
Socialist future." (p.48) On the 5th May, 1952, A. Turner of Paddington sent a letter to the E.C. which the E.C. sent round the Branches (unfortunately without any critical comment) containing this statement: —
Immediately our propaganda changes from just attaching Capitalism to describing Socialism it will meet discussion and arguments about work, sex, morals. This means members will have to sharpen their knowledge of economic theory and also enter the field of social anthropology." In the January, 1953 FORUM, S. R. Parker kindly obliged. He " entered the field of social anthropology " in criticism
(Positive) of an article in the " Socialist Standard". As is usual in Paddington today, he did not attack the opponents—but the Party. In this article, the following statement occurs : —
" In Melanesian society it was customary that a man might approach a girl he fancied and demand to have sexual intercourse with her there and then. If she refused he could kill her, and his tribe would sanction the action."
Not being a member of Paddington Branch, or having concentrated my entire critical energies on demolishing the Party, on reading this, I smelt a rat. So would anybody else with the slightest notion of tribal society. Firstly, it is obvious that any tribe doing this would rapidly exterminate itself. Not merely animals, but not even the insects do this. In fact, in Nature, it is the other way round, as in the case of the Spider, Mantis and Scorpion.
Secondly, a moment's thought will show that the main reason for tribal (or family) society is to prevent such violent promiscuity. I thereupon toddled round to the local library and looked up " Melanesia " in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Here we read that " the vicissitudes of Melanesian history are totally hid from us ". Here is a chance for S. R. Parker to collect an easy guinea from, the publishers of the Encyclopaedia for correcting them. Fie knows the history—they don't. But if they don't know its history, they do know what Melanesian society is NOW. According to the Encyclopaedia,
" Melanesian society is matrilineal and exogamous." " It is a clan system regulated solely by kinship."
In other words, it is exactly the opposite of that described by Parker. So far from men killing women who refused them—the tribe prevents males marrying into their own gens— and descent is through the maternal line—just as described by Morgan 77 years ago with reference to society in general. Though Morgan himself stated that our knowledge of Papuan institutions was limited. It is scandalous and disgusting that any publication connected with the Socialist Party, which used to enjoy a high reputation for accuracy, could print such adolescent nonsense. Even more offensive is the pompous conceit which allows an ignoramus to parade his personal wish-thinking on these subjects as knowledge, without the slightest effort to check the facts.
S. R. Parker's weird ideas of the past are apparently about as useful as Turner's fanciful notions of the future. Is this a sample of the lively, attractive and breezy stuff which Turner promised us in December, I 952, if we all changed for Paddmgton? I have never read anywhere, more dull, humourless, confused moans than those appearing over the names of Turner and Parker in the FORUM. I know no writer more impossible to understand than Parker,
except Frank Evans. I shudder with frozen horror at the prospect of a world where those who do not talk like A. Turner will write like S. Parker.
From Paddington Branch's " investigations " I draw these conclusions: —
(I) That a Party which does not attack Capitalism cannot be Socialist.
(2) That those who reject parts of the Socialist case are not Socialists.
Reference to the Party's publications will show that these have been the views of its members since 1904.
HARRY YOUNG.
27.4 THE M.C.H.
In the introduction to his article "A Critique of Historical Materialism " appearing in your August issue, a contributor, S.R.P., complains of the difficulty in " selecting " a satisfactory brief statement of the M.C.H. from the writings of Marx and Engels. Better summaries of the M.C.PI. than the one selected by S.R.P. however, can easily be found in the " Communist Manifesto "; " Socialism : Utopian and Scientific "; " Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx " and " Karl Marx " and I should have imagined that a qualified critic of Marxism would have been aware of the existence of these works.
The second paragraph of the article in question states " the M.C.H. is essentially the complement of idealism rather than its opposite ". This, surely, is something new and should have been substituted. I have never heard of idealism being completed by materialism or of materialism being completed by idealism as must be the case if they are complementary. Some evidence is certainly required from your contributor in support of his claim. I have always understood that materialism and idealism are opposites, i.e., that they are contrasted with each other as two OPPOSING ways of looking at the SAME set of facts.
In " Ludwig Feuerbach ", Engels gives this description of materialism—" it was resolved to comprehend the real world— nature and history—just as it presents itself to everyone who approaches it free from preconceived idealist crochets. It was decided mercilessly to sacrifice every idealist crochet which could not be brought into harmony with the facts conceived in their own and not in a fantastic interconnection. And materialism means nothing more than this." (Sel. Wks. I I pp. 349/50). This is the Marxist materialist outlook and if there is anything erroneous in conceiving the world as it actually is, perhaps S.R.P. could tell us how we should conceive the world. Your contributor also objects to Marx's statement that " the ideal is nothing more than the material world reflected by the human mind." If Marx is not correct, then what is the " ideal " ?
For the purpose of his argument, your contributor postulates that the M.C.FI. " perpetuates its (idealism's) fundamental error of separating ideas from material conditions ". But to postulate is not to prove. Where is the evidence for this statement? It is pretended that the quotes given in the article document the charge, but do they? To my knowledge, the Leninists are the only
Marxists " whose writings would lend credence to S.R.P.'s view. But, since when has the S.P.G.B. recognised the Leninists as Marxists? There is on the other hand, however, abundant evidence that Marxists do not separate ideas from material conditions. Has S.R.P. not read Dietzgen's "Positive Outcome of Philosophy"? Let him read Venable's " Human Nature " which might almost have been written for his benefit, especially p. 197, where Venables says " they saw neither mind nor matter, neither man nor nature—' senseless dichotomies '—as dominating the other, neither as sole causes, neither as sole effects ". Marx's first two Theses on Feuerbach, alone, are sufficient to give the lie to our critic's charge. But to further convince him, let him read " Dialectics of Nature " where, on pp 292-3, Engels says " the more will men not only feel, but also know, their unity with nature, and thus the more impossible will become the senseless and anti-natural idea of a contradiction between mind and matter, men and nature ".
In the following stage of his argument your contributor indulges in what seems, at first sight, a quibble. He objects to Marx and Engels using the word " interaction ", i.e., the process of parts acting on each olher, instead of the word " integration ", i.e., the process of making into a whole. However, Marx and Engels do not avoid the word " integration " because of the reasons S.R.P. cites. They avoid it for the very good reason that they are not idealists. For them, there is no question of making anything into a whole. For them the world already is an inter-connected, inter-acting whole, and the unity of this world is proved, not by verbal quibbles, but by the protracted development of science (See Engel's "Anti-Duhring).
To the question : Why should such a theory as the M.C.H. ever have been propounded?, S.R.P. gives several ingenious answers. Here, I will content myself, at present, in referring him to the 3rd Thesis on Feuerbach where Marx demonstrates the dilemma which the M.C.H. solves.
We are next informed that the " Critique " under review shows that " the theory itself possesses only relative validity ". Of course, the M.C.H. possesses only relative validity (although your critic's demonstration does not prove that fact) and Marx and Engels cheerfully admit this. But they claim that, although it is only relatively true, it is, nevertheless, truly true, so far as it goes— and does S.R.P. deny this? If so, let us hear the evidence. By the way, what is this " Marxian theory that man has not yet made truly human history " to which reference is made? To my knowledge, the only mention of " truly human history " appears in Venable's " Human Nature " wherein he refers to a quote from p. 187 of Engel's " Dialectics of Nature ", viz., " man is the sole animal capable of working his way out of the merely animal state—his normal state is one appropriate to his consciousness, one to be created by himself ". I have never seen any other source mentioned by anyone. Could our critic enlighten us as to when this statement of Engels was elevated to a theory?
We are next told about our " old attitude to violence ". Am I to understand that we have a NEW attitude to violence? If so, it is the first I have heard of it. Some facts are required here.
Finally, S.R.P.'s closing remarks on the Socialist revolution only demonstrates that he is as far from understanding the M.C.H. and " proper place for human agency in the M.C.H. scheme of things " as he was when he wrote his first article on " Let the People Unite ".
Let us have criticism and discussion, by all means, but let it be informed criticism.
R.RUSSELL
(Glasgow)

27.5 WHEN IS A CHANGE FUNDAMENTAL?
Comrade Spencer—I would like to put this to you:— The D. of P. describes capitalism. Capitalism has changed since 1904; but the D. of P. has not changed. Therefore, the D. of P. must now be far less accurate than it was in 1904, and must need considerable revision.
Comrade Marks—That sounds very logical, on the face of it; but really it is based on a confusion. It is true that the D. of P. describes capitalism, but it does not describe the superficial details of capitalism; it describes the basic and essential features of capitalism, and these have not changed.
S—You would agree, then, that some things have changed since 1 904 ?
M—Oh, yes, certainly they have. All sorts of details have altered, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But there have been no fundamental changes in capitalism since 1 904.
S—You would say, then, that two kinds of changes can be distinguished; on the one hand, changes in superficial, unimportant surface details, and on the other hand, changes in the basic, essential fundamentals.
M—Well, you must understand that in a dialectical sense, of course; there are no rigid, watertight divisions to be found in the real world; but broadly speaking, that is so, yes.
S—I'm not quite sure that I understand your answer; perhaps you could give me some idea of what criterion you would use in distinguishing between fundamental changes and other changes?
M—Now then, Comrade Spencer, I don't want to start entering into any word-spinning contest. The distinction is quite an obvious one, and if you can't see it you must be more confused that I thought you were. Once we get tied up in definitions and verbal quibbles we shall never get anywhere.
S—All right, then. Let me give you one or two practical examples of changes which I think could be called fundamental, and see what you think about them. Then we shan't have to bother about formal definitions at all. Is that all right?
M—Yes, go ahead. I'm always ready to listen to other people's views.
S—Firstly, I think the organization of production has changed.
M—Oh, but—
S—Now, you promised to listen, Comrade Marks. Wait till I've finished. I am talking about the rejection, in industrial theory today, of the old ideas of belt-systems, individual incentives, strong supervision and the like. The old idea of breaking down working groups and making each worker a separate atomised unit has been quite reversed. In fact, better ideas on satisfying working conditions are now appearing in capitalist literature than have ever appeared in socialist literature. Up till recently, the trend of capitalism seemed more and more to be in separating man from man, treating men more and more like machines or appendages to machines. Now that trend has been reversed, and the new trend is just the other way. This seems to me to be a fundamental change. What do you think?
M—All that has happened is that labour has become a bit short. Consequently employers, for the time being, have to- butter the workers up a bit, pretend they're concerned over their welfare, and weep crocodile tears over their " mutual interests ". Let the first cool breeze of unemployment come along, and you'll soon see the employers getting tough again. And another thing—how many factories are these bright new ideas really working in? None, that I know of, at any rate. The vast majority are still working in the old ways. I don't think they will ever be used over industry generally – full employment won't last that long.
S—Secondly, I think the methods of production have changed. New manufacturing methods have made a vast alteration in the sort of things which it is possible to produce and distribute to all and sundry. Mass-production, starting as just another way of doing something which could be done more slowly by other means, has now reached the stage of doing things which can only be done by that method.
Products are being designed now which can only be worked by automatic methods. An American firm was asked to produce a continuous-cracking oil plant for use in India. They were told to drop as many of the automatic devices, so as to permit more men to be employed; manpower is cheap in India. But it was found that practically none could be dropped, unless they went back to the old intermittent-cracking plant which produces far less refined oil, of lower quality. The new plant had very few human workers, was
most controlled by robots, and could not work in any other way. This seems to me to be a fundamental change. What do you think?
M—All you're saying is that the ratio of constant to variable capital is still increasing, as it has been for the past 1 00 years or more, and as Marx said it must. There is no fundamental change there; it's quite obviously a change of degree only, and not a change of kind. I just can't see what you're getting at.
S—Thirdly, I think that forms of ownership have changed. A partnership is one kind of common ownership; a joint-stock company is another; a limited company is another; a trust is another; a cartel is another; nationalization is another; and a supranational authority is another. Then there are co-partnership, co-ownership, profit-sharing and participation schemes of various kinds, all of which modify the rights of ownership of the steelmaster, or whatever he may be. Here is a change—a series of changes—in one of the most fundamental features of society.
M—That alters nothing: comes trouble, the worker gets the sack, co-partnership and participation go by the board, and " co-ownership " is quietly forgotten. There's nothing here to answer. I'm still waiting to hear something new. I'm always willing to be convinced, if you've got a case; so far, I haven't heard any case.
S—Fourthly, I think that rights of access have changed. Today, many things are obtainable as of right, because of need, and are not dependent on size of pocket. The health service, education, public libraries, water, are examples which spring to mind at once. At one time, these things (and particularly education) were thought of as a charity, paid for by the well-off for the benefit of the needy. Today, it is recognised more and more that these and other things are due to every man, woman and child as of right, just because they are human beings and need these things as such. Isnk that a fundamental change?
M—These things only serve the particular momentary needs of the ruling class. They give free milk so that you can work harder, free education so that you can be exploited more extensively, free doctoring so that you are away from work as little as possible.

They'll do everything for you, except get off your back.
S —Fifthly, I think that methods of capital investment have changed. The bondholder is in a very different position from the stockholder. He cannot favour, or withdraw his support from, any particular branch of industry if he only has state bonds to play with. The position as regards unemployment and crises is therefore very different in a country where only one kind of investment can be made. This seems to me to be a fundamental change.
M—The capitalist system systematically produces crises, unemployment and wars. If crises fall into the background, war comes into the foreground, and so on. At the moment the danger of war is greater than the danger of crisis, at least as far as such countries as Russia are concerned. But if a disease has a number of symptons, and one of them isn't to be found in a particular case, but all the others are, you still say that the patient has that disease. You don't say he has a fundamentally different disease. I don't see how you can entertain that viewpoint even for a moment.
S—Sixthly, I think that the attitudes of employer and employee have changed. In 1904, the relationship of employer and employee was still very largely that of master and slave. " I say HOP, and he hops! In 1904, dogs still to a great extent led a dog's life. They were whipped to heel, fed on odd leavings, kicked out of the way; they fawned on the master who had just swiped them, and so on. " The only thing they respected " was a strong hand and a heavy boot. Servants were rather similar—a different breed of creature, who could live on starvation rations in unheated rooms.
Today, while these attitudes still persist here and there, the general outlook of society is quite different. Dogs, servants, children and employees are fellow beings who have characters of their own which must be respected. Every book now printed on personnel management emphasizes that the old attitudes of dominance and submission are to be avoided. All these symptons show a fundamental change from 1 904—a change in the direction of the sort of attitudes which will be most common under Socialism.
M—Of course there are changes in ideas since then. We have always said so, and in fact it is implied in the D. of P. itself that it is the case. But you can hardly call it a fundamental change in the mode of production called capitalism when employers are a bit nicer to their employees. I've been listening very patiently, but that's stretching it a bit too far. What does it all add up to, now?
S—I have mentioned six kinds of changes which have actually been taking place since 1 904, and are still taking place. To some extent, therefore, the full proof of what I am saying must lie in the future. But quite enough of it has already happened to make me pretty sure of my case.
M—But I've shown, with each thing you've brought up, that there's really nothing in it!
S—I don't think you have, you know. But let us grant, for the sake of argument, that you have demolished all my arguments. I have mentioned changes in (1) the organization of production, (2) the methods of production, (3) types of ownership, (4) access to what is produced, (5) types of investment and (6) social attitudes. // none of these' changes are fundamental, it becomes very difficult to see hove any possible change could ever be fundamental.
M—Don't start shifting your ground, now.
S—In fact, it starts to become obvious that the only change which you would recognise as a fundamental change in capitalism is the change from capitalism to Socialism.
But that can't be your final conclusion; because it is pure nonsense to say, as an answer to my original proposition, that the reason the D. or P. must be right is because Socialism has not yet come.
M—That's just word-spinning.
S—I think we should continue this discussion some other time, trying a different angle of attack.
Mi—Yes: all right; I'm always ready to learn something. I'm just waiting for you to convince me, that's all.
OPTIMUS
27.6 IMPROVING THE SOCIALIST CASE
The pro-working class attitude to which the Party still clings is fully brought out in the fifth chapter on Principles and Policy. On p20 for example we read that “economic interests govern actions whatever may occur in exceptional, individual cases.” ie. Except they don't. This generalisation disguised as a rule is then held as a " guiding principle " in arriving at the conclusion that the emancipation of the working class must be its own work.
The important point here is that emancipation to a state of equality is not an economic interest. Nor is it an aspect of the class struggle, in which, to quote the pamphlet, " neither side can prosecute its own interest without detriment to the interest of the other ". Even if it is insisted that the socialist aim is the emancipation of the working class, this cannot be interpreted as action of one class against another—unless the interpretation is completed by saying that the working class will take action against classes. It can then be claimed that the highest aim of the working class is its own abolition, although self-abolition is scarcely to be regarded as an interest, in any generally accepted sense of the word.
If working class emancipation involves that of all mankind, it is reasonable to suppose that it involves the work of all mankind. The only obstacle to taking this view is pro-working class prejudice, which features very largely in the D. of P. and the pamphlet's explanation. Once Socialism is firmly established as " the workers' cause " it follows that capitalists only take it up " in spite of their environment and their class interest"; "their outlook upon life is very different from that of the workers . . . few who do get some glimmering of the position are in most cases shut off by class arrogance and class prejudice. They generally feel themselves the superior ones, and must lead."
Do not workers also have a capitalist environment? There are factors which hinder capitalists from becoming socialists, but they are not exclusive to capitalists. Is the outlook of the two classes so different where Socialism is concerned? Surely there is no " capitalist class " objection to it that is not also held by workers. The arrogance and superior feelings of capitalists are balanced by the subservience and inferior feelings of workers, yet the pamphlet does not tell us that the latter are also barriers to socialist understanding.
Until the knowledge and experience of the working class are equal to the task of revolution there can be no emancipation for them. Hence they must control all individuals in their camp, no matter which class they may belong to . . ." They (the working class) must control all individuals in their camp .(including socialists who are not workers, and who are thereby formally excluded from being " controllers ").
Fortunately, this is not the practice in the SPGB—no worker who is not a socialist is regarded as being in "our camp", which only socialists control.
27.6.1 Clause 6
" Each system that permits of class distinctions favours a given class, and that class naturally employs every means to prevent the system from falling.
It is for this purpose that the present ruling class maintain their navy, .army, air force and police. By means of these they hold back social changes ... It follows, therefore, that the revolutionary class must disposess the capitalists of these armed forces before they can change the social basis." (p. 25, my italics)
A number of fallacies are apparent here.
1. It is not their navy, etc. It is correctly stated on p. 23 that the armed forces exist to protect the private property institution, not the private property of individual capitalists.
2. " They " do not hold back social change;, nor can armed forces be used, to do so. To say otherwise is to imply that capitalists use is armed forces to prevent the majority from acting upon the socialist knowledge they possess or could possess but for those armed forces. This is not the case.
3. The question of dispossessing the capitalists of the armed forces does not arise, since they do not possess them.
There are two passages, one in this section and one in the conclusion, that are tantamount to advocating the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
. . . the working class must organise for the capture of Parliament. When they have possession of this instrument they will have control of the armed forces, and will be in a position to proceed to the abolition of private property in the means of living and the organisation of industry on the basis of common ownership of the machinery of production," (p. 26) and the conclusion.
"that the workers must organise consciously and politically, firstly, for the capture of this machinery of government, and secondly, having dome this, to convert it into the agent of emancipation." (p. 31).
27.6.2 Capturing Power?
Here it is important to realise that it is not enough to distinguish ourselves from others seeking power if we just say that our object in doing so is different. If the power situation is to be replaced by relations of equality then the conversion must be part of the capturing process.
This means in practice that when socialists have " captured political power " it will express the fact that capitalist institutions will have been transformed. To get control of the armed forces and then to " proceed to the abolition of private property is to make a prime object of getting control of the armed forces. To make the conversion of the machinery of government follow its capture is to make a prime object of its capture. Neither the machinery of government nor the armed forces can further our object, and to speak of them as " the agent of the emancipation is to encourage the false belief that the SPGB is merely the least blatant of the power-seekers.
Also. note how narrowly the introduction the introduction of Socialism is interpreted in the first passage. It is true that private property in the means of living will be abolished—but so will all other forms of property. It is true that society will be concerned with the organisation of industry and the machinery of production—but there will be many more problems in other spheres, just as necessary to the sustenance of society, that will demand its attention. This is not to deny the prime importance of industry; it is only to emphasise that Socialism deals with more than just the industrial aspects of society.
27.6.3 Clause 7
This tells us that all political parties are but the expression of class interests. The SPGB is a political party. Therefore the SPGB expresses a class interest. The logic is sound, but the major premise false. Political parties do not express economic class interests. Of the various parties that support Capitalism it cannot be shown that any one is largely supported by (and therefore presumably expressing the interests of) capitalists. It is, however, fair to say that all parties except the SPGB express capitalist interests—the interests of those who want to retain Capitalism in some form. On the other hand, the SPGB expresses the interests of those who want classless society. It is in this sense that the SPGB is hostile to all other parties.
' The political struggle of the workers must of necessity be waged along class lines. It is on the political field that it is to be fought ... for the enthroning of the
SOCIALIST IDEA in the seat of power." Now, a workers' struggle along class lines is one against capitalists and has nothing to do with Socialism. A struggle to enhance the socialist idea is one against the anti- or non-socialist idea. The SPGB, despite its principles, participates only in the latter struggle, and this is what makes it a socialist party.
27.6.4 Clause 8
The conclusion, in line with the other principles, is an appeal to the class feeling of the " members of the working class of this country." " We who know the class to which we belong, and build up all our hopes on the capacity of its intellect . . . know that the working class is capable of judging all things for itself . . ." Such rhetoric is meaningless. There is no real harm in the conclusion indulging in a bit of nonsense like mustering under a banner, but that should not stop it from bringing out what is most worthwhile in the whole message. The emphasis of No. 8 is on waging war on other parties and ending the system—negative aspects instead of the positive advocacy of Socialism.
The criticism in this and the previous article aims to be indicative of the many further points that could be made. The cumulative impression is plain. In summary, the D. of P. represents the Party's object as the triumph of the working class instead of the triumph of socialist ideas, and this gives its concept of Socialism a capitalist tinge. The next article will consider how all this measures up to the nature of Socialism.
S.R.P.

28. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B
No. 28 January 1955

28.1 RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE
A Criticism of F. Evans' Views
F. Evans, in the Sept. issue of Forum, asserts that the production of surplus value in its relative form, being the dominant method of exploitation, ensures for the capitalists ever higher rates of profit, and for the workers ever higher standards of living. This it appears is due to the tremendous productive powers of present day society which through the agency of the competition! of capitals is constantly cheapening products and making available an ever-increasing quantity of use values which are being indiscriminately bestowed on all and sundry. In this manner does capitalism become cornucopia. Nowhere, however, does he offer data on statistical evidence for his views. Frankly I do not believe he can.
To anticipate a possible objection it has been said that Evans' views are more relevant to the field of social psychology than to economics. Nevertheless his statements that the undermining of capitalist power and privilege has its font and impetus in the production of surplus value is primarily a question of social production, i.e. economics. Moreover Evans, himself, offers, as a theoretical justification for his views, what he deems a Marxist explanation.
In order to clarify my criticism of Evans I trust I shall bq forgiven if I digress a little in a brief recapitulation of the subject of relative surplus value and its relation to labour-power. It is a fact that with the growth of machinery per worker the productivity of labour increases. If this leads to a cheapening of commodities which extend to those items constituting the cost of working class subsistence then the value of labour-power as a commodity will fall along with other commodities. This in time will lead to an increase in the rate of surplus value
because a smaller portion of the working population will now be required for the production of working class means of subsistence. To put it another way a smaller portion of the working day is needed for the replacing of the value of labour-power and. a larger part remains for the production of surplus value.
28.1.1 Value of Labour-Power
To put the matter concretely, supposing the value of labour-power to be 30/- per day then if productivity is doubled and prices halved, 15/- per day will purchase the same amount of goods as did 30/-. suppose, however, that workers' wages are now reduced to the monetary value of 18/-per day. Even though they are able to purchase more goods with this sum than they did at the former rate of 30/- per day it does not follow that they are getting over the value of their labour-power, i.e. that they have increased their standard of living. It might be that the further intensification of the Labour process, called forth by increased productivity, does not constitute a recompense. for the extra wear and tear which is entailed. In these circumstances the workers would be getting below the value of their labour-power—their living conditions would have worsened. Increased consumption does not necessarily mean the same thing as an increase in the standard of living. In short, increased earnings are not the yardstick which finally measures benefits obtained by workers. The real measure of these benefits is the worker's output in relation to input. What hei gets in wages to what he gives in the productive process.
If of course the workers obtain the sum of 24/- per day then this share in increased productivity may be sufficient to make the added intensity of effort, worth while. If the mass of use values representing 24/- per day becomes permanently incorporated into items necessary for the production and reproduction of their labour-power then the value of labour-power will have been raised.
Evans' own assertions that increased productivity by cheapening commodities automatically increases living standards raises interesting implications. For him the class struggle is a charade. Yet surely Evans knows that the capitalist in pursuit of class interests will attempt to push wages down to the lowest possible level consistent with their requirements. Just as workers will attempt to push their wages up as far as is possible in a profit making society. The question to be asked is, in the alleged absence of the class struggle as an important factor in maintaining and raising living standards, what economic mechanism operates to constantly higher real wages? What are the factors which determine given wage levels? Or does Evans maintain that the capitalists do not try to get labour-power as cheaply as possible; that their policy instead is one of high wages. In short that capitalism is a system which pursues socially motivated ends. If Evans agrees that the class struggle is itself one of the determinants in the standard of living then he invalidates most of his own arguments.
It is true that in the early stage of capitalist development large reserves of cheap labour-power were available by the dispossession of small producers, artisans, and peasants. This exercised a powerful downward pressure on wage levels. But with the expansion of capitalism more and more labour-power was absorbed, while the sources of expropriation diminished in scale. Capitalists thus met increasing obstacles on the supply side of labour. At the same time there was a continuous growth of powerful labour organisations—Trade Unions. The effect of all this was to bring about an upward pressure on wage levels. This I suggest offers a better explanation to account for the rise in wages occurred during a considerable part of the 19th century than the ineluctable process called by Evans " the accretions of capital "*—reminiscent of Adam Smith's " Invisible Hand ". Finally in this connection that phase of capitalist exploitation, the production of relative surplus value, was not the outcome of a metaphysic of history but the need to overcome the approaching exhaustion of cheap labour supplies by new and more intensive methods of exploitation. In short, relative surplus value was the capitalist's answer to compensate for a falling rate of profit due to rising labour costs. Evans fails to really understand the proposition that men make history albeit their motives and aims are rooted in an objective milieu.
28.1.2 Rising Standards?
To talk as Evans does of working class standards being continuously raised by the cheapening of products is the same thing as asserting that real wage rates have shown a steady and cumulative increase for generations beginning presumably about 1850 when the production of relative surplus value became general. According to Bowley " Wages and Income since I860," the real wage rate of skilled workers was estimated to be about 6 per cent, lower than in 1914, -while unskilled workers' wage rates were about 6 per cent, higher. Undoubtedly poverty had been reorganised but would Evans assert this was proof of ever increasing living standards ? And remember the production of surplus value in its relative form had been going on for nearly 75 years. If these cumulative increases of items of working class consumption due to relative surplus value had really taken place then by 1924 there should have occurred some remarkable changes in the living conditions of the working class. In point of fact, agriculture and the products of the building industry constitute the major item in working class consumption, yet neither of these are amenable to increasing and cumulative changes brought about by the introduction of machinery.
Just one more word on the question of wages. It is not denied that net earnings can increase while wage rates remain the same or even decline. But that is due to increases in working population, piece work and overtime. Moreover net earnings vary from industry to industry. As such, increases in net earnings cannot be shown to be the result of vast increasing output arising from the production of relative surplus value with its ever cheapening products.
It seems almost superfluous to remind a party member that before the present war, Boyd Orr estimated that 8 million people in Britain did not obtain enough nutritional means consistent with a healthy life. That Lord Beveridge has said that between the wars nearly half of all working class children in this country were born in want. Again according to Mr. Rowntree in 1936, 31 per cent, of families were below the level of what he called "a human need standard " and this after over three quarters of a century of the production of relative surplus value which vide Evans has given the working class ever increasing living standards. How does Evans explain this?
There are in addition some serious errors in Evans' theoretical assumptions. For instance he tells us that the capitalists obtain an ever increasing rate of exploitation or profit—he never seriously attempts to prove it—at the same time we are told that commodities in general are subjected to an ever cheapening process as the result of increased productivity. But it is fairly evident if the price of labour-power remains constant and the price of finished products falls correspondingly per increased output, it is hard to see where the rate of profit can increase. If for instance a given capital consisted of 1 00c and 1 OOv and the rate of exploitation doubled but prices were halved then the rate of profit would be the same.
If, however, the value of labour-power rose during the process then the rate of profit would fall. Again what is Evans' solution to this dilemma?
Again Evans points to the increasing organic composition of capital as a corollary of relative surplus value. But an increase in the organic composition of capital leads to a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. If these increases in the organic composition of capital had proceeded on the scale that Evans seems ta suggest, then its fall would have been little short of catastrophic. Now the only thing which could offset this would be a tremendous increase in exploitation but in order to do so such exploitation would not be human but super-human. Does the history of capitalism especially British capitalism, over the last 50 years, show this? Again if the intensity of productive effort was such, not even the extra input of consumption items would compensate the workers for the level of output which would be required for the maintenance of such conditions. It appears that Evans unwittingly supports Horatio's views of increasing misery. Surely some better explanation is required from Evans than the one he has given?
28.1.3 Reserve Army
There is another logical inconstancy about Evans' reasoning. It is of course a cominon-place that a relative increase of constant capital over variable capital is the means whereby the industrial reserve army is brought into being. Now this reserve army exercises a depressing effect on the labour market. As such it lowers the price of labour-power to the point where it is more profitable for the capitalist to employ wage labour titan introduce machinery. In actual fact he only introduces machinery when from his point; of view wages are too high. Thus the introduction of machinery is the capitalists answer to rising labour costs. Whether this will increase his rate of profit is of course a moot point. It follows then that that part of capital invested in machine equipment is constantly one of expansion and contraction. There is no over-riding mechanism which compels capitalists to willy nilly increase their constant capital on a continuous and ever expanding scale. Can Evans show this to be otherwise ?
In further articles I propose to deal with other points put forward by Evans and to. detail what has been a brief summary of my criticism of Evans' view on Marxist economics.
28.2 EDITORIAL
Readers will probably notice that this issue is rather better balanced than some previous ones. Writers will probably notice that their article has for some reason not appeared. These two facts are inseparably connected. The issue is better balanced because we have had quite a fair amount of material to choose from. For exactly the same reason we have had to omit this month more material than for many previous months, though of course all this material will appear in due course.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that short letters will always appear straight away, whereas long articles may be delayed longer.
28.3 TURNER – OR CLAUSE 6?
This is the first time that I have dared to contribute to Forum, but as the seconder to the resolution to which Comrade Turner refers in his article " Socialism or Clause 6," I think that it is only fair to him that I put my point of view on this matter.
As a member of a Branch that is some distance from London I have been unable to attend many Party meetings, and like my comrades at Southend I have had to rely mostly upon circular letters and E.C. reports, and personal opinions of visiting members.
Over a period of some twelve months Comrade Turner's name has been raised in connection with a controversy over the D. of P. This controversy had reached such a pitch that it seemed there might be a split in the party.
I do not wish Comrade Turner to think that I lay this situation wholly at his door (for there must be at least two parties to have an argument) but I ask, what am I to think when I am informed that Comrade Turner is no longer fit to speak for the Party, or, that Comrade Turner no longer puts over the Partys case?
At the Party meeting I listened to a lot of haggling and back-biting, the sort of thing that the Party has no time for, but the position had arisen where the Party's name was being held in Jeopardy, and the work of many of our members threatened. I can assure you that my motives in supporting this resolution were quite honourable.
I have read Comrade Turner's article in the November Forum, and although I disagree with some of his opinions, I do not believe that they are motivated by sharp practice or that he has any shabby tricks up his sleeve.
My first disagreement with him is where he states that " the Socialist Party should be more socialist in its message to people than it has been during the past fifty years." HOW?
Does he mean that we should start promising people free access to the means of living if they support the S.P.G.B.? That sounds like the Labour Party on a vote catching spree with " Onist Erb " in the lead. No Thanks!
Does he mean that we should start painting pictures with words as to what Socialism will be like? If so, what will it be like?
I have heard members say that Comrade Turner talks of people baking their own bread, making their own furniture, and wanting to use the horse and trap once more. As
a Socialist I understand what is meant by these statements, but does a non-Socialist? If Comrade Turner has been making these statements from the platform, then I am afraid that I must support the statements made by members that Comrade Turner is not putting forward the Party's case correctly.
As I see it, Socialism (which is the system of society which will follow Capitalism) will take over the means of living where Capitalist society leaves off, and it will modify those means of living to meet the needs of the new society. What stage of technical development will have been reached when the revolution occurs I cannot tell, and neither can anyone else. Therefore, we can only explain to the enquirer the basic economic outline of Socialism, and explain why it is so very necessary to bring about. No, Comrade, I do not think we can be any more socialist than we are already.
Comrade Turner's argument over Clause 6 does not seem to be in keeping with his socialist knowledge. The first part of Clause 6—" That the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation only exist to conserve the monopoly of the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the working class," is a statement of fact, and the statement that the working class must organise is the logical outcome of that fact.
28.3.1 Overwhelming Majority
The working class are roughly ninety per cent of the world's population, which makes them the overwhelming majority. They and they alone can bring about the revolution, purely and simply because they are this overwhelming majority. They wish to continue the wages system, commodity production, and national allegiance.
The capitalist class can do nothing, even though they own the means of living.
If every member of the capitalist class were a budding Frederick Engels or Karl Marx they would be unable to engineer any Socialist revolution until the majority of the working class were on their side.
Thus the working class of the world are unique inasmuch as they are the only class in the history of mankind who have the power to emancipate themselves and the whole of mankind at the same time. Clause 6 has never presented any problem to me, nor to any other member who I have discussed it with, in fact even non-Party people who I have discussed it with have stated how clear it is. It seems as though Comrade Turner is afraid of a situation that cannot possibly arise. That situation is that a majority of Socialists will not know how to establish Socialism, or that's how he seems to interpret Clause 6.
He worries over coercion, of one group losing a privileged position to another group. I cannot see it happening, any more than I could see the E.C. pledging the Party to some reformist group and still remaining the E.C. The majority outside of Parliament would soon see that their representatives or delegates inside carrried out their wishes, or they would very shortly find themselves right outside. Furthermore, the working class constitute the majority of the armed forces, and supposing that through the course of a war the majority of them decide that they have had enough, and start to have socialist ideas, how will the privileged group be able to coerce them back to the battle line, when their very coercive power lies in those reluctant soldiers?
I cannot see the majority of mankind abolishing the state and retaining coercion, for the state is that coercive body that exists ts preserve class interests. The abolition of class society will mean the abolition of the state and coercion, and this must be carried out by a deliberate act of administration, and not in an anarchist fashion, hoping that it will' wither and die away.
Comrade Turner's criticism of Clause 7 can only be answered with the same argument that I use for the beginning of Clause 6. As the majority of the world's population are membears of the working class, it stands to reason that we must place our case before that majority. Our propaganda explains that the whole of mankind stands to benefit from the abolition of capitalism but it is obvious that the revolution can only be brought about by the majority, who are the working class.
It is obvious that we cannot compromise with any other political party for they are in one way or another reformist or outright supporters of capitalism. To appeal to the capitalist class is pointless because they are not the majority, and when the majority becomes socialist conscious they will understand that Socialism is to the benefit of all mankind.
What is the cause of this terrible situation that has taken such a prominent position in the thinking of our Party membership? Could it be despair of Capitalism? The Party is, ' after fifty years of socialist propaganda, only just over a thousand strong; Forms "F" are more than Forms "A". Party activity has declined, and the few very active comrades find support getting less and less. The working class are not as interested as they used to be, and our propaganda does not seem to be having the effect that it used to have.
Thus the more virile members at times begin to feel despondent, they begin to think that maybe our propaganda is wrong, that our Declaration of Principles is wrong somewhere, or that our Party's speakers are not putting the Party's case over right. Thus the search for the imaginary fly in the ointment begins, and as it develops more members lose interest and the Party's propaganda suffers even more.
There is nothing wrong with our propaganda—thousands of debates and public meetings have proven that. There is nothing wrong with our Declaration of Principles— years of criticism have been unable to shatter them. The trouble lies in the majority of people who have, not heard the Party's case, or, having heard it, do not respond. They do not understand the economics of Capitalism in their simplest terms, they have been unable to penetrate the veil. They will one day, but until that time, we must beware of falling into this trap of despair.
I would like to finish off by repeating a statement that I made at the Conference and at the Party meeting—" It is a good thing that we do criticise our D. of P.; if anything is wrong with them we should find them out, but let's be sensible, let us deal with them as our Comrades in the W.S.P. of U.S. did and in future there will be no more of this terrible waste of time."
J. G. GRISLEY, Southend Branch.

28.4 WISDOM FROM 1908
My friend asks me for details of my scheme. Of all the forms of opposition to Socialism, this one of a craving for details seems to be the most pronounced. Now, if Socialism was a scheme, I quite admit that my opponent would have a right to ask for details. But what is the difference between a scheme and Socialism? Just this! one is a manufactured product and the other is an evolutionary product. So that for an analogy we must take not a scheme, but something which evolves.
Take a Flower. We may know when the peduncle makes its appearance that it is going to be a flower, but we cannot gives details as to the number of sections which is going to constitute the calyx, and after that has come, we do not always know how many petals the corolla will have, nor their actual size, shape or colour, nor can we say until a later stage is reached, and they actually unfold themselves to our eyes, how many stamens and pistils it has.
So that, while it is logical enough to ask for details of a scheme, where is the man of science who would ask for details of an evolutionary product? If I attempted to give details of the plan of the future, I should cease to stand as a scientific man, and should be a Utopian, a dreamer, a fool.
Extract from a debate beween W. Gee (S.D.F.), and Rev. M. P. Davies, B.A., B.D.

28.5 A SOUL OF TRUTH
John Stuart Mill held that the way society treats its women is a measure of its civilisation. How much more true is this of the critic and the treatment he receives at the hands of accepted opinion.
Students of primitive society tell how, in many cultures, the man who breaks the taboo meets a swift end at the hands of his fellows or is thrust from the group to die in the wilderness. Every step in the process may be rationalised from the moment of accusation to that of punishment—always there are sound reasons. The group must face nature united if it is to survive. A broken taboo means an angry god visiting the group with some dread disease or hastening its failure in battle, all resulting in the breakdown or weakening of the group. Thus the group must defend itself from those within who would, by action detrimental, weaken it in its struggle for self conservation. Thus is born the oldest political ideology the world has known—simple conservatism. This doctrine, not without usefulness as a social preservative force makes adaption or adjustment of established fact very difficult. What has always been done is right and good, because it has always been done. What is new is bad and wrong, because it is untried, has never worked, because it is in fact new. Change is most acceptable when it is presented as a return to the wisdom of earlier ages and most objectionable when felt to be at variance with group tradition. The importance attached to traditional attitudes and practices; the great reluctance to question their truth or applicability in changed conditions, make adaptive change a difficult and dangerous business.
Faced with new situations the group acts in ways which have been successful in the past though they may be quite inadequate to cope with the new problems. The frustration produced by its failure results in hostile behaviour towards other groups and within the group itself. Those in any way critical of group policies or practices tend to be crushed or intimidated. Those questioning and critical attitudes which may alone contain the prerequisites for solving, the new problems are lost to the group. Its behaviour becomes more and more regressive as its failure becomes more and more apparent. Social extinction ultimately results.
This brief black or white stereotype of crudely conservative authoritarian organisation brings out clearly that they tend to preserve the group at the expense of adaptability. Rigidity of structure means rigidity of response and lack of internal self-correcting principles. Once started upon a course of action it is completely committed. Mistakes once made become fixated responses incorporated into its organisational principles.
A much more rational attitude to the critics and one which we should adopt is to try and derive benefit from criticism. The man intolerant of criticism is a man who believes he has found the finished article of truth. To him intolerance of criticism is simply a rebuttal of falsity—a black or white, " either or " position.
Life is rarely so simple. So- often when we examine criticism we find that element of truth which in our hurry we were trying to leave behind and which, left undiscovered, would have caused us to retrace our steps at a later date.
If in our attitude we can aim to derive from criticism that " soul of truth " which inspired the critic we will obtain a very high degree of stability indeed, coupled with the greatest degree of adaptability.
Joan Lestor.

28.6 A LAPSE FROM RIGHTEOUSNESS
Although I have been a member of the Party for over forty years, I still regard the Object and D of P a magnificent piece of political writing, comparable only with the " Communist Manifesto ' in its pungency of style and power of exhortation.
This Socialist objective and call to action, though perhaps premature in point of historical time, has been, however, a tremendous source of inspiration to many thousands of the more seriously politically minded working class men and women throughout the world.
As a very humble rank and filer may I, therefore, be allowed to voice my views regarding the issues raised in the above circular, because Paddington Branch appear to be slightly disgruntled and dissatisfied with the progress of Socialism down the years. Their reaction seems to take the form of wishing to dispense with principles altogether and to keep company, presumably with the unprincipled.
They must know, however, that membership of the Party is conditioned by an Object and D of P. Despite this they now claim the right to disagree with them, remain in and be allowed to continue to represent the Party. Naturally enough they also disagree with the E.C. for imposing disciplinary action because of their claims.
Paddington's objection to this action of the E.C. on the grounds of " principle " and for the other reasons cited, seems to be merely a cover to hide a regrettable arrogance, or a petulant desire to have their own way, thereby concealing the nonsensical and illogical nature of their claims.
A parallel case may perhaps illustrate the absurdity of these claims. An acquantance of mine, a devout Christian protestant, changed his religious views and decided to go over to the Roman Catholic church. He did not wish, however, to cut adrift from his protestant colleagues and their church in the hope that he might eventually win some over on to what he now considered was the " right road ' and of course for Christ's sake. He conveyed these desires to his new spiritual leaders: What did they say? In effect it was " Thou shalt have none other Gods but me and also for Christ's sake, we cannot have you in our ranks under any conditions, preconceived by you or otherwise ". According to their lights this was quite logical and therefore reasonable.
The contentious claims of Paddington, therefore on the grounds of " principle " too, is nothing less than an unprincipled license (to quote from the above circular) ..." to have every facility within the Party to advocate any change in its principles & etc
Well! how could you, Paddington, be so irresponsible?
A more straightforward intellectually honest line of action is surely, resignation from the Party with whose Object and D. of P. Paddington no longer agree. Or is there some subtle distinction between this course of action — to resign — and some obscure metaphysical doubt that the " gods " cannot really intend self condemnation to political purgatory, after having laboured so faithfully at the " altar " of Socialism. Or have Paddington so pitiably failed to assess the factors which herald the advent of Socialism —in their time—and that they now wish to sink the boats in consequence?
28.6.1 Membership Strength
We would assure Paddington, however, that we do not wish to appear harsh or unsympathetic in view of any of the possible extenuating circumstances which may be responsible for their lapse from the paths of political righteousness. We have in mind for instance the period covered by the last fifteen years. This period must have been a great strain upon the resources of those who were engaged in the responsible and arduous nature of Party work. There was little respite and added to this the grim period of the war years: intenseness of purpose; a fierce desire to strike back at the arch enemy—King capital. Then later on elections were contested, the results of which must have been another bitter pill to swallow. The outcome of- it all, a feeling of despair, a sense of frustration—-" Socialism is hopeless : the Object and D. of P. are all wrong, they do not now meet the situation ". Surely, however, Paddington have overlooked the fundamentally important factor in Socialist teaching, that it is a majority which has to be won over to Socialism by political action, accomplished democratically.
It is hoped, therefore, that Paddington Branch may now desire to reconsider the Socialist problem from this angle and in this light, withdrawing unconditionally from the position they have taken up and to renew their efforts to review the Party technique for propagating Socialism and building up its membership strength.
In a later article some aspects of such a revised technique will be outlined and discussed. So let us all have a go. Socialism is the "GOODS" let us reconsider our methods of advancing it.
O. C. A.
28.7 CORRESPONDENCE
28.7.1 Dear Comrades,
It was indeed a pleasure meeting your editors and some of your writers during my recent trip to Britain. I simply must return and take more time for a grand confabulation. : The Forum is avidly read and heartily supported here. Some, however, are of the opinion that at least half of the paper should be used for ways and means of improving propaganda, i.e. suggestions to speakers, lists of effective anecdotes, lists of facts for propagandists such as were issued some time ago by the S.P.G.B., how to improve work in the provinces, how to make the most effective use of Head Office (Socials, etc.), etc., etc.
All personal remarks that might be offensive and slighting to individual members should be definitely eliminated.
Also the editors should not, as they did on one occasion, appear to take sides on a controversial issue. A member has the right, even though I disagree with his views, to say that certain ideas make an individual a fit object for expulsion.
However, congratulations on a splendid job of helping make full free socialist discussion available.
Comradely and Cordially,
GEORGE GLOSS.
28.7.2 Dear Comrade Editor,
I could not quite renounce my desire to enquire further of R. Smith of Dundee and to repeat his unanswered question (" Renunciation and Socialism ", Forum November, p.88). Where does " renunciation" (or even renunciation) fit in to scientific explanation of social evolution and human society and is it really a sane and practical method ? Further, is it a method?
I should also like to respectfully suggest that in order to facilitate an assessment of the validity of the answers there should be appended a list—if more than one—of the things (?) we must renounce (or " renounce ").
Meanwhile, I give up.
Yours fraternally,
L.J.C.
28.8 SOCIALISM and CLAUSE SIX
In the November issue of Forum an article by Comrade Turner appeared in which he stated his criticisms of the Declaration of Principles—the general tenor of which was that the choice before the Party was, as his title put it, Socialism or Clause 6. My own contention is that, far from being mutually exclusive, without Clause 6 there can be no Socialism.
The article commences with an accusation that members have been making untrue statements about him, and as I fully agree with two of the three statements he mentions I feel that it is necessary to touch upon this before dealing with the real issue. " It has been said," claims Turner, " that I am opposed to the Party," I agree, "that I am campaigning within the Party in order to disrupt it," I disagree, " and that I do not put the Party case when I am on the platform." This has also been the case. If these members really believe their statements to be true, why, asks Comrade Turner, do they not use the Party machinery to deal with me? As a matter of fact there have been a number of complaints lodged against Turner, including one lodged by myself. Why the E.C. took no action in spite of admissions made by Turner is not for me to explain.
28.8.1 Opposition to the Party
So much for Comrade Turner on the platform. The question of opposition to the Party brings us to the main point under-discussion. As one who has had a great number of discussions with Turner on these questions let me make it quite clear from the start that he is opposed to the whole of the Declaration of Principles AND the Object. At a Head Office Forum some months back when Turner was insisting upon some point of agreement as a basis for discussion. I, having been unable to agree to the points he suggested, offered him any part of the D. of P. and, as he would not agree with a single sentence offered him the Object. He would not agree with this either.
This may seem strange in view of the statement in his article that he holds " That Socialism alone is the solution," and that his criticism of the D. of P. is only " where they depart from the objective as set out above," but it is not so strange when we realise that the " objective as set out above " in Comrade Turner's article is, like his socialism, very different from ours. In spite of the misleading similarity of the phrasing in parts it will be seen that the content is very different. Nowhere is our Object quoted. Nowhere is Democracy mentioned. This is no slip. Turner has for some time now been arguing against democracy, and it is this which explains the subtle substitution of the phrase " all things will be held in common " for our own " Common ownership." It is the implication that all ownership has of control and authority, albeit a common, democratic control, a social authority, that makes our objective completely alien to Turner's anarchistic conception of future Society. His opposition is in fact to everything but a few of our nicer sentiments.
28.8.2 Class interests
Now for his criticisms of Clause 6. Turner makes the point that Class has nothing to do with a person's fitness to organise for Socialism. This is quite irrelevant, the question is one of who stands to gain by the establishment of Socialism. Turner himself recognises this in his very next sentence, but counters with the argument that this is at variance with the proposition that Socialism means the emancipation of all mankind. Does Turner really believe that this means that a ruling class which is subject to none CAN be emancipated? I should have thought that anybody out of knickerbockers would have recognised this sentence as meaning that all subject classes, workers or not, would be emancipated and that no new subject class would exist in Socialist society.
The same argument appears again in his attack on Clause 7 which sees the establishment of Socialism as a method of furthering working class interests but not those of the Capitalist. To this Turner takes strong exception. Turner is right when he says that " the interest of neither class is Socialism " and indeed it would be absurd to say " that the interest (note he drops the plural) of the working claa is Socialism even though they are unaware of it." But the Party makes no such statement to my knowledge and certainly not in the D. of P.
Both classes are fully aware of their interests and it is important too that we should understand them, because it is the interests, the solving of IMMEDIATE PROBLEMS in the struggle for existence, which cause men to act, and not the misty future
Utopias with which they are confronted from time to time by public speakers. Long term theories can only be accepted if they can be related to the immediate problems, and have value in the immediate struggle.
But what are the interests of the two classes? What are these immediate problems?
For the working class the problem is to obtain decent living accommodation, -good food and clothing, holidays instead of two weeks forced idleness, a working week short enough to leave energy for real recreation instead of passive amusement, freedom from the unpleasantness of having to play the inferior in their employment, and their generally inferior position in society, etc. Some of these worries can be partially alleviated through the industrial struggle; the only permanent answer however, is to get out of the wages category, and for the vast majority the only way this can be done is by the establishment of Socialism. This is how Socialism serves the interests of the working class and this is why we can expect their support. But only when we integrate our theory in a sufficiently practical way with the present struggle in which they find themselves.
The immediate problem of the Capitalist is different. His interests are mainly problems of conserving the advantages he already possesses, the ability to do very nearly what he likes, when he likes and where he likes, the pleasant illusion of superiority, the problem of expanding his capital, of increasing productivity in any way which does not involve taking off his jacket, and of keeping the worker in his place whether it be with truncheon or psychology. Socialism can help him in none of these matters. It cannot increase his rights, only his social obligations and he must resist such a movement wherever he encounters it. This is why the working class must get control of the State machine, before they can attack the class structure of society.
28.8.3 The Dynamic View
There is one more contradiction which appear within Capitalism. Also the D. of P. Turner manages to read into the D. of P. the State in particular, remains unchanged while the ideas of people change revolution-arily. He states that " when the mass of people hold Socialist ideas there will be no State machine to capture " which, if it means anything, must mean that as socialist ideas become prevalent the State will gradually disappear within Capitalism. Also the D. of P. ignores, in his view, the " dynamic character of society."
Let us see what really happens. That Capitalism changes and develops there can be no doubt, but it changes, not through the spreading of socialist ideas, but as the result of efforts to solve immediate problems and, as far as Capitalists are concerned, within the framework of class society and, whether capitalist or worker, always motivated by class interests. These changes may then influence the whole pattern of social ideologies.
The need for developing an industry which cannot attract the necessary new capital throws up nationalisation which, as it develops can bring the concept of a socially planned economy within the grasp of the ordinary, practical minded worker who, because his political theory is slight, wisely refuses to allow his ideas to stray very far from what he sees operating around him. So also the welfare state thrown up by the need for higher productivity brings into being a general acceptance of the principle of social welfare.
The State also changes and develops. Nationalisation and the welfare-warfare organisation cause it to spread its administrative tentacles more and more into every aspect of economic life till they begin to overshadow that class-coercive function which makes it a State. This too brings within the reach of the " man in the street " the concept of a social " administration of things "—a concept which can only fully materialise when those men have taken control of that State machine and used it, consistently with Clause 6 and in their own class interests, to abolish the class structure which makes the State necessary. Only as the class structure of society crumbles can the State disappear and then only in the sense that it will be transformed or grow into an organ of social administration.
Where, I would ask Comrade Turner, does this outline conflict with Clause 6? Where does it fail to connect ideas with the material conditions out of which they arise? although not perhaps in the oversimplified terms of a rigid correspondence which Turner seems to hold, but rather in terms of the M.C.H. to which of course, Turner has often stated his opposition. And furthermore, what more dynamic view of society does Turner want than this, which when put to him in the past was always opposed in favour of his famous " woosh " theory of revolution into the dignified sock-knitting society of his dreams.
Incidentally, Turner does not show us socialist ideas or socialist society (particularly his version) developing anywhere.
28.8.4 Two Dangers
Finally, Turner rightly tells us that " the whole of the D. of P. leads up to the objective as contained in Clause 6." If the rest is accurate then it must be that Clause 6 is correct. But nowhere does he deal with these clauses and their analysis of the real world. He should have done, instead of merely showing that Clause 6 was inconsistent with his own quite arbitrary ideal of future society existing only in his own head and quite unrelated in any way to the real world which we know. The whole argument is in fact nothing but an essay in philosophical idealism, the danger of which is that it must lead its possessor into1 all the peculiar positions in which Comrade Turner finds himself from time to time.
It is my firm conviction however, that weird ideas such as Turner's can do no harm in the Party provided they are rigidly barred from the platform. Normally, they would either disappear from the individual or the individual would disappear from the Party. A couple of warts on the neck does not mean we are suffering from cancer. The real danger is that some members are being panicked into violent and unnecessary remedies which threaten the Democratic principle (I use the term in the broadest sense) in the Party of which we are so justly proud.
J. Trotman

28.9 NOTES ON CRISES – 5
In the last article it was shown that disproportionality of production can take two forms; one originating in the department producing the means of production (capital goods) and the other in the department manufacturing the means of consumption. All data published on crises shows that break in equilibrium, resulting in a crisis, occurs more usually in the trades producing capital goods.
In the first place the profit distribution in capitalism is calculated not on the amount of variable capital employed (wage labour), but in proportion to the total capital investment. Because, then, that branch of production which manufactures capital goods costs a great deal more to make than the branch which produces the means of consumption, a greater mass of capital will be invested in the former, and consequently a greater mass of profit will be made. Thus, owners of capital goods will be able to invest in their branch of production a greater part of their profit than those who own the means of consumption. This bias towards an unequal rate of capital accumulation between the two branches of production accentuates the disproportionality factor inherent in capitalist society.
Again, the period of rapid capital accumulation which characterises a boom generally takes place at a time when there are ample reserves of cheap labour power; that is, considerable unemployment, with its additional downward effect on current wage levels. And again where there exists the possibility of cheap and plentiful utilisation of idle wealth resources, i.e., power, technical facilities and raw materials. Such a state of affairs will provide a field for large scale capital investment for the owners of capital in the industry which produces the means of production.
28.9.1 Heavy Industry
Because these are the more appropriate conditions for the start of a boom, it can be seen that it is in the stage prior to consumption output, i.e., retail selling, that the initial impulse of trade expansion begins. It is in the first stages of a boom that heavy industry seems to expand at a greater rate than other industrial sections, while the level of wage earnings rises more slowly. As the boom, however, goes from point to point, there is a decline in the rate of expansion of constructional goods, while wage payments rise more sharply. It is ait the back end of a boom that purchasing power is at its highest level, that is when more wages are being earned than at any other time. This high level of wage earnings is itself a significant cost factor in the emergence of a crisis situation.
Nevertheless, it must be shown why, at a certain stage in a trade expansion of this type, a slowing down of activity begins to first take effect in the heavy engineering and constructional trades. To begin with, the opportunities for investment with an associated high profit level in these trades will attract an ever-increasing volume of capital. Under the stimulus of expanding investment, production will proceed rapidly; as a result idle resources will be quickly used up. Again, as production goes ahead, and more and more workers are absorbed, cheap labour reserves will tend to diminish and the price of labour-power will begin to rise.
28.9.2 Labour Costs
For the capitalists who have invested in capital goods, the expenses of production will become ever greater as the boom gets under way. This is because, as production proceeds to higher levels, there will be an increasing demand for ever greater additional supplies of all types of power, technical facilities, raw material, etc., and consequently the price of these things will rise sharply. This will be especially so if the production of such goods and services has failed to keep pace with the tempo of capital accumulation in the capital goods industry. Thus, in a not too advanced stage of the boom, elements of disproportionality, although not observable, may still be present. Nevertheless, because high prices and profits still continue, there will be no slackening of continued investment in heavy industry. As a corollary to this, capital accumulation may tend to outrun the supply of certain kinds of skilled labour-power essential for its needs, and labour costs will rise.
28.9.3 Anarchy of Production
The whole process is complicated by the fact that fixed capital, i.e., factories, buildings, massive machinery, etc., by its very nature takes far longer to produce than items of consumption, and cannot therefore quickly assert themselves on the market (which is the only means which will enable the capitalists who have invested in capital goods to know whether their investments have made the anticipated profit yield). And, while these new means of production do not appear on the market, the demand for them remains un-sated, and no dis-incentive for investment will exist.
It is here, then, that the anarchy of production comes into the picture. Because each concern in the making of capital goods will seek to expand as rapidly as possible in order to realise maximum profit earnings, regardless of what other concerns are doing, it will not be able to effectively gauge to what extent its own expansion and the expansion of others are contributing to raising to ever higher levels the expenses of production, and so narrowing the gap between production costs and realisation price. Indeed, the gap may be so narrow as to bring about an acute disappointment on the part of the entrepreneur in his profit expectation. Moreover, as one cannot stop the production of capital goods by a wave of the hand—in other words such massive production carries, its own momentum —this will intensify competition among the various concerns and lead to speeding up of output in order to gain the quickest access to the market. Thus, from the standpoint of the realisation price of capital goods, things will tend towards a state of affairs where profit margins cease altogether.

In actual fact the entrepreneur who finances the production of capital goods generally borrows large sums in addition to his own capital from banks and finance houses (loan capital) in return for which he pays a certain rate of interest. When, however, the market price of such goods reaches the level where the repayment of interest-bearing loans exceeds the rate of profit, the entrepreneur will lack any further incentive for investment. As a result, investment will recoil, production slow down and massive unemployment ensue. What has happened is that too much capital has been expended in a particular line of goods, or disproportionality of production has occurred in a particular line of industry, resulting in a state of relative overproduction generally. This is not the same as saying that too much has been produced from the standpoint of social needs, or that it is a genuine maladjustment of social resources—as some economists would have us believe—inseparable from large scale organisation. What it is in fact is the inability of capitalists to assess even approximately the proportional development of the various productive branches, and further their impotence to rectify their errors until after the event. It is only the market which will reveal whether investment decisions have been faulty or otherwise. If proportional development is at any given time preserved in capitalist society, then, as Marx said, it was only by accident.
28.9.4 Disproportionality
The need for the capitalist to invest a portion of surplus value—generally the major portion—into additional capital, for the appropriation of more surplus value, constitutes capital accumulation, and is the driving force of capitalist development. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, this process of' accumulation is integrally connected between the two major branches of industry, the branch producing the means of production and the branch producing the means of consumption. The demand of the first branch is dependent on the extent to which the latter branch replaces constant capital and the rate at which it increases its existing plant. It follows, then, that any sharp change in the rate of investment would tend to disequilibrium between the two branches as a result of disproportionality. Or again, any changes in the organic composition of capital—that is, the ratio of constant capital to variable capital—between the two branches, hold tendencies towards disproportionality. Marx's analysis of this relationship between the two sections of industry is one of his major contributions to economic theory. If Marx had lived he might have given a more exhaustive account of the whole matter. It was left for Engels to piece his notes together from a rough draft.
In the next article I hope to gather up some loose ends which have been left unavoidably, and in addition to deal with two alleged cures for crises, viz. increased capitalist spending, and raising workers' wages. Another aspect of crises which is essential to its understanding is the connection between the falling rate of profit and disproportionality. Assuredly much confusion exists here in the minds of many Marxist commentators, especially those who treat them as separate causes of crises. For the present writer the falling rate of profit, although inseparably connected with the factor of disproportionality, is nevertheless dependent on and subsidiary to the latter. This, however, will have to be dealt with at more length in a further article in which it is proposed to deal with the confused and even unsound views on crises put forward by Dr. Paul Sweezy in his The Theory of Capitalist Development, published by Dobson.
E.W.

29. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B
No. 29 February 1955

29.1 SCIENCE AND SUPERSTITION
There has been steady pressure to secure the resignation or expulsion from the Party of those who criticise the Object and D of P, in part or in whole. This has culminated in the decision of the E.C. to call a Party poll on the subject —
"Shall members of the Party who do not accept its' Object and Declaration of Principles be called upon to resign, and if they refuse to do so, their membership be terminated."
This position has only arisen since the members concerned explicitly questioned the D of P. Exactly the same arguments, when previously put without mentioning the D of P, aroused hardly any serious protest. But as soon as the D of P was actually mentioned, angry cries arose.
To an ordinary observer, this would strongly suggest that the D of P was an emotive symbol, dear to members in exactly the same way as the flag is dear to patriots, and the cross is dear to Christians. We ,in the Party, however, know that this is not true: the D of P is simply a rational statement of aims, facts and suggestions for action. It is a very fine statement and shows clearly the development of Socialist ideas which had been reached in 1904.
Already in 1904 Socialist ideas had developed beyond the views put forward by Marx and Engels. Quite a number, of things which Marx and Engels originally stated, such as the position on war, we disowned, because the Party represented a further stage of development. This happened not so much because there had been great changes in capitalism since Marx's time, but rather because the particular ideas in question could now be seen to be inadequate, as a result of the development in Socialist ideas themselves.
This development is still going on. It is going on in the heads of members of the Party. Up till recently, it was generally felt that the modifications of view which had so far appeared could be squared with the D of P, by giving certain phrases a particular interpretation. New, however, several members have begun to take the view that the D of P is acting as a fetter on the further development of Socialist ideas and want to bring the whole question of a D of P under the arc-light of discussion.
They point out that this urge to bring the whole D of P under discussion is something new in the Party. It represents a revolutionary change in Party attitudes. For that reason alone, it would seem to be wisest to let the dissenters continue to elaborate and clarify their views, until all members can have an opportunity to hear the full story and make up their own minds on the actual differ-, ences involved.
The attitude has been, however, "Let them get outside the Party. Then I'll discuss points of difference with them." To say this is to say that Socialist ideas cannot be further developed. Yet we know that they can, because our ideas are different in some respects from Marx's ideas. There seems to be a contradiction here.
If the Socialist Party is to develop Socialist ideas—and one would have thought that this was one of its most important jobs—it must permit discussion, even of the D of P. To put dissension outside is to refuse to learn from it; because it is shallow hypocrisy to say "Get outside; then I'll consider your views." The SPGB as at present constituted only considers the views of outsiders in order to bash them.
To refuse to discuss the D of P with other members is to say that the D of P must be accepted without question. Yet how we should jeer at any other organisation which required unquestioning acceptance of its creed!
The D of P is not handed down from God; it is the work of men like ourselves. blinkered and confined in a capitalist world. Like all other things, it is good within certain limits and under certain conditions. If this is so, it must be legitimate to discuss whether those limits have been reached, and whether those conditions have changed.
Yet unquestioning acceptance is what this Poll asks us to vote for. It asks us to vote for a Party consisting exclusively of men and women who have pledged themselves never to question their Declaration of Principles. Christians can—and do—criticise the Bible : but the Socialist Party must never criticise its Declaration of Principles. Communists can—and do^discuss the works of Stalin : but the Socialist Party must never discuss its Declaration of Principles. Scientists can— and do—question the Law of Gravity, the Law of Causation, and Newton's Fourth Law of Hydrodynamics: but the Socialist Party must never question its Declaration of Principles.
Many of us joined this party because we believed it stood for Scientific Socialism. If this Poll were carried, it would put an almost unbearable strain on our loyalty; for if it passes this resolution, the party stops being scientific. It becomes a religious organisation, complete with infallible texts, sacred founders, and all that follows. In fact, it becomes worse than many of the existing religions. Nearly all of them permit discussion of their sacred texts and dogmas.
The Party was founded on the basis of mass understanding. In all the Party's propaganda down the years, there has always been one keynote. The workers must understand, we said, before Socialism can be to be taken as the official views of the party achieved. But this resolution doesn't mention understanding. It only speaks of acceptance. That's something new in the Party. And it's something none of us can feel proud of.
Talk about understanding, and you're on the side of science; talk about acceptance and you're right in the territory of superstition. Understanding can develop — acceptance can't. You can understand more and more as time goes on—but you either accept or you don't accept.
And if the development of understanding brings one to question the D of P, the cure for that is not to refuse to develop—to throw out all chance of over developing—but to meet the arguments on their own ground, at the next conference.
J. C. ROWAN.
29.2 EDITORIAL
This issue represents quite well the various functions of FORUM—internal matters, hints for new speakers, questions of organisation, information about new developments in society, and theoretical discussion. These are the things which FORUM was founded to contain.
We feel that FORUM is doing a good job in the Party. If it has sometimes seemed unbalanced, that is the fault of members themselves, for not writing the letters and articles which would have corrected any such faults. Today, new writers are contributing more and more, and the balance is noticeably improving. What is needed now is for branches to help boost circulation.
Members and branches have, in the past, often discontinued their subscriptions when a succession of articles have displeased them for some reason. This is not fair. The standard of FORUM, and the type of articles included, must vary a good deal from time to time. If branches and members support it loyally, there is some hope of it improving, and eventually becoming all that we may desire of it. If they withdraw their support, FORUM will be less and less likely to be of use or value to the Party.
We therefore call on all branches to take the maximum number of copies which they possibly can, and to push them in every way to their branch membership. We call on Central Branch, and individuals and branches abroad and in the Companion Parties, to place regular orders, so that a solid Party circulation is ensured.
And we call on writers—particularly writers who have not yet contributed—to keep contributing more and more articles, so that we can make every issue a balanced expression of the life of the Party.
29.3 THE ELECTRONIC ORACLE
At an indoor meeting last year ( 1953) the view was expressed that the organisation of the socialist world would be complicated. For this reason it would be necessary to elect the most suitable people to be the senior organisers or executives. As this view appeared to be held by a number of the members present, a few brief comments here will not be out of place.
Firstly, why should it be necessary to elect such people? Is it thought that there will be some fiddling? Will their friends get two jars of jam, instead of one everyone else will get? It should be obvious that the most suitable person, man or woman, will do the work, and a ballot will be unnecessary. In class society it is necessary to vote for Presidents etc., because there are groups with conflicting interests, and the vote measures the support of the different sections and groups. In this way a divided society is made to be as an harmonious unit. I see no future of socialist society that resembles this, and so voting will not be necesasry.
Although people realise that their own jobs in capitalist society are quite straightforward, administration, which does not seem to be the occupation of a large number of socialists, is thought to be extremely complex, and to require genius, to say the least. This is also thought to apply to socialist society, despite the fact that they know that the socialist world will be much less complex than the present class society, capitalism. To arrange to send tea from India to the thirsty millions in England, or Alaska, in these days of high speed communication and transport, does not require originality, or even brains. If there are good harvests all over the world (and a blue moon, because that is just as likely) some of the produce may not be used, and we will all have worked two minutes too long that year. It will be sad !
To some, it is so much more difficult to work out a railway timetable, than to make a good table and chair. But is it really? Just as machines can be built to make things, such as chairs, so they can be made to do calculations. In "The Human Use of Human Beings" a book by Norbert Wiener, we learn that these sorts of calculations are child's play to an electronic brain. An example of a fairly recent use of an electronic brain on a more complex problem, in the field of politics, or military strategy, shows vividly the potentialities of these new machines. For according to Robert Jungk, a journalist, when General MacArthur was dismissed from his command in the Far East a few years ago, a deciding factor in the matter was the calculations of an electronic brain called SEAC. He has described the situation as follows, in a recent book.
"The General stood for a strategy which would have led our country on to the brink, or even into the middle of a world war. Here in Washington there were many adherents of the strong policy. The President might perhaps have had to bow before them in the end if SEAC had not delivered an objective argument. We ran calculations on the thinking machine for several days which we formerly would not have attempted to do at all because it would have taken years. We had to work out how American economy in all its sectors would react to a sudden entry into war at this moment. SEAC gave the answer in clear, unambiguous numbers; even the intensification of aggressive action demanded by the General would cause a considerable shock to our economic system; an outbreak of war at this moment would be premature and might easily be unfavourable to us. Every proposal advanced, every strategic variant was figured out by SEAC down to its final consequences."
Tomorrow is Already Here, by Robert Jungk. (Pages 228 & 9).
Even if this report is somewhat exaggerated, it does show " The Shape of Things to Come."
Incidentally other examples are given in the same chapter explaining how electronic brains are being used to forecast economic trends, and test and develop methods of military strategy, which should be understood by any man of ordinary intelligence and education.
As all the applications of such calculations, to be of any use, require action at a national level, nationalisation or government control (call it what you will) spreads steadily day by day in the " Bulwark of Private Enterprise ". This is an interesting example of a new technique transforming a society, in a matter of detail, without being (or at any rate winning) a political issue. Science is often making previous arguments on the nature of socialist society nonsensical. In conclusion, the writer apologises for this brief treatment of such important themes. A detailed study is needed, and if this contribution provokes someone to make it, this space will not have been wasted.
ROBERT.
29.4 HEREDITY AND ABILITY
Comrade Bott originally proposed to deal with my view that innate individual variation cannot be dismissed without dismissing the basis of biological evolution. He now at any rate accepts natural selection as " one factor " in it, so I gladly leave it at that— bar catching up on some of the misrepresentations which have had twelve months start.
It is common ground and common knowledge that organic evolution proceeds by creation and elimination of species, not by the gradual modification of one species into another. A species remains virtually unchanged until it becomes extinct. The human species is a product of organic evolution, and it does not cease to be an animal because it has a special capacity for social labour, nor does the evolution of that labour make him a different animal. Being an animal, he has the qualities of organism, inherent in which is the innate individual variation without which organic evolution would not have been possible. And these variations could not be the raw material of natural selection, could not have survival value, if they did not affect performance. They affect performance whether a species is pushed around by environment or whether (as with man) he pushes his environment around. There seems to be no practicable way of knowing how much or how little specific performances are affected by innate endowment, and no point in knowing, for it has no bearing on our " naive " case against leadership.
The dismissal of hereditary influence on differences in men's abilities seems to be part of the new absolute idealism which dismisses social or historical laws, and affirms the absolute equality of individuals, thus discrediting the Party and the effort to discuss Socialist society (which establishes the social equality of unequal individuals). Whether in mistaken fear of some geneticists' crackpot views on leadership, or for any other reason, no useful purpose is served by refusing to acknowledge a fact of nature—hereditary variation and its effect on performance. Like the human hand, the very range of human variation in detail assists economic evolution, as a magnification of opposable thumbs—a simile lost on Comrade Bott, who seems to think my statement that the special structure of the human animal makes history possible must mean that history is a biological process. So he prefers to use the " valuable space " saved by refusing to say where I have misrepresented him to insist again that I hold a biological interpretation of history, in spite of what I have stated and repeated in repudiation of it. Nothing I have said justifies his " assuming that Evans regards natural selection as a force in the evolution of civilised man". Nowhere have I suggested " that there is in general any selecting of human types in the evolution of civilised man '. No one has more unequivoeably held to what is sometimes called " economic determinism ". To speak (as I do) of natural selection as the mechanism which has produced the human species, is one thing, but to speak (as he does) of natural selection as a force in the evolution of civilised man, is quite another: in the first case the thing evolved in an animal (man); in the second case the thing evolved is civilisation (society). But having thus made one unobtrusive change in the terms, he then makes another by replacing the more demure phrase " a considerable force " by the bold " selecting of human types ". The operation of imputing a biological interpretation of history is thus completed by successive verbal changes each of which is hardly noticeable like the game of changing, say, the word " white " into " black " one letter at a time in as few moves as possible: white, whine, chine, chink, clink, clank, clack, black.
It is this sort of verbal play which is the quality of his latest rash of science as it was of the earlier ones, and when he asks if there is a sense which transcends common sense it invites the answer: yes, transcendental nonsense. It is the combination of am-biguousness and verbal sleight-of-hand which makes rejoinder at length impracticable— even the dissection of a few samples is a painfully wordy business. For instance, he justifies the carelessness which permits him to say in one breath that man thinks with words, and in the next that he thinks with his tools (i.e., hammer and chisel, not words) by a quotation in which " words are tools " (of the mind—i.e., not hammer and chisel). From the passage I called careless he repeats the sentence : " Thinking in man almost exclusively involves the use of words . . . ", but only Bott knows what this means. No one else knows whether he means to exclude most other creatures (i.e., " thinking in man, almost alone, involves the use of words ") or whether it excludes kinds of human thinking which don't involve words (i.e., " thinking in man almost always involves the use of words "). Of comrade Bott's " good company " only one offers something more than platitude, and all combined say less on the matter of thinking, words and labour than was already said in Forum No. 4, p. 3. We have a world to win and nothing to lose but our dependence on quotation.
It is only a half truth, anyway, that thinking depends on having words to think with. The converse is also true, that clear expression depends on clear thinking. " Careless " was felt to be a term kinder than was deserved. Never kick a gift horse in the teeth. It happens that with no other writer do I have to read every other sentence so many times to see that he doesn't mean what he says, and to these must be added those in which he has shifted the issue. Comrade Bott was allowed to start off, no doubt in good faith, on a note of preliminary personal disparagement (which is known to be used sometimes as a debating trick). No doubt in good faith, having chased his red herrings back to where they started, he has left a trail of -confusion and misrepresentation, inputting silly notions which can only prejudice what I have nearly finished saying in criticism of the Party position. He no doubt suspects my adhering to the single term " variation " as signifying an ignorance of contemporary evolutionary theory which he must correct—not suspecting that approximation may assist the creative use of knowledge as distinct from its simple display (which also has its uses). He seems to have become all too soon tuned in to the Party wave-length—our assumption of superior knowledge vis a vis the world, and therefore in practice (because we really have no other audience) as between ourselves. We are an incorrigible bunch.
29.5 MY CHALLENGE TO THE M.C.H.
The word "History" itself, apart from man, is a mere abstraction that can have no meaning. History is with man, and for man alone; outside of man there can be no "History", no "Time", no "Destiny". Furthermore, all history is willed history, as there never was, and never will be History that is not willed by man.
To Comrade Evans, who accepts the statement—"History is governed by laws independent of the will of man"—and who has given us much of his time, explaining in his own particular manner what the MCH is, what it means, how it achieves its ends, its results, and its destiny, I ask him these four questions : (1) What could history do without the will of man? (2) What does it fight without the will of man? (3) What does it possess? (4) What meaning can it have independent of the will of man? I would be ever so pleased to have these four questions answered by Comrade Evans, or any other member and supporter of the MCH, who is quite openly prepared to defend the MCH in writing, and not only by mere lip service, and complete ignorance of what it really implies. For I have very little doubt that a great number of the members have given the MCH very little (if any) thought, and that also goes for the men on the Executive and Editorial Committees, and the FORUM Committee. However, I shall try to prove to you in this article my reasons for thinking so; of course, if I am answered by any one of you in a satisfactory manner, I shall discard my method of thinking, and become a disciple of the "Materialistic Conception of History."
But if you now, the "Materialist", ask me, why I think History is willed, I answer: "Because production is willed." Why, you may ask, is production willed? Answer: Because survival of life is willed, and this because propagation of the species is willed despite the shortness of the individual span of life ", and here we get a motive for life and history. Man willed life prior to knowing and understanding what it was; he produced prior to having any knowledge of production; he killed, murdered and destroyed prior to having any complete idea of what he was doing, ( I herefore, here I also disagree with S.R.P. who puts forward the primacy of the "idea" in the development of man. I claim, on the contrary, that the "idea" is a secondary factor in production and reproduction, and that the "will" is primary, in that the "deed" was prior to the word. But then again, as it is the "Materialists" I am dealing with here, I shall not go into S.R.P's viewpoints.)
It is possible that a great many "Materialists" will not, as yet, be fully satisfied with what I have said, in order to dirprove the MCH. For I will certainly be asked by the "Materialists" : "Why did man will Chattel Slavery, Feudalism and Capitalism?" Answer: "Because he wanted these systems; if he did not want them they certainly would not have been there." Again, I will be asked : "Why did he want these particular systems at certain periods and not in others?" Answer : "Because they served his ends, his arts, his spirit at that particular period." Again I will be asked : "Why did they satisfy his ends, arts and spirit, at that particular period and not in others?" Answer: "Because the ends, arts and spirit, had meaning only in that particular period, and could not flourish fully in other periods or cultures than the spirit and soil from which they sprung."
For instance, take ancient civilisations like the Mexican, Indian, Egyptian, Chinese, Greek and Roman; they had much similar methods of production, but their methods of architecture, arts, sense of "lime", of "Space", of "Mathematics", differed in many ways. But, then again the "Materialist" might well come again and say to me —"Look you here my dear friend, there is a slight possibility you have something there, and there may be a little truth in what you say, but that is certainly not the 'real' issue, and all you have been saying up to now proves very little, for there could have been no Mexican, Indian, Egyptian, Chinese, Greek and Roman cultures and civilizations if there were no labour and production, and that's where the MCH comes in and your 'will' goes out." Yes, I agree with you my friend to a certain extent, in that all cultures and civilizations rest on labour and production, but let me again remind you what I have already asserted, "that production is willed", and-so my friend if my "will" goes out, then so does "Production". For without the will to produce for the "now" and the "future" there would be no societies at all, socialist or otherwise, as there would be no life.
We certainly will not be wise men if we do not at least consider these realities, especially when they are all staring us in the face; on the contrary, we must face up to them, but not as mere dreamers, not as Utopia-builders, and not as men that look into the future with arrogant optimism. Such men will never understand the real meaning of what existence implies; it is men who understand what is going on under their noses, and who are prepared to base their thought and action on the "now" instead of day-dreaming of the "Never-Never Land" that will never come into existence; that is the sort of men we must have, and need badly. Man wills to live; it is his most powerful urge, all other urges are secondary; his ideas, dreams and fancies and knowledge, are only a cloak for the will, for beneath this cloak of knowledge, he is practically on a par with the lower animals, if not in many respects worse than them. In no age, in no civilisation, has man ever produced such destructive weapons, for the intent not only to kill and maim, but for a complete destruction that would vanquish for ever all the progress that man has ever made in his long and wearisome journey through social evolution.
29.5.1 The Mass Will
I do not drift away from the criticism of the MCH when I deal with such possibilities, in fact, it is just these possibilities which give more power to my case against the MCH. However, as the "Materialist" does not accept the "will" as a factor in History, and thinks that everything will turn out all right, independent of any willing, I cannot see where be has a case at all, or even a leg to stand on, unless it be a wooden one.
Of course the "Materialist" may well ask me—"How do you account for children born into capitalist society, and would you say that they willed that society?" Answer : "No, not consciously; but in that he or she willed life, they did, partly, and unconsciously will the system that they were born in'o. as their forbears willed to bring them into that society, and also willed to have and maintain that society"; for if they did not will it, and will to bring children info it, it certainly would not have existed.
However, I hope it will be understood that I am not just dealing with individual wills, for I am quite well aware that there are individuals who do not will fully to support any particular society, although they all partly will to maintain them to a certain extent; it is the mass will of society I mean, for that is what holds society together. That a man did not ask to be born into any particular culture, civilisation or society is no doubt true, but nevertheless his forbears willed them, and willed to bring him into them, therefore he must bear the brunt of that willing of which he is a product. To say that he is entirely innocent is to miss the mark, and evade the "real" issue that is at stake. For this would also mean that their fore bears were innocent as well of the system they lived in, and that they never willed it more than the newborn babe.
The "Materialist" is still not satisfied with what I have said, and begins shaking his head, and tries to tell me that the will is not a factor at all, and all I have been saying does not refute the MCH. I say to the "Materialist", "then why my friend does the society exist if it is not willed?"
Are we to believe that a society exists independent of any will at all, any desire to maintain it and keep it functioning, whether it be in the interests of Feudal Barons or the Capitalist Class or any other Class?
Are we also to believe that exploitation is not willed, revolution is not willed, and War is not willed, and that it all just happens independent of human will?
Then I say this to the "Materialist" : "You do not understand the world, nor do you understand History; go and read your fairy-story books where everything turns out all right at the end of the book, but do not try to convince me that this is true." If he tells me that I should not be in the Party, because I do not accept the MCH, I answer : "I am in the Party because I am a Socialist, and also because the Party is based upon principles which I accept—that is, Socialism will not come into existence until the majority of people in society mill to have it, and not independent of this will, as you my "Materialistic" friend point out." Here also is a glaring contradiction for the "Materialists" in the Party, in that the D. of P. contradicts the MCH, which they claim is essential for socialists to understand. In my opinion the MCH does not hold water and should be scrapped.
R. SMITH (Dundee) Central Branch

29.6 SOCIALIST ORGANISATION TECHNIQUE
The behaviour of the Paddington Branch in questioning the value of the Object and D of P may reflect a dissatisfaction with the progress made during the past fifty years. The Paddington Branch would probably contend that the main cause is the inadequacy of this very old Object and D of P to fit the circumstances of the modern political world : we must abolish it, or adapt it to the present day trends.
29.6.1 NEW TECHNIQUES REQUIRED
1. Propaganda
Interest in political events to-day is admitted on all sides, at least so far as this country is concerned, luke warm. We shall not, however, go into this phase of the matter at the moment.
Down the years out speakers have endeavoured to interpret world political, economic and social events in the light of our Object and D of P. The style which this interpretation has taken necessarily differs with the talents of the speakers. They have been agitatorial, provocative, virulent and educational, tempered by the nature of the audience and the particular circumstances of the occasion. These efforts have been supplemented with the printed word—Socialist literature. But what does it all add up to ?A membership which is still microscopically small; because it is so small is the obvious reason why our activities are restricted. Further we are living in, what is often styled, a "speed age". Scientific methods are being used which have opened up a vast range of possibilities for the outlet of man's energy and ingenuity. The whole tempo of life has been literally revolutionised over the past fifty years. The social atmosphere is now of a world wide nature or complexion; the most remote hamlet as well as the towns and cities being coloured through the universal use of radio augmented by the fast moving motor bus and coach.
If our case, therefore, has been difficult to put over before, it is multiplied ten-fold today. Notwithstanding these factors the public meeting places are valuable opportunities for our representatives to make more widely known the socialist message and to feel the political pulse of the people. They are in short display occasions and a training ground for speakers. But as a means of winning membership, these methods have shown themselves to be practically useless. Even the collections taken and the sales of literature are but small recognition for the work involved, notwithstanding the fact that our speakers have invariably been able to attract large and interested audiences. The fact has to be faced, therefore, that propaganda technique which we have used, whatever else it may have done, has not brought us new members. To win these the branch lecture room and our Head Office must be the place an aspect which we will now
of the future, consider.
2. Internal—administrative and Branch functioning.
If we recognise the importance of winning new blood to build up the Party membership we must provide opportunities for discussing and debating the implications of our Object and D of P in relation to world events. This is vital for the membership as well as the sympathiser whom we must make every effort to interest and win for membership. This task has been more or less overlooked in the past, or at the most given only secondary consideration. The reason for this has been primarily due to the practice of circulating E.C. reports. In a Party of our size this practice is not justified. Little of importance occures week by week to warrant the time involved. Also in the absence of the pro and con discussion, the reports are for all practical purposes worthless. Besides the periodical Delegate Meetings and Conferences there are sufficient occasions to review the work of the Party.
Secondly, the Branches should be encouraged to attempt to function until they had a qualified numerical strength, i.e. a number of members able to represent the Party and the necessary funds to meet the expenses of hall hire and pay for Branch premises independent from H.Q, assistance.
29.6.2 THE SOCIALIST FRATERNITY GROUPS
These will be indispensable for the future well being of the Party. We should no longer ignore what a vitally important factor in the life of the Party such groups can be. It must be remembered that as well as being political, the majority of us are, social animals as well. This is a fact we should seriously consider, if we desire to build up a Socialist Party on rational and sane lines. Members and sympathisers need more opportunities to enjoy one another's company m an atmosphere of Socialist fraternity where the philosophical temperament may be cultivated.. This would materially assist the membership of the Party to react favourably to the day to day struggle which all of them have to face, constituting a valuable contribution- to the spirit of bonhomie within the Party. It would attract and encourage what we have found from experience to be, that shy and diffident sympathiser to make a serious effort to join our ranks. It would be an important help to persuade them to come amongst us, leading eventually to their serious interest in the work we are doing. It takes all sorts to make up a world, so it must take all sorts to make the Socialist Party—from each according to his abilities &c. ?With these few ruminating tit-bits I can think of nothing better than to conclude with the following lines, written by F. J. Webb during the first world war:
" If at this time of brute force paramount, When death itself is made the creed of men;
When love itself is held of small or no account,
And beauty scorned alike of voice and pen;
There yet should be, hidden amidst the crowd.
Some finer spirits, shrinking and alone,
Who hear the voice of wisdom cry aloud,
Before life's temples stricken, overthrown;
Now should they lift above the noise and strife
Their song of hope, of confidence supreme.
In love and beauty; now indeed should scan
The wide horizon of a boundless life,
Wherein the poet's song, 'the dreamer's dream
Shall stem the mad brutality of man ".
O.C.A.

29.7 IMPROVING THE SOCIALIST CASE
3 – The position of a socialist organisation
The two previous articles examined the Declaration of Principles in detail. Now we go on to consider it more generally in relation to the Party and to Socialism.
Nominally, the D. of P. is the existing basis of membership. Applicants " are expected to satisfy the branch before which their application comes that they understand and accept the principles ". In practice, however, greater attention is paid to the applicant's attitude to the wider socialist case (e.g., Central Branch applicants are asked questions on reforms, Russia, trade unionism, religion, etc.). This indicates that being a socialist means much more than just agreeing with the D. of P. Part of being a socialist is, I suggest, to put the D. of P. in perspective as the most socialist basis of membership that a group of socialists could formulate 50 years ago.
In the first article it was noted that one official Party explanation of why the working class will turn to Socialism is that their position relative to the capitalist class will worsen. It is this line of thought that leads members to assert that they are socialists because they are workers. Against this, it should be realised that socialists want a new system of society from the point of view of people who are to live in that1 society. This point is important and deserves further explanation.
We want more wages—as workers. We want more wages not as socialists, because when we get them it will still leave our desire for Socialism unsatisfied—we are still workers. No amount of making the workers better off adds up to Socialism, even if the former is the policy of a party that combines propagating Socialism with wanting political power for the workers. Whatever we want as workers we want within the framework of Capitalism. As soon as we have as our object something that no longer involves our being workers, we are doing so not as workers. We are doing so from the standpoint of people who want to live in classless society.
The adoption of any class-interested standpoint can at best only be regarded as preparatory to this socialist one. The means employed determine the nature of the end (object) achieved. The socialist objective is incompatible with a pro-working class attitude that involves thinking and acting on the basis of a class movement. The socialist movement is a unity—it is not divisible, as Belfort Bax supposed, into militant (identified with class) and triumphant (with Humanity).
Although the S.P.G.B. does not act as if it were a class movement, its thinking is very much coloured by a desire to identify itself with the working class. Occasionally this desire produces a gesture such as a Party message to workers on strike, but such gestures are not taken seriously and are of no consequence. They cannot be regarded as part of the work of a socialist organisation
29.7.1 CLASS INTERESTS
Now let us consider the reasons given by members in justification of the Party's pro-working class attitude. Many of these reasons are derived from the D. of P. and its explanation, and were touched upon in the first article.
Capitalists are supposed to have an interest to retain Capitalism, while workers are supposed not to have such an interest. A class interest is concerned with promoting the well-being of that class, and therefore the interests of both classes strictly require the continuation of classes, i.e., of Capitalism. We have, however, to consider a looser use of the term " class interest " to mean " promoting the well-being of members of that class as human beings ".
Using " class interest " in the last sense, members assert that capitalists stand on balance to lose by Socialism and that workers stand to gam. These are purely subjective estimates, and are in line with " increasing misery" and its modification, " increasing seeing - how - big - the - difference - is between - them - and - us ". Accordingly, Socialism is supposed to have a special appeal for workers, an appeal to which capitalists will turn a deaf ear. We must recognise the element of truth in this argument : a capitalist is unlikely to be interested in " a workers' society ". The greater tragedy is that a worker who is interested in " a workers' society " is not yet interested in Socialism.
In order that a comparison may be made, the things compared must have common factors. It is only in those aspects of their lives that are common to Capitalism and Socialism—the satisfaction of their needs as human beings—that people can make comparisons. No amount of money can equal free access; that is why there is not a level of income or capital below which Socialism is felt to be a gain and above which a loss. In any case, it is of the very essence of Socialism that it seeks to achieve better living for all. " What is there in it for my class (group, nation, sex, etc.)? " is a question one asks from a property-society standpoint, not a socialist one.
Another justification for the working-class appeal is the tactical one. It consists in seeking to gain the interest of people with a meaty dish of working-class partiality and prejudice, and then introducing Socialism as a kind of dessert. There are two main objections to this procedure: it encourages working-class issues to be confused with socialist ones, and it does not avoid the difficulties of getting socialist ideas accepted.
For too long the Party has had a foot m both camps : the working class (economic, fighting the class struggle, dominated by the values and institutions of Capitalism), and the socialist (allegedly only political, but also developing and propagating the ideas of production solely for use, etc.). A socialist organisation is something more than a mere political party, since it cannot enter politics with the object of governing (though it may contest elections as a means of propaganda) The S.P.G.B. is the only organisation calling itself a political party that is concerned with spreading the ideas of a new society.
Why think of it as a socialist organisation rather than a political party? Because the change we desire to effect in society is not one that will proceed, like the changes envisaged by earlier forms of revolution, through the agency of a political party. The change we call Socialism is multi-dimensional, becoming effective in every sphere, the vision of its advocates encompassing the whole of society. It is not just socialist productive base—it is socialist work, socialist art, socialist sex, morality, architecture ..." the lot ".
29.7.2 History and Socialism
Two other aspects of a socialist organisation must be considered—its view of history, and its conception of how Socialism will come. History is not merely a succession of class struggles; class struggle itself should be seen as one phase in the process of development of control over the conditions of life. Thus we cannot take a static, undifferentiated view of Capitalism—that it is basically the same today as when it started and will remain the same until we get Socialism. A socialist view of history needs to be one that, above all, recognises continuous growth and change to be more intelligible than discrete systems and institutions.
The S.P.G.B. is in this dilemma: it denies that Capitalism can evolve into Socialism, yet it cannot ignore the continuity of society. It therefore posits a transition period beginning when Socialism is " established " (by working-class capture of political power) and ending when the state machine has withered away or been disbanded. This means that the S.P.G.B. conceives its object to be something that at first is not Socialism. My argument is that socialists have only the new social relationships as an object—not a transition period involving authoritarian property institutions like the state and the armed forces. There is an apparent confusion about what revolution is : it is the ending of institutions, not the beginning of a new phase of them which sets in only after a revolutionary act has been taken.
We say that socialists must oppose gradualism as a policy. But we must not forget that our criticism of gradualism is that it aims at insignificant changes unrelated to any clear conception arid pursuit of a comprehensive goal. To deny that imperceptible changes do take place is to deny that society evolves. We make " the day of revolution " ludicrous by taking it too literally. Revolutionaries see the total change called socialist society as the consolidation of limited revolutionary changes going on today. For example, it is a revolutionary change when people drop the ideas of racial inequality and think in terms of one human race. The actions accompanying such thinking change social institutions in the direction of equality and play their part in the transformation of society as a whole. Socialism emerges from the concurrent growth of socialist ideas and incipient practice within Capitalism.
The Party's view of Socialism, like its view of history, is far too static. Its propaganda must be more dynamic, more conscious of its Socialism-creative role. It must be ready to grow, to adapt itself to change, to cast off accumulated waste-products—and to feed on the produce of society at large.
My concluding article will continue the discussion of what further developments are indicated m the S.P.G.B. and how best to encourage them.
S.R.P.
(To be concluded)
29.8 THE APPROACH TO PUBLIC SPEAKING
There is one lesson to be learned by socialist speakers: their audience is not arriving at the hall with the same degree of intelligence (or any intelligence at all) on the subject as they are. They have got to get this over to themselves before they commence to speak. A socialist speaker has got to say to himself: here is an audience with little, or no conception of the matter of which I am about to speak. They are not alert. They are not animated. They are flaccid. I have got to do something about this.
And what must he do? He must first show them why they came—the promise. He must show them this very simply. Make an example. Show then*—at the outset of the
speech—what socialism can do, for each and every one of them, regardless of colour and age. Show them, at once, that the world productivity can be theirs. 1 he results of it can be theirs. Each can be comfortable, secure. But show them at the beginning. Lead up to the disquisitions. Don't bring the cart first.
When attempting to get on with children : get to their level. When attempting to get an audience interested, get to its level, then bring it up with you.
Many people are confused with socialists. They see them as repudiating socialism itself. Because socialists damn all parties purporting to be socialist—and, in the minds of many of the individuals in the audience, are socialist —they are confused and overwhelmed. They believe the labour parties are socialist. It must be pointed out to these people why they are not socialist—because they have not produced the results which socialism can produce.
When one learns to write, one is told to instantly hold the reader's " attention. The same rules for writing a story apply to holding an audience. It must be shown what happens, and how it happens.
Socialist speakers will say to themselves : What more can I do? I have reached to the bottom of the barrel of Marxist philosophy and economics and handed it to them.
He has not appealed to them on their own level of understanding. They are not preconceived socialists. They are people without wits, so abysmal is their ignorance of socialism. There will be only a handful of socialists in any meeting. He is not speaking to them. They do not need him. He is speaking to those who have come to learn what this other brand of socialism is, for it is another brand to them. He is there to show them that equality is theirs. This sounds good. Show them how it can be achieved. Give them a simple example : a group of people, by their co-operation, have everything they want: clothes, food, shelter, television, car, and of their desired types. This achievement is multiplied. Worldwide. After that, the socialist speaker has their attention. He can go on to show them how it can be achieved and what must be done to achieve this state of the world.
How frustrating can be the efforts of the learnedness of the socialist speakers when it falls on deaf ears. It will fall on deaf ears until the socialist speaker first learns to present the promise of socialism—what it can do—in the beginning, the first words of his speech.
KATHLEEN ASH. (Canada.)
29.9 WHY PICK ON TURNER?
A Central Branch visitor to the Delegate Conference who was not too conversant with the "pros and cons" of the meeting would have experienced an awkward set-back to his 'enthusiasm. The high-light of the conference was undoubtedly to be "the Turner question, and all other things took a secondary place to this.
The fact that Forum contained a front page statement of Turner's views was by no means just coincidence. The statement did not reveal anything in the nature of a good Roman Catholic who had committed blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but rather a mild analysis of Clause 6.
Just what dd other members think of the clause—"turning am agent of oppression into an agent of emancipation"? Unfortunately even at the delegate meeting it remained unexplained. Suppose a majority of SPGB candidates are elected to Parliament, a cabinet composed of the SPGB executive would take over as a temporary measure, and issue some instructions to the machinery of government, including the armed forces. The present make-up of machinery which functions to-day is dependent on instructions of how to act under any new set of circumstances. If there was any opposition it would be chaos; socialism must be harmony. The political leaders of the opposing parties would have to be arrested; this could be done by the police, but the more dangerous would require the army.
The arrested men would have to get a chance to defend themselves, this is called democracy. The victorious allies even allowed this to Goering, Goebbels and Hess, so the whole legal circus would get going. It would be a nice chance for Sir David Maxwell Fyfe to earn another £27,000 as chief prosecutor and the verdict would soon arrive; after all, those who pay the piper can call the tune.
The question now arises, what to do with them. They could go to gaol, or be brain washed (Russian style) or shot. (This is where the clause,—"including these forces" . "converted into an agent of emancipation" —would come in useful.)
Now, fellow members, this is the logical conclusion : Either everyone will attempt to establish socialism or there will be opposition; Comrade Turner thinks there will be no opposition, but a majority of delegates beg to differ. Some of the opposition that Comrade Turner had to contend with at the meeting was pathetic; it ranged from quibbling to clowning, all kinds of charges about breaking up the party, "not believing in the class struggle," whatever that means. If anyone puts a lot of hope in the class struggle via the trade unions, they had better read the splendid article: "The Studebaker Story" in the current 'Western Socialist.' Apparently Karl Frederick doesn't think the workers will get far along class struggle lines and he supplies quite a lot of evidence. One SPGB member who was very active in 1937, could not remember much about the Spanish Civil War and the SPGB. There were many anxious to speak but no concrete criticism of the lucid statement in the first two pages of Forum. Another member, opposing Turner, made the queer statement that he was the best ever, exponent of the SPGB case; another didn't like "Sin and Sex."
Turner has had quite a lot of success as a speaker during the past 1 5 years and like popular people he must contend with the jealousy of others who wish but do not hit the limelight; and that might explain why Parker, who can write much better than he can speak, did not get anything like the criticism that fell on Turner at the meeting.
Now comrades, "Come off it;" let's get back to sanity.
DAVID BOYD, Central Branch.

29.10 THE NEW CASE
From reading in the columns of FORUM it seems to me that the whole basis of the Party's case is being challenged, but what is not clear, either to me or to many other members, is the precise nature of this challenge. Until this is clearly understood, it is impossible to answer; so in an endeavour to clarify the position, I am stating here what I have gathered from listening to various members and through the columns of FORUM, and what seems to be the nature of the case against the Party.
1. We are not a political party but rather an organization for studying, discussing and propagating the idea of a socialisl society; therefore we do not need a D of P.
2. Socialism will not be achieved through the ballot box, but will arise out of the changing nature of Capitalism, as follows: Capitalists today are indistinguishable from workers; we all wear similar clothes, drive around in cars, go abroad for holidays, have all the health services we need, assured incomes in our old age, as much of the essential food, entertainment, etc., as is necessary for our well-being; and where these leave something to be desired, they will improve as the standard of living improves.
3. Owing to the growing expense of running Capitalism, machinery, taxation, etc., the burden of running Capitalism falls more and more to the lot of the State, until there is no more difference between capital and worker than between coloured people and white,
Jew and Gentile, men and women, social status etc., Russian and American—in other words, the class struggle disappears. From here onwards I am in some difficulty to understand how the change-over will take place; I can only assume that, as economic differences disappear, everybody will see wages and profits becoming unnecessary, and as socialist understanding will have been growing as the changes have been taking place, everyone will all see it to be in our mutual interest to establish a Socialist society, and "Hey Presto!" the revolution has been achieved.
The only need for the Socialist organization is to continue to collect recruits to its membership, in order to spread Socialist ideas through, propaganda, literature, etc.; and when we have all agreed to be good, conscious Socialists we shall see it is no longer necessary to fight over surplus goods and the markets for them, and all will be well with the world.
I have no doubt this will be called a classic case of oversimplification. I can only beg the members who object to the D of P and the over-stressing of the class struggle to correct me where I am wrong. My endeavour has simply been to clarify the position,in order that the opposition to the Party's case may be clearly understood, and a position reached where Party members can carry on the Party's propaganda without fear that their case may be contradicted or challenged by members of their own organization.
E. ROSE.

30. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B
March 1955

30.1 SOCIALISM - GRADES 1,2,& 3
I have been isolated from the Party for nearly seven years now, excepting for a brief visit to London in 1953. During that visit I attended many meetings addressed by Turner, and have had plenty of time to think about them since.
I have received very little news of the Party during the past eighteen months, but I gather that there has been very serious objection, on the part of members, to Turner's presentation of the Party case. Perhaps, therefore, the comments of an interested bystander will not be without interest.
There is a close analogy, in my opinion, between the Turner business, and the teaching of shorthand, as experienced by me some thirty years ago. This particular system of shorthand was taught in three grades. Grade 1 consisted merely of learning to write the characters that represented the various sounds, and of forming words with them. At the end of Grade 1, the student could say quite truthfully that he was writing shorthand, though his efforts were little speedier than ordinary handwriting.
Once Grade 1 was mastered, but not before, the student went on to Grades 2 and 3, which consisted of methods of abbreviating and streamlining what he learnt in Grade 1, so that, at the end, he was writing shorthand that could be developed to a speed of 120 words per minute, or faster. Grade 3 shorthand bore only a superficial resemblance to his efforts in Grade 1, but they were both undeniably shorthand, and the earlier stage had to be mastered before the higher could be understood.
It can be said that there are grades of Party membership, and it will help in understanding the Turner business, if this is accepted. If members will cast their minds back to the time of their first contact with the Party (excepting those who were born into it), they will remember that it was the simple contrast between existing capitalism and the possibilities of socialism that first aroused their interest.
In my own case, the item that aroused my curiosity was the confident assertion that, under socialism, I would not need to work more than two or three hours a day, for about twenty years of my life, and in return I would get all that I wanted. Proof was forthcoming for this assertion, and it seemed a highly desirable alternative to the long hours, with insufficient return, characteristic of capitalism.
This was definitely a Grade 1 approach, but it was what was needed to sow the seeds of discontent with capitalism, and eventually bring me into the Party.
How does Turner deal with the question " What will it be like under socialism ?" I have heard him inform such a questioner that, under socialism, he would not do any one job, and thus become known as a bricklayer, plumber, or lavatory attendant. He would do many jobs, and, because of the change in social relationships, he would enjoy them all.
As one who has had a good grounding in Grade 1, and who is not unfamiliar with the higher thoughts of Grades 2 and 3, that answer did not seem unreasonable to me. But I strongly doubt whether it did anything but bewilder the enquirer, who might well have concluded that the simplicities of capitalism were preferable to the holding of several jobs. He does not have to like his job under capitalism.
Since the Party analysis of capitalism is unique, it follows that the Party itself must instruct those who are interested, or who might become interested. It follows, therefore, that the approach to non-members, whether through meetings, pamphlets, or the " S.S.," must be the Grade 1 approach. For without a good grounding in Grade 1, the ideas of Grades 2 and 3 will only mystify.
It is highly desirable that the ideas appropriate to Grades 2 and 3 should be expressed and discussed, since the Party would otherwise become static. But this should only be done at Branches, after business, at social gatherings of members; or in the Forum. From such discussions, only participated in by members who' are well-grounded in Grade 1, much stimulation of the mind will result.
Incidentally, it might amuse members to classify the articles in FORUM for themselves. For example, there it little doubt that Comrade F. Evans' articles would be marked Grade 3, since many members, if not the majority, have some difficulty in following his arguments. His arguments would obviously be unsuitable for general dissemination—they would drive away rather than attract those hearing of the Party for the first time. Yet they are a valuable contribution to socialist thought.
In conclusion, I would ask Comrade Turner to cast his mind back to the days when he first heard of the Party, and ask himself whether he would have been influenced then by the platform arguments that he uses today. Apparently he thinks the D. of P. is out of date. He is possibly right, from a Grade 2 or 3 point of view. A member thoroughly grounded in Grade 1 does not have such desperate need of the sheet anchor provided by the D. of P. as does the enquirer or new member.
Meetings of members to discuss matters appropriate to Grades 2 and 3 might possibly decide that such matters as the class struggle should be played down in these times. If so, let them put it to a Party Meeting, and abide by the result.
J.O.B. (South Africa).
30.2 RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE (2)
In the previous article I dealt a little cursorily with F. Evans' views on relative surplus value and capital accumulation. Unfortunately in that article there was an omission from a quote vide Professor Bowley which made the quote pointless. I had intended to deal with these matters in greater detail but I feel that before doing so, there are other assertions made by Evans which ought to be dealt with first.
To begin with, Evans holds that " War is the ramrod of progress for capitalism raising the tempo of capital's accumulation." Put plainly it means that capitalists plough back more surplus value in war-time for the enlargement of the productive apparatus, viz., machinery, plant, buildings, etc., than in " the peaceful era ". This is simply not true of world capitalism in general and even less true of British capitalism in particular. The guilt of Evans' assumptions lies in the innocence of any data to sustain them.
So far from the tempo of capital accumulation increasing during the war in Britain, it sank to a very low level, and, U.S.A. capitalism, apart, this also was true of other belligerent powers. True capital accumulation did take place here but far from there being an overall net investment there were in the years 1944 and 1945, respectively, disinvestment to the tune of £968 million and £805 million. In other words there was an estimated decrease in publicly and privately owned capital assets of this amount due to inability to make good, depreciation of these assets.—(" Investment in the United Kingdom 1938, 1944, 1945.")
So far from extending production via increased accumulation, British capitalists emerged from the war with a quarter of their existing capital destroyed. ( " Census of Production, 1950.") Other losses suffered by them were £l,000; million foreign assets (a virtual destruction), external debts of £3,000 million, £700 million shipping losses and £500 million destruction on land. Incidentally, 4,000,000 houses were destroyed or damaged.by 'enemy action.' (Perhaps a third of the otal number.) Trade also declined catastrophically, British exports falling by more than two-thirds. High output was achieved in guns, tanks, aeroplanes, etc., but it must be remember that 60 per cent of the workers and a great part of industrial equipment were transferred to war industries to the harm of other industries.
Seeing that the capitalist class pay for wars then the enormous war costs were a drain on their assets and economic resources. This expenditure was veiled somewhat by living on borrowed time, i.e. by the floating of loans; that meant that for years after the war high taxation would operate. Had the cost of war been solely from current sources then it would have been obvious from the steepness of extent of taxation to see that so far from capitalists increasing their profits that the reverse was the case.
The wastage of capital assets and arrest of normal economic development was also true of the 1914-1918 War. According to " the Economic Section of the League of Nations 1933 " the running down of industrial equipment and the physical devastation and economic dislocation caused by the first World War, production declined and even by 1923 it had made little or no advance over the European level of production of 1913. Even in Britain the pre-war level of production was not regained and passed until 1924. For Europe it took two years longer. Production of wheat in Europe was down after the 1914-18 War by 17 per cent. Coal production was down by 11 per cent and steel production down by 20 per cent. European production had hardly begun to go ahead when it was beaten back by the world crisis.
The task of British Capitalism at the end of the last war was—only to a much greater extent—the same as the 1914-18 war, the re-equipment of their economic resources. In short, to make good the losses sustained during the war. A task which Mr. Harrod the Conservative economist said " would ensure full employment for some years, no matter what government was in power."
There are other factors to consider, of course, in maintaining full employment but they must be left for another issue of FORUM.
What one can say is that there has been no sensational expansion of British capitalism since the war. Indeed there are not lacking a number of economists who say that recent investment of physical capital in Britain has been too small since the war. There are others who allege that investment has been insufficient to make good current wastage— as in the war years—the capital stock has continued to run down faster than it has been replaced. If so, then it would seem that British capitalism is living off its economic future.
Whatever may be the truth of this it can at least be said that the need to build up the British export trade, especially where the metal and engineering industries are concerned, reveals why these industries and other basic trades have secured so small a share of capital investment funds.
According to the Industrial Supplement of the " Manchester Guardian," who base their evidence on estimates given by the Central Statistical Office, the British Economy is on the whole doing slightly more than keeping its capital assets intact. Although it adds " this does not mean that all industries are doing the same." This hardly squares with that profusion of use values due to the ever expanding production per media of surplus value which Evans sees as the outstanding feature of capitalism.
Another point re Evans' statement that " War speeds up with the national economy, the greater and more equal diffusion of use-value." It is true that vast numbers of use-values were produced, i.e. guns, rifles, tanks, etc. But these can hardly be the diffusion of use-values which brings greater economic equality between the classes. Such things do not form part of our standard of living whatever they contribute to the prospects of dying.
In actual fact the mass of use-values for consumption fell by 25 per cent during the war and according to G. D. N. Worswick " There was only a slight increase in aggregate consumption after the war from 1946 to 1950." The increase per head was even smaller being less than one per cent although the range of goods were wider. The level of consumption, or if you like, " the greater and more equal diffusion of use-value" seems to have been lower even five years after the war than before it.
In short, I think enough evidence has been given to show—and there is plenty more—that wars do not assist in the economic development of society which Evans confuses with progress. Rather it can be shown that war with its destruction of material wealth, its physical devastation and economic disorganisation, hampers economic development.
In following articles I propose to deal with Evans' assertions of a new industrial revolution based upon an atomic-powered plastic-moulded era and his curious assumption that capitalism is a constant process of cheapening commodities through the competition of capitals. -
E.W.
30.3 IMPROVING THE SOCIALIST CASE
4—New Principles and Policy
Previous articles in this series have criticised the Declaration of Principles and have discussed the position of a socialist organisation. Finally we turn to the question of suggesting, in positive terms, the lines along which the propaganda and organisation of the S.P.G.B. may be expected to develop.
Fifty years ago the founders of the Party took over certain ideas from people like Marx, developing some of them and abandoning others. Today, some socialists claim to see implications in S.P.G.B. theory and consequences of S.P.G.B. organisation which were not realised by the members in 1904. We further think that the socialist position can be made stronger by stating it differently from the D. of P., and that certain features of Party organisation can be advantageously remodelled.
What are the terms in which a socialist organisation should present itself to people, seeking recognition and encouraging identification with its aims? These terms must be narrow enough to give some sort of definition to socialist ideas, yet wide enough not to exclude any socialist. It is not just a simple matter of classifying people into those who are socailists and those who are not. The process of becoming a socialist is gradual, and there is no rigid demarcation between those who are and those who are not. We need to know how to encourage people to identify themselves with the movement, either by joining or by active pursuit of socialist aims.
Since a socialist organisation is one seeking revolutionary change, it is necessary to state in general terms the character of the new society we desire and work for. Propositions about Socialism range all the way from certain basic and more or less permanent concepts like " production solely for use " and " free access ", to the peripheral and comparatively unimportant guesses about about such things as design of buildings and methods of travel. Obviously the organisation is mainly concerned with the more predictable and socially significant aspects. Some of these follow logically from the postulate of production solely for use— e.g. the new soceity must be world-wide, mass-understood, stateless and non-coercive. Such attributes might well be included in an expanded and dynamically-conceived version of our present Object.
30.3.1 Emergent Socialism
Having stated the essentials of our object, we should then seek an adequate understanding of how it can be achieved. We are concerned with how the new society can be brought into being (one " establishes" a business or a fact, but hardly a whole new way of living). For convenience we separate two factors here—the spreading of socialist knowledge, and the requisite actions to be taken in the light of that knowledge. The Party has hitherto had two misconceptions about the change it seeks; it has supposed that the growth of socialist ideas will have no appreciable effect on the other aspects of society; and that the change from Capitalism to Socialism will take place as a sudden break.
I cannot here go into all the relevant arguments on these points, but will state an alternative positive theory. Socialism is emerging now. The growth of socialist ideas will be accompanied by the growth of institutions (social practices) in the direction of Socialism. Capitalism is preparing the way for this by developing (at first, doubtless, for purely capitalist reasons) the social forms, ideas, practices, attitudes, which, when universal and integrated, will be Socialism. " Free " access to libraries, health services, etc.—i.e. access on the basis of need, not money demand—is a part of Capitalism not typically or peculiarly capitalist in character. Such examples, insofar as they rest upon satisfaction according to need rather than size of pocket, illustrate the mode of access that people will enjoy, to all things in socialist society. Similarly, although racial tension is increasing in many parts of the world today, the work of sociologists has resulted in wider acceptance of the ideas of one human race—and this is part of the socialist outlook. Socialism is thus seen as the expansion in all fields of social processes such as free access, and the development of social attitudes such as equality.
Let no one imagine that this is reformism. Reformism implies an isolated, fragmentary approach to social problems. It also implies rejection of only selected parts of Capitalism and uncritical acceptance of the rest. Although we are not reformers, we do claim that the revolutionary movement need not exclude or repudiate every action and idea that emanates from those who are not avowed socialists. Accordingly, we should be prepared to recognise the value of ideas, as well as facts, coming from " outside " the movement, acknowledging acceptable ideas wherever we find them, as well as opposing hostile ones. This means looking at every field of human endeavour and appraising the progressive, socialism-developing tendencies to be encouraged and the reactionary, socialist-hindering tendencies to be opposed.
30.3.2 Basis of Organisation
Now let us consider an alternative basis of membership to the D. of P. or, rather, the basis of agreement upon which adherents (members or sympathisers) of our socialist organisation might come together. We are here much more concerned with attitudes than with the mere assertion of facts. Consequently the basic statements will aim to summarise the approach of socialists to the problems of the nature of society (history), its movement towards a new society, how the new society is to come, and how the activities of socialists accelerate its coming.
Properly speaking, people do not desire objects, but actions with regard to those objects. The " common ownership " of the Party's object and the " comfort, equality and freedom " of its D. of P. are essentially static concepts—what we really want is to work usefully and pleasurably, to enjoy free access to what we need, to co-operate, and so on. Our stated agreements could be along these lines: —
UNDERSTANDING that society is continuous and that change in ideas and institutions is one process.
DESIRING a way of life (Socialism) characterised by equalitarian, co-operative and harmonious social relationships.
RECOGNISING that developments of existing society are changing property and authoritarian institutions in a socialist direction.
ENCOURAGING the growth of socialist tendencies (ideas, actions and institutions) by word and deed.
Despite the difference from typical S.P.G.B. formulations, the above could scarcely be subscribed to by any except socialists. Some Party members will undoubtedly object to the idea that Socialism is evolving now, and to the omission of commitments to working-class identification, capture of political power, etc. The value placed upon these aspects of the existing Party case must be weighed against the opportunities (made possible by greater tolerance of diversity) for socialist ideas to develop, to enter new fields of thought and endeavour, and to play a part in every forward movement of society.
30.3.3 Abolishing Authoritarianism
Any change in the pattern of socialist ideas would be accompanied by corresponding organisational changes. Once socialists cease to regard themselves as adherents to a political party, they will not be content to retain the paraphernalia of politics—the rules borrowed from other organisations, the machinery for disciplining recalcitrant minorities, the Party line, the business attitude to propaganda (how many there? how much literature sold?), putting it to the vote, taking it to the E.C., etc., etc. This is not intended to rule out organisation in the sense of having a secretary to write letters, a treasurer to pay bills, or a committee to edit publications.
An authoritarian organisation works on the assumption that reason is not enough to keep its members loyal; it believes in discipline as a means of preserving unity. Yet our organisation hs.s no need of rule if it can achieve subjective as well as objective harmony, a spontaneous unity of purpose. Once it has the courage to disband its machinery of discipline, it will find that there is no longer any " action detrimental " that rules could deal with.
In the early days of the Party there was much more talk of what was supposed to be incompatible with membership. Today it is being realised that only those attach themselves to the organisation who are interested in advancing its aims. If their interest is not maintained they go away. To expel them is unnecessary—and harmful because the machinery set up for this purpose becomes our concern instead of the theoretical differences which discussion alone can resolve.
A more open form of organisation would enable the content and methods of our propaganda to be changed where necessary. We could expect to have more contact with people who are close to our ideas, more discussions seeking to narrow differences, instead of preserving them by the " which Party . . .'•' formula of debate. The contents of the Party case would be openly displayed —and if two views were found on a particular question there is always the possibility that each would be judged on its merits. Our written propaganda would also benefit by abolishing the distinction between propaganda and controversy, and by having one journal giving the general views of the S.P.G.B. instead of the present S.S. and FORUM. The editorials could act as the (majority) voice of the organisation; elsewhere writers would be restricted, in subject matter and presentation, only to secure interest of the readers.
In concluding this series of articles I wish to stress that they are the fruits of many discussions among members. What I have written is a particular expression of a more general trend of thought along the lines of:
Recognition that Socialism is the product of society, not of a class movement.
Dissatisfaction with the D. of P. as basis of membership.
Criticism of the Party's view of how Socialism will come.
Need for the welcoming of diversity of views among socialists and the seeking of reconciliation by reason, not discipline.
Organisational changes away from authoritarianism and imposed conformity.
S.R.P.

30.4 THE CASE FOR A WEEKLY SOCIALIST STANDARD

For a long time now many members have been critical of both the form and content of the Socialist Standard. Numerous articles are dated before the " Standard " reaches the readers. Many subjects of importance— on strikes for example—receive insufficient attention or are quite often not mentioned at all. No doubt the Editorial Committee will argue that if members want articles on a certain industrial dispute, a Communist Party purge in Rumania or anti-semitism in the Soviet Union, then they should sit down and write them. But it is not quite as simple as that. When something of importance occurs no doubt some writers wonder if comrade X or comrade Y will cover it; or they may think that the Editorial Committee will deal with it. Or again other members may think that if they write on something topical there may be two or three other articles written on the same subject. No doubt this has occurred in the past. At the moment there is a general lack of co-ordination. Nobody specialises.
30.4.1 A CHURCH MAGAZINE!
Although the general standard of articles has improved considerably over the last couple of years, the style of format and general appearance of the Socialist Standard has not. It has been said by some members that the Socialist Standard resembles a Church magazine—and I think they have got something there! The type is uniform throughout, only to be broken up occasionally by the announcement of a. meeting or lecture. The list of contents on the front page is a complete waste of space, unless the number of the page is given. Anyway, the size of both the heading of the first article and the list of contents is so small that no one could read them at a distance of about three feet. And the back page, with its various sizes and types of printing (for Branches and Groups), is an eye-sore.
No doubt other members have also got criticisms to make (if they read any other journals, then they must have!); but my suggestion is—and I hope members will take it up—that an entirely new Socialist NEWSPAPER be published by the Party.
30.4.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR A NEW SOCIALIST STANDARD
It has been argued by some members that the " Socialist Standard " looks more " intellectual " than such " left-wing " contemporaries as The Socialist Leader, The Socialist Outlook or Freedom ; but this damns it right away. We want a paper that does not look " intellectual " like the Statesman or Truth; we want a paper that will appeal to the ordinary person, the " man in the street " who read the News Chronicle, Reveille or the Greyhound Express rather that the " arty-crafty " types who carry The Times or the Statesman under their arm.

A socialist journal should look more professional; less like a Church magazine; more like a daily newspaper—with large" snappy headlines and with news items on trade union activities, strikes, elections, Communist Party purges, etc., throughout the world, written from the socialist angle—and not with the usual—". . . and the only solution to working class problems is . . ." at the end of every item. The average article or news item should not be more than 1,000 words. The paper should not contain more than one or two " theoretical " articles on such subjects as the implications of socialism, rational thinking, the origins of the family, economics. AH articles, including the theoretical or historical, should be written as simply as possible. A special column (or columns) should be set aside for book reviews, under the heading " New Books." These reviews should be short—and not just left to one comrade, as occurs at present. There should be a column (probably vertical, as in the Socialaist Leader) for press cuttings and extracts from Hansard. (This would take the place of the old Speaker's Notes.)
A socialist newspaper should contain at least two cartoons (there are a few cartoonists in the S.P.G.B.), graphs—and photographs. Both the Socialist Standard and the Western Socialist have used cartoons in the past, and the Western has used graphs and photographs (once to illustrate the brutality of the American police).
The new Standard should encourage letters (not more than 750 words) from members, sympathisers and others. Those letters which are in agreement with the Party case should, go in as they are, those not in line should be answered (in different type)—briefly! Regarding printing—type and headlines, they should be as varied in style and size as possible as this is easier on the eyes than the present uniformity in the Socialist Standard.
A newspaper should not, in my opinion, be too large. About 15" x 11 \" would be reasonable. It should contain eight pages.
30.4.3 A LARGER STAFF
A new Socialist Standard would need a larger staff than the present Editorial Committee. , ...
We have been told that we haven't got enough writers in the Party, but this is just not true. At least FORUM has proved that. There are. quite sufficient writers, who although, perhaps not capable of writing long theoretical articles (which in the main we don't want), but who are quite capable of writing-up news items with a socialist slant. Those members who can specialise on trade unions, the Labour Party, the Communist Party, ;,the Middle East, China, etc., should form small committees and deal exclusively with these subjects when the need arises. These committees should meet at least once a week, regardless of whether there is any important news on their subjects, to exchange views, discuss new books and the like.
Members of the Companion Parties and the numerous isolated socialists throughout the world should be encouraged to act as our correspondents, as does Comrade Ron Everson of New Zealand. Instead of, say, receiving and printing a letter in the Standard from a comrade in Austria, we should encourage this and other comrades to send in short news items from their respective areas. We could have at least one correspondent in a dozen or so countries. We do not need the capitalist agencies such as B.U.P., A.P. or Reuters. Our correspondents need not be proficient writers, as long as they write legibly; their material could be typed-up if they have no typewriter.
No doubt other members have ideas for a socialist paper worthy of the S.P.G.B. If so, let's have 'em.
At the beginning of the article I said that many articles appearing in the present Socialist Standard were dated by the time they were read. This is inevitable with a monthly. But, why, after 50 years, have only a monthly? What about that weekly that has been talked about so much in the past?
30.4.4 A WEEKLY?
An organisation such as the S.P.G.B. should have a weekly newspaper. All other parties have, including the almost defunct I.L.P. If tiny groups of Anarchists and Trotskyists in this and other countries can produce weekly papers then I am sure we can—if we really wanted to. Can I hear some comrade say: "We can't afford it"? But we can easily afford a weekly if (a) we increase the sale at least 10,000 copies, and (b) accept advertisements. No doubt some " purists " in the Party will argue that accepting advertisements is against socialist principles. But surely we must fight capitalism by any methods. So long as the advertisers do not try and dictate policy to us we should take their money. After all we are not just opposed to certain capitalist concerns, but to the system. Yes, adverts can, to a certain extent, help us run a decent newspaper. The more the better. If we still needed more money we should have a " Fighting Fund " as we have had in the Standard in the past. We could set up a monthly target, and prominently publish the progress each week (shades of Barbara Niven?).
The circulation of a weekly socialist newspaper could easily be raised to 10,000 copies a week by distribution throufh agents, and
by members; not in twos and threes but in hundreds, selling it outside stations, at street corners on Saturdays (it should come out every Friday) and at opponents' meetings. If Communists and Fascists can do it for their organisations (despite the prejudice against them) then we should be prepared to1 do it for ours. But I can't imagine large numbers of members getting enthusiastic about selling the present Socialist Standard at railway stations, etc.
A weekly socialist paper should be primarily for non-members. The FORUM (which could, perhaps, be published every other month) would be primarily, but not exclusively, for members.
So comrades, between now and next Conference, let's get down to work on starting a weekly S.P.G.B. newspaper that looks worthy of the Party. Something that all of us can be proud of. We have talked long enough, now let's do something.
PETER E. NEWELL.

30.5 CORRESPONDENCE
30.5.1 Dear Comrades,
There has recently appeared in FORUM a series of articles by E.W. under the title " Notes on Crises." The first article only clears the ground, but in the second an attempt begins to be made to " formulate a number of general propositions which have a crucial bearing on the emergence of crises," and to contest the under-consumption theory in particular.
The first general proposition is that " any acute disappointment with regard to profit expectation will have a decisive bearing on curtailment of investment and hence production " and " such a state of affairs will have a marked disequilibrating effect."
The second and third articles are mainly concerned with embroidering and elaborating on this theme. Right at the end of the third article, however, we are told that " There are other factors bound up with the emergence of crises, i.e., existing wage levels, the extent of unemployment and its influence as a competitive force on the labour market, also the extent to which new sources of cheap labour can be tapped. These will be dealt with later.
" Finally, of the general propositions in respect of the cause of crises, there are the two most important which have not yet been mentioned, ' the anarchy of production ' and and ' the disproportionality of production '.
Without relating all that has been said to these two fundamental features of capitalism, an adequate understanding of crises is im-. possible. In fact, one can go so far as to say that, whatever the type of crisis that emerges, it can be shown to be, in one way or other, an aspect of disproportionality."
In the fourth article, these latter two points are dealt with. Here are two typical statements from it. (1) " Entrepreneurs do not meet beforehand to regulate and harmonise productive conditions; what happens is that each capitalist or group of capitalists carry out investment decisions without regard to and in ignorance of other capitalists, and consequently they each have an imperfect knowledge of the market for which they are producing. Thus any errors in their calculations can only be revised after the event, i.e. through changes in price levels revealed by the market which are themselves the result of a break in the productive equilibrium." (2) " Given, then, the planlessness of capitalist production, with its inherent bias towards disproportionality, it can be said that when this uneven rate of expansion of the different branches of industry reaches a certain level, the possibility of a crisis emerges."
And in the fifth article, we get this: — " Because each concern in the making of capital goods will seek to expand as rapidly as possible in order to realise maximum profit earnings, regardless of what other concerns are doing, it will not be able to effectively gauge to what extent its own expansion and the expansion of others are contributing to raising to ever higher levels the expenses of production, and so narrowing the gap between production costs and realisation price. Indeed, the gap may be so narrow as to bring about an acute disappointment on the part of the entrepreneur in his profit expectation." And so we come full circle, back to where we started, after about 7,000 words.
It is curious that in all this there is no mention of the Soviet bloc of countries. Does E.W. believe that there is no possibility of crises occurring in these countries? None of his causes of crises operate in those countries, and yet he would obviously main^ tain that they are capitalist in character. From reading his arguments, it would appear that State planning, particularly in a relatively self-sufficient country or group of countries (such as the Soviet bloc) is sufficient to abolish crises. Is this what he means ? I think he should make his position clear.
Yours fraternally,
J. C. ROWAN.
30.6 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND MODERN TIMES
Until recently a very brief statement of the M.C.H. would have been an adequate introduction to this subject. In fact in previous contributions this writer took it to> be common ground, and therefore made no reference to it. However, from recent issues of FORUM this appears to be far from true. In fact it appears that we have nearly as many variants as we have members, or at least contributors.
In a recent contribution (December '54) P. J. McHale (Birmingham) explains that the mode of production (not the method or technique of production) is basic in the following way.
" The correct answer, often given by Engels, is as follows: —
" There are no causes which are not also effects, no effects which are not causes. An integrated philosophy must contain arguments in a circle, for everything turns back to itself. We may commence our argument from any part of the circle, in short, make ANY part of our circle our starting point, our THEORETICAL basis. Socialists choose the mode of production as a THEORETICAL basis because it lends itself best to scientific examination." (page 91).
It would be useful, if he would now state, at least one place, where Engels stated this categorically.
However Engels has written as follows: — " The determining element in history is ULTIMATELY the production and reproduction in real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. If, therefore, somebody twists this into the statement that the economic element is the ONLY determining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase."—Letter to Bloch, 1890.
" What we understand by the economic conditions which we regard as the determining basis of the history of society are the methods by which human beings in a given society produce their means of subsistence and exchange the products among themselves (insofar as division of labour exists). Thus the ENTIRE TECHNIQUE of production and transport is here included. According to our conception this technique also determines the method of exchange and, further, the division of products and with it, after the dissolution of tribal society, th'e division into classes also and hence the relations of lordship and servitude and with them the state, politics, law, etc."—-Letter to Starkenburg, 1894.
" The economic situation in the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure political forms . . . theories, religious ideas . . . also exercise their influence . . . determining their FORM. . . . Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history one chose would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree."'—Also in the letter to Bloch.
" So it is not, as people try here and there conveniently to imagine, that the economic position produces an automatic effect. Men make history themselves, only in given surroundings which condition it and on the basis of actual relations already existing, among which the economic relations, however much they may be influenced by the other political and idealogical ones, are still ultimately the decisive ones, forming the red thread which runs through them and alone leads to understanding."—Also in the letter to Starkenburg.
30.6.1 ELECTRICITY
It is the purpose of this contribution to show how one major, new technique, which may be summarised in the word electricity, has produced changes in society, since the death of Marx, most of which were summarised very neatly by Optimus (FORUM, December '54) as changes in (1) The organisation of production, (2) the methods of production, (3) types of ownership, (4) access to what is produced, (5) types of investment and (6) social attitudes.
It is important to realise this relation and not to jump hastily to the conclusioin that these changes are the socialist revolution. Though this is not to deny, in the words of Marx, that they may be the new relations maturing in the womb of the old society. However the relation is studied here in order to obtain a beter understanding of present society.
The writer also holds the view that the M.C.H. is a theory which provides us with a method for understanding the evolution of society, and that does not mean, just the dim and distant past. The theory needs to be applied to the 20th century seriously, not in the crabbed and limited way that it is toyed with in the Socialist Standard. When analysing new problems we must not be bound with stultifying notions that nothing new ever happens. Every fresh integration is in some sense novel. Similarly no scientist could ever make serious contributions to knowledge in a field where all his conclusions must agree with the answers given before the investigation. We criticise capitalist organisations that employ scientists to make proofs of propositions that they (the capitalists) want to think is true. That is bad when they do it. It is not science. It is bad when we do it too. As Marx pointed out, at the start of any scientific analysis it is necessary that " all mistrust must be abandoned and here must perish every craven thought." We must approach with knowledge and ability to analyse, but we must follow the argument with an open mind.
If we find that the M.C.H. does not help us to understand the world we live in, we should discard it and search for something that does. That is the only satisfactory approach. The writer does not take the view that it is of no help to us, but considers it an admirable tool with which to analyse modern society. In fact, he would go farther and say that it is the basis (or at any rate the best summary) of socialist knowledge. It is more fundamental than the D. of P. We could do worse than replace the D. of P. by a concise statement of historical materialism.
Since its formation the S.P.G.B. has found itself occupied with a series of obvious current problems, which can be called political and economic in the narrow sense of each term. Some of the main problems were the painfully, obvious poverty and inequalities of the early 20th century, World War and nationalism, the growing reform movement of the Liberal and Labour Parties, the world economic crisis, the rise of Fascism, World War II and the majority Labour Government. These problems of the day were each in turn shown, by a Marxist analysis, to be but subsidiary problems, for the working class, and that the basic cause of the evils associated with these topics, was to be found in the structure of society. We have spread this understanding as much as we were able, but by concentrating on those aspects of society which were political or reformist in character, the basic analysis of the development of society, provided by the M.C.H. has slipped into the background, or at least has remained in the background. We have tended in this way to concern ourselves more with effects, and less with causes, than was desirable. (Even though we have done this less than any other political party.) Now with the rather sudden occurrence of a political vacuum, we have the opportunity, and more important, the necessity, to reconsider and apply our basic theory to the evolution of society.
The part of the story that this writer has to tell is a pleasant one. Electricity has brought light and cleanliness to the factories and homes, radio, T.V. and cinema for our enjoyment, and calculation and experiment to replace authoritarianism in our daily life.
We shall start by considering the work of a historian and scholar, who drew attention some 20 years ago, to some of the changes in society that had occurred by that time, and who pointed out the importance of the use of electricity. We shall not follow this scholar, Lewis Mumford, slavishly, but will devote the next section to a short, critical survey of his contributions to this subject in the book, " Technics and Civilisation ".
ROBERT
30.7 CLASS STRUGGLE AND THE D. of P.
Some members have stated that they either don't know anyone who disagrees with the D. of P. and Object, or hardly anyone. I disagree with some parts of the D. of P. and I know many members who are of the same opinion. I am putting my disagreement in writing, as I wish members to at least discuss my ideas, with a view to changing theirs—or mine.
I agree with the object of our organisation but I don't know about the ' democratic control.' I don't really know what it means and I have a suspicion that most members are in the same boat. Democracy means to me, a state of affairs where all people have equality of access to what society produces; where mankind as well as satisfying its every need in the food- clothing- shelter- entertainment sense also has access to all the information and knowledge of society. I am sure though that that is not what is meant by democratic control. I can only visualise control on behalf of somebody as opposed to somebody else. Socialism as I see it, is a society where people have taken :o-operation ot its logical conclusion: have worked out where things are wanted, in what quantities and are satisfying those wants. How one can reconcile control with this I don't know, except in the sense of seeing that Anigs are going from one place to another where they are needed.
30.7.1 PARLIAMENT
I think that the founder members were :r.inking of Parliament (the State) when :hey postulated democratic control. If this i so, we should hasten to remove this part of our D. of P. as it is not in line with our object. Parliament—the state machinery— exists to conserve the rights of a ruling class; to defend its interest's both here and abroad; to maintain the status quo.
With Nos. 1 and 2 I have no quarrel, they only state facts.
30.7.2 CAPITALISTS
My disagreement with No. 3 is the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the master class. This implies that only workers have problems, that the capitalists are free now! To free the working class you also have to free the capitalist class for they are as tightly bound together as warder-convict, policemen-thief, employer-employee, buyer-seller. To get rid of one, you must get rid of the other. Capitalists as well as workers are affected by the anomalies of this system. They are not directly affected by poverty, but there is the threat that if they are not forever on their mettle they might be relegated to the ranks of the workers. (Marx's Wage Labour and Capital, touches on this.) In times of slump when numbers of workers are unemployed, the above position is accentuated, the smaller capitalists are obviously perturbed. Cessation of production or distribution can in many cases mean change of status — from capitalist to worker. Particularly is this the case of the capitalist who produces or distributes on the home market. Obviously the fears and struggles of this system belong to both classes and the only way to get rid of them and the other problems is to abolish classes and this can only be done by changing people's ideas.
No. 4 seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. If as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, how can it possibly set free the rest of mankind, when the rest of mankind are already free ? I leave such tortuous questions to you comrades who wish to uphold the D. of P. as it stands. For my part I would explain the position simply by saying that socialism means the abolition of all classes.
It follows from statements above that I disagree with No. 5. Society will abolish classes when the ideas of society have changed enough to establish socialism. To accept No. 5 means that under no circumstances must we accept capitalists into our organisation or the help of capitalists. Further, any capitalists in the party should be expelled and any working class members who manage to evolute themselves to capitalist status should also be expelled. These are some of the implications of No. 5!
I oppose No. 6 as it stands. How one can convert the state machine with all its coercive aspects from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation I don't know. My mind boggles at the thought. Emancipated Hydrogen and Cobalt bombs! When I joined the party I discussed No. 6 and was told (by members) that we would not take power. It is supposed that when we (S.P.G.B.) achieved power, we would abolish the state machinery. Of course this is nonsense, nobody ever captured power to abolish it. No. 6 states categorically that we are going to convert the machinery of government from an instrument of oppression to the agent of emancipation. Note, not abolish it. In other words we will still have government. (Shades of Carnell!). It would be pertinent to ask on whose behalf the government would be—for remember comrades—you can only have governors if there are governed. Which sounds suspiciously like capitalism to me.
30.7.3 POLITICS
These things will disappear when the ideological structure that supports them has disappeared. In other words when the ideas of another system of society have taken the place of the ideas of this one, then and then only will the institutions of capitalism have been abolished. My contention is, that politics is the business of running or aspiring to run capitalism, and that all parties that achieve power are bound to run capitalism, despite their original aims. We should, therefore, withdraw from power-politics and state that we are a socialist organisation trying to change people's ideas, with the object of changing this society.
30.7.4 VIOLENCE
The ideas of violence which seem to be so prevalent in the party are also bound up with No. 6 and electoral activity. It dates back to the inception of the party. The ideas then in vogue (and still held) that socialism could be established in the face of a large minority or even a small minority, are fallacious. Socialism is a system where the accent is on complete co-operation; where, as people have free access there can be no coercion, and it could not possibly run or be established if there were a minority opposing. When we think of a minority, we think (like the founder members) of an organised minority and in the case of the founder members and many members now, a hostile minority, prepared to use violence. The main reason for "their retention of No. 6 is that they visualise an active, hostile minority who are prepared to sabotage the efforts of a socialist majority and they want to use the state machinery to quell such a minority. Again these views are fallacious. A minority (obviously organised) can only exist today because it has the approval, the acceptance of society —tacit or otherwise. What many members seem to forget are the implications of social production, that the efforts of society are a cohesive whole. No minority could exist today without the approval of society. A minority today that wishes to participate in violent activities is dependent on society for its violent means. Bullets, Bayonets, Bombs and Battleships are only produced by society, not minorities, and as the socialist ideas of the majority will not allow the production of such things, there can be no violent minorities.
30.7.5 SOCIALISTS
I am opposed to No. 7 for reasons already roughly outlined. Regarding the platitude that the interests of the two classes are opposed; one can't disagree with a fact. I disagree with the implication that we are a working class party. We are not, or should not be. We are (or should be) a socialist party and as such full of socialists! Not worker socialists or capitalist socialists—but socialists. We cannot take sides in the class struggle as socialists. We can only recognise that there is a class struggle. To do more as socialists is to come down on one side or the other, the implication being that one side has nothing to gain from socialism. I don't accept the hostility clause. I can't be hostile towards other organisations; though I do oppose their policies. I can only hate or be hostile in a personal sense.
I disagree with No. 8 for reasons largely given above. I am opposed to the S.P. pretending to participate in politics. I think that the job of bringing about socialism is the task of the whole of humanity, not just the working class.
JON KEYS.

31. FORUM
INTERNAL JOURNAL OF THE S.P.G.B.
No. 31 April 1955

31.1 WAR HASTEN SOCIALISM
A further reply to F. Evans
In the November Forum, F. Evans says the second (atomic) industrial revolution will achieve world near-equality in levels of production, leading to an equal rate of profit based on an equal rate of exploitation. War, being largely the outcome of international rivalry for investment areas and spheres of influence, will become an anachronism. Concurrently sovereignty based on armed defence of national interests " dies of irrelevance " and is superseded by extra-sovereign institutions, themselves harbingers of " the administration of things ".
War itself, we are told by Evans, is the most powerful impulse towards increased productivity, and thus acceledates the process culminating in productive parity. In last month's Forum it was shown that in! the two world wars the reverse was true. A third world war occurring before parity of productive levels is reached, says Evans with prophetic insight, will leave an atom-scorched earth. It will, however, be a means of hastening the near-parity of levels of production! How war which leaves an atom-scorched earth yielding so little can also be a means of producing so much—a necessary condition of productive parity—Evans leaves unexplained.
Even if war does not occur, he says, the preparation for war which is now a permanent feature of the capitalist economy will bring about the same ends. Now, what evidence has Evans to offer that war preparation increases output and so accelerates the drive towards world near-equality of productive levels? In what way can he show that the British armaments programme has increased output, will continue doing so and lead on to productive levels comparable with those of, say the U.S.A.? How, on his assumption, explain Churchill's scaling down the armaments programme because, at the level first proposed, the burden would have been intolerable and jeopardized the British economy? In the quqestion whether Churchill or Evans is right, the facts compel me to plump for Churchill.
If, as Evans says, war preparation leads to greater productive output, what are we to make of the statement of Colin Clark, a leading economist and statistician, in the Daily Telegraph on the tenth of November last? He said: " The rate of economic progress has been slower in England than in some countries "—countries, which, incidentally, have carried no armaments programmes. On Evans' assumption that war raises productivity, the reverse should have been true. Russia, for example, spends more on preparation for war (both absolutely and relatively) than any other country, U.S.A. apart. This—vide Evans—should mean that the rate of expansion is greater in Russia than in most other countries. But according to Colin Clark " the rate of economic progress in Russia is below that of the Scandinavian countries."
Evans tells us also that war preparation helps to bring about a growing equality between the classes by causing a wider diffusion of use-values. Why then the shortage of consumer goods in Russia? Why the millions of ill-nurtured peasants whose resistance to government pressure was a big factor in the recent Russian shake-up?
Yet again, we are told: " diffusion of use-values out of higher productivity concurs with national defence taxation which helps equalize distribution of value." What are we to make of that muddled statement? Does he mean that the more is deducted from surplus value via taxation the greater is the expansion of the economy, and hence increased productivity? If. for example, the steel and engineering industries produced tanks, guns, etc., for which they were not paid it would be a direct deduction from their profits; less capital of their plant—the main source of increased productivity. More efficient working of old plant has obvious limits in increasing production. If by some process (unexplained by Evans) restricted investment is nevertheless able to furnish greater productivity and presumably greater profits, we should like to hear more about it. However, if it were true it would seem to contradict his own view about growing equality between the classes.
In actual fact, both of the political parties have sought to offset the adverse effects of high taxation on capital investment by every means in their power. A capital levy was mooted in many quarters a few years agoi as the drastic, once-for-all remedy to reduce taxation and so provide the volume of saving necessary for normal expansion.
The effects of high taxation on investments are summarized in a statement, based on the Government Blue Book on Income and Expenditure, by F. W. Paish, Professor of Economics at the University of London. In "A Survey of British Industry " (Financial Times Supplement, 8.8.53) he says the volume of saving, although about the same in proportion as 1938, has been altogether much too small to enable the country to make good its war-time physical damage, depletion of stock and under-maintenance of fixed assets. This flatly contradicts Evans' unsupported view that increased taxation for armaments leads to progressively increased production. In actual fact, the reverse has been true.
To quote Colin Clark again: " If (for the national economy) you compare the actual quantity of goods and services produced per man-hour with that of 1948, no statiistician is likely to estimate a rise of more than 10 per cent." In that case, productivity has increased by, on average, little more than 7 per cent, per year (less during war years). He adds: "by my reckoning, there has been no rise at all" (Daily Telegraph, 10.1 1.54).
Dr. L. Rostas, in the Times Review of Industry for April 1952, said the total output of manufacturing industry had increased between 1925 and 1948 by 32 per cent., but as the number of workers went up by 25 per cent, the physical output per worker had increased by 6 per cent. Less than 4 per cent, per year, and below the normal increase for long periods: since 1948 it has been somewhat larger. Where, then, are the vast increases in wealth production via relative surplus value that Evans assures us have taken place under the impulses of war and war preparations—brought about, that is, by intensified competition between the capitalist powers? According to Colin Clark " the available data shows that advances in production during recent years have amounted to little mote than making up war-time arrears " And if Evans thinks that armaments spending has progressively increased production and so cheapened goods how does he account for the persistency of rising costs over the years—allowing for changes in the price level?
It seems to me that Evans has allowed airy generalization, based on a concept of immanent progress, to take the place of fact and empirical observation. This hinders any realistic approach to the better understanding of present society and becomes a substitute for hard thinking.
In the light of what has been said, what prospects are there for this future based on world near-equality of productive levels? I am taking it that when Evans speaks of the future he means observable trends in contemporary events. Any other " future " belongs to science-fiction and is irrelevant for the purposse of worthwhile discussion. Evans offers no evidence for his future. He contents himself merely with the curiou^ statement that war hastens " the second industrial revolution of plastics and alloys (creation of atoms) which unseats national differences of productive nower based on the natural raw materials (coal, iron oil), where any power can conjure what it needs out of the air". It almost suggests that future production will be a by-product of the magician's art.
Industrial revolutions depend on power. Are we to assume that the new atomic revolution will be based on unlimited and virtually costless power—conjured out of the air?—and that coal, oil and gas will disappear? Will the vast coal deposits (not too difficult to imagine) as well as the oil and gas of the U S A no longer be productive assets? What data is there to show that fifty years hence nuclear power or something else will be "conjured out of the air"?
The U.S.A. is taking a long-term view of power resources because of the siow running-out of oil shales and the production of liquid fuel by coal hydrogenation.
Is the steel industry, based on iron ore, on its way out? If so, why the proposed thirty-million-pound outlay for plant re-equipment and expansion? Why does Sir Ellis Hunter, the President of the Iron and Steel Industry, say: " Because of the present and future demand for iron ore we shall have to, at some future date, start extensive underground mining of iron ore in Britain "? Or is the construction of capital good- to be a by-product of soya beans? Twenty years ago irresponsible press reports told us that Germany was going to produce ersatz goods from skyscrapers to coffee. This did not stop German capitalism continuing to expand its iron and coal resources. Today Dr. Adenauer assures us that the resources of the Ruhr are the basis of Germany's present and future.
It is true a thirty million pounds nuclear-power project will be started in Britan The Government White Paner tells us, however, that nuclear power when it gets under way will do no more than ease the fuel problem. So far from coal being undated as a power source in the future, the White Paper goes on to say mining will remain one of the MAJOR employing industries. Mr. Lloyd, the Minister of Fuel and Power, spoke warmly of the new industrial revolution'—nevertheless, he told his hearers: " Coal still matters. It will be the backbone of industry in our lifetime and our children's lifetime " (Manchester Guardian, 11. 2. 55).
The Report says that electricity produced by nuclear power is excected to cost more (perhaps ultimately less) than the electricity generated in the future from coal sources. To put the matter another way, it is estimated—-" if all goes well "—that by 1975 atomic power stations will be generating electricity equal to that produced by forty million ton' of coal; some atomic scientists estimate less. The pre-ent coal outrnit is about two hundred and twenty-three million tons a year, including opencast. In the next twenty years it will probably be increased by another fifty million ton: annually, apart from the contributions of other power supply sources. The amount produced by nuclear energy will be a small fraction of total power supplies.
Even by the vear 2000, F. E. Simons (Professor of Thermodynamics at Oxford University) savs, " nuclear power will be a relatively small nercentage of our power needs ". He adds: " even taking a favourable chance of increasing coal production, we shall be nowhere near tne nguies tne U.S.A. regards as necessary."
The Truman Administration Report on U.S.A. power supplies estimated the energy used as the equivalent of one thousand, three hunaied mnuon tons oi: coal annually. 1 he ibntish equivalent would be aoout live hundred million tons annually. This is far beyond what the British economy uses now and, on estimate, more than it will use by the year 2000. The Truman Report also forecasts that by 1975 the U.S.A. will double its output of power and generate three and a half times more electricity. Thus, the disparity in power production and prouuctive levels between the U.S.A. and Britain will have increased both absolutely and relatively. The American worker has at his disposal three times more power to his elbow than his counterpart here, and long-term trends indicate this power ratio will increase rather than diminish.
Even if a cheaper source of power than the existing ones could be made available, its effects should not be exaggerated. According to Professor A. J. Brown in "Aspects of the World Economy in War and Peace ", cost of energy in manufacture is less than three per cent, of total costs. In England, it may be mentioned, fuel is about one-fifth of the total costs of generating electricity (same source). It is not suggested that saving in power costs, although small, is unimportant; but it certainly would not produce sensational economic changes. But there is another way of looking at the matter. The mineral fuel used by the world is less than one ton of coal per head per year (in advanced industrial countries it averages between four and eight tons a head). The potential demand for energy, as the so-called backward countries become industrialized, is enormous. In that case a steep rise in power-supply costs would ensue.
Of course, the use of power goes with the use of other forms of capital, and it is these which constitute the overwhelming oart of production expenses. Are we to believe that the productive equipment of the advanced industrialized countries, taking generations to build up and embodying colossal capital values, can—or their equivalent can—be conjured out of the air or anywhere else in the ascertainable future by any nation ? Even if nations were able to utilize the latest technical processes, such equipment on any extensive scale would be co'tlv beyond their resources. It is doubtful whether chean and ample power supplies, if they had been possible in the past, would have affected in any marked way the growth and rate of capital - accumulation, itself the outcome of specific social and economic conditions.
Evans confuses techniques with economics; whilst the former is included in the latter, they are not identical. True he makes war and war preparation, profit and competition of capitals act as agencies, but on his own showing they are derived from and aspects of the same development. Thus, he makes technical development—i.e., the world- near-equality of productive levels— the sole and indispensible condition for major social change. Man's activities, institutions, etc., turn out then to be the by-products of technical development.
If Evans does not mean this, his articles mean nothing and any attempt to introduce genuine human activity would so qualify his thesis as to render it incogruous. Evans then, is able to show that war and its preparation are aspects of progress leading to greater productivity and socialism. This I find not only economically untenable but ethically repugnant.
E.W.
31.2 TURNER - OR PRINCIPLES
Hampstead Branch has decided unanimously to charge A. Turner of Paddington Branch " with action detrimental to the Party, in that he agitates among Party members for the abolition of the Declaration of Principles ".
Evidently the patience of the members of this branch, after two years of the most fatuous and sterile cross-talk, (it cannot be called " discussion ") whose sole aim has been the advertisement of a so-called " personality" (A. Turner) is exhausted.
Each week the news is now coming in, showing the harm done to the Party, by the members' foolish toleration of Turner's attempts to undermine its existence.
Opponents (e.g. " Freedom Press ") sell the copies of " Forum " containing his articles with glee. Pieces are appearing in Trade Union papers (e.g. " Operative Builders ") and public journals (e.g. " Worgers News Bulletin ") saying that the S.P.G.B. has now dropped its Principles.
Members are leaving the Party in disgust.
The controversy between Turner and the Party has long since passed the stage of any semblance to reality. For months and years now, Turner has talked the most incredible nonsense, ranging from the banal platitudes against Socialism and the working class which we get from our opponents at every public meeting (Forum 17, page 13) to his announcement of the passing of the Law of Gravity at the last delegate conference.
Unable to be an ordinary member joining with other men and women as comrades in a common effort in a Party; deterined, even if it means becoming the Party clown and getting expelled,, to occupy the centre of the stage at any cost, he has posed as the universal authority on everything, laying down the law for everybody else on subjects, the names of which he can hardly spell. Thus, at one gathering he lectured an audience (which included doctors in the Party) on Chromosomes. At another he airily wipes physics out of existence in a couple of rhetorical, though ungrammatical, phrases.
Though openly declaring that he cannot do simple arithmetic, he finds no difficulty in expounding on Relativity.
A self-confessed illiterate (" I can't write ") he has not hesitated to tell Party Writers what to write, and Party speakers what to say and how they should say it, while also saying " they are afraid of their audiences ". (Forum, No. 3)
Pursuing his tedious theme anent the obsolescence of the Party Principles because " everything has changed " in the last fifty years, he has publicly announced, to an astonished audience of about fifteen people, that " Science does not exist " (T.U. Club, September, 1952.).
History doesn't exist either. If A. Turner had been alive 500 years ago Socialism would have been established. (Forum, No. 3, page 8).
So-called " Forums " were held at the Party office whose only purpose was a platform from which this member could publicise himself, for him to state his (not the Party's) position, and display what he imagines is his eloquence.
The longer these ridiculous verbal duels went on, the more empty and boring they became, until the audience dwindling to nil, they folded up.
At one of these forums Turner announced that " you cannot capture political power ". "A Socialist Party cannot aim at getting control of the Governmental machinery" (Forum 17, page 13).
At another he discoursed learnedly on Streptomycin, Streptococci and human equality. Though it is doubtful whether he can distinguish between a microscope and a telescope, he scrapes Biology off in a sentence.
At Paddington Branch one evening he announced that " canvassing at elections was a waste of time, because you could not make a Socialist in three weeks
The faithful few in Paddington Branch, who hang on the lips of their Edgware Road Eugene Uuhring with the devotion of well-trained sheep-dogs, drank this in with murmurs of admiration.
Big Brother had spoken!
Indeed, it is the moronic adulation of these idiots which has fed Turner's inordinate vanity and landed him in his present predicament.
Search through A. Turner's articles, listen to his incessant harangues, mainly on other people's dishonesty (yes, he is also a great authority on dishonesty) you cannot find one single fact, not a scrap of knowledge; only endless diatribes about the injustices he suffers and others unfairness, the whole thing based on his " position " i.e. Turner's fluctuating and fleeting " opinions ".
At last he has gone too far. Not because he disagrees with us; but because he disagrees while still a member, there is only one thing to be done.
In defence of his individualist position he will doubtless claim that he was " invited " to " state his position" and thereby seek to imply that the Party is responsible for it.
This is a piece of impudent nonsense to oppose its principles. Even if they had, the responsibility is still in the man who does it.
Starting off, four years ago, with the rubbish about " telling people what Socialism will be like " (Forum No. 3.), passing on to " the improvement of the workers by Capitalism ", (Forum No. 3), discovering next that the working class has nothing to do with Socialism and that you cannot capture political power, anyway, (Forum No. 3. page 1 7), he had a fit of temper when the E.C. refused to appoint him speaker in June, 1954, and resigned from the Party; only to withdraw the resignation at the next Branch meeting (Letter to all branches, June 14th, 1954),
Asked at the last members meeting whether the statement by Trotman in the current Forum that " he said in debate at the Party office that he did not accept one word of the Party's Declaration of Principles or its object either ", was correct, he said in the hearing of 1 50 members " Of course it isn't true. I don't disagree with anything completely. I don't completely disagree with everything in the Conservative Party or in the Catholic Church ".
One member afterwards called this "A lame and sorry reply ". Members of the S.P.G.B. sign a document declaring that they do completely disagree with the Conservatives, and are hostile to them and the Church. After stating that " everything in the Party principles leads up to Clause 6 ", Turner says he rejects Clause 6 (Forum No. 26.), but still agrees with the Declaration of Principles.
The whole business has now degenerated into a futile squabble unrelated to Socialism. Soon it will come to an end. Comb the agenda of the forthcoming Conference and you will not find a single proposal by Paddington Branch on anything.
Turner's dissenting views, on Socialism, Class Struggle, Political Power, Democracy, Criticism, Surplus Values, History, Mass Production have all evaporated, being replaced by the monotonous refrain " You are dishonest ".
Like most people who abandon principles, he has become mentally bankrupt.
In the hard and difficult days to come we shall try to forget this pathetic episode, preferring to recall with pride and affection the stirring days of September, 1939, when like Casabianca, he stood on the burning deck, " whence all but he had fled ".
If, even now, a majority of the members of the Party will not expel an arrowed opponent merely because he was once a good speaker, those who do support the Declaration of Principles, and are not concerned with personalities, will have to seriously consider the formation of a Socialist Party.
HARRY YOUNG
31.3 DISSENT AND TOLERANCE
Reply to Harry Young
On Tuesday, 8th March, the committee responsible for the publication of Forum placed an article before the E.C. The article was headed "' TURNER OR PRINCIPLES"' and was written by H. Young.
In the opinion of the majority of the Forwn committee the article was unsuitable for publication prior to conference, on tha grounds that it was likely to prejudice the delegates who will have to hear the charge the E.C. has brought against me. The E.G. having had the article read to them, passed a re olution permitting the article to be published in the April issue of Forum.
I did not hear the article whan it was read to the E.C. nor did I hear much of the discussion, as I did not arrive until the vote was about to be taken. When the vote bar' been taken I asked the E.C. whether I would have the right to reply—this was granted. I had no idea of the contents of the article until several hours later when I read the copy which had been typed for me. Had I known its content? I would have protested there and then Having read this outburst, I havi no intention of reliving to it except to say that I am sotv that Comrade Young can feel such hatred towards any human being, let alone a fel'ow Socialist, for, to write such untrue and malicious statements can only spring from unhealthy hatred.
I can only hope that Young's article is not a dress rehearsal for the conference, because if it is, I doubt the wisdom of being present at 2.30 p.m. on Good Friday when the charge is to be heard. As it is, I have written to the E.C. protesting against the part they have played in permitting such an article to be published before the charge has been heard by the conference delegates. At this stage I only wish to state that as far as the charge is concerned, I will endeavour to answer my critics at the proper place —THE CONFERENCE. But on the wider and more important issue " DISSENT AND TOLERANCE" I bring a non-socialist to speak on my behalf: —
" Why is it that totalitarianisms arouse our deepest hostility? The best answer is not so much in their immoral quality as in the fact that they are inherently unstable because they are; at war with our only trustworthy way of living in accord with the facts. For it is only by trial and error, by insistent scrutiny and by readiness to re-examine presently accredited conclusions that we have risen, so far as in fact we have risen, from our bruti'h ancestors, and in our loyalty to these habits lies our only chance, not merely of progress, but even of survival. They were not indeed a part of our aboriginal endowment: Man, as he emerged, was not prodigally equipned to master the infinite diversity of his environment. Obviouslv, enough of us did manase to get through, but it has been a statistical survival, for the individual's native powers of adjustment are by no means enough for his personal safety, any more than are those of other creatures. i he precipitate of our experience is far from absolute verity, and our exasperated resentment at all dissent is a sure index of our doubts.
All discussion, all debate, all dissidence tends to question, and in consequence to upset, existing convictions : that is precisely its purpose and its justification. He is, indeed, a " subversive " who disputes those precepts that I most treasure and seeks to persuade me to substitute his own. He may be of those to whom ony forcible sanction of conformity is anathema; yet it remains true that he is trying to bring about my apostasy, and I hate him just in proportion as I fear his success. Heretics have been hateful from the beginning of recorded time; they have been ostracized, "exiled, tortured, maimed and butchered; but it has generally proved impossible to smother them, and when it has not, the society that has succeded has always declined."
Mr. Hand, retired chief judge of the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals, speaking before the annual meeting in New York of the American Jewish Committee. (" Time ", Feb. 1 4th, 1955)
A. W. L. TURNER
31.4 THE SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
A Re-examination
This is a statement by a number of Party members who have taken part in the discussion on the Party's Object and Principles during the past year or two. We who have signed it are not necessarily committed to evry detail, but are agreed on the general propositions it contains, and are agreed also that the Party discussions have helped to change and clarify these views. This has made us feel justified in now responding to the many requests we have had for a statement of our position.
We hope that this statement will help to clear up some misconceptions and enable the issues involved to be discussed more widely and with as little as posible of animosity or interruption of current Party work.
But before we begin we must make two things clear. One is that we are not speaking as an alien or hostile group, but as Party members whose views and proposals have been developed within and by the Party. The other is that the changes we suggest in outlook or activity are not put forward as an ultimatum, or as a programme to be now adopted. We conceive them simply as representing the likely evolution of the socialist movement, and as a natural development of what the Party already is and does. That development (if any is needed) cannot be established by resolution, but can only grow spontaneously out of free and patient discussion.
Let us begin by considering the question of the basis of membereship. We suggest that the basis of membership could be agreement on princples somewhat as follows :
UNDERSTANDING that social change is continuous, and that change in men's attitudes and their social institutions is one process ;
RECOGNISING that the delevopment of present (capitalist) society include the changing of the institutions of property and authority (the institutions of class and power and privilege) in the direction of socialism ;
RECOGNISING AND DESIRING socialism as a way of life characterised by production solely for use as an integral part of a freer, more equalitarian an i more harmonious society ; and UNDERSTANDING that the purpose of the Socialist Party is to urge on the emergence of socialist society by encouraging the growth of socialist tendencies in attitudes and institutions.
In this statement we give our reasons for the view that these principles are necessary to characterise a socialist organisation to-day. But we repeat that we do not suggest that the Party should now be asked to adopt them. What we do suggest is that if they are more in line with social needs, then the Party's principles as at present formulated will come to be interpreted in the spirit of the alternative here set out.
The mode of verbal reformulation is not our immediate concern. We are concerned only that this alternative statement of socialist principles and policy should be discussed by the membership as a whole, without haste, and for so long as it takes to bring out all that it implies.
We will deal briefly in turn with each of the four principles above.
31.4.1 I
UNDERSTANDING that social change is contmuious, and that change m
men's attitudes and their social institutions is one process.
If we define institutions as the relatively fixed ways of doing things which operate in a given social field, and altitudes as the relatively fixed outlooks of the people working in that field, we can say generally that a change in one will always be accompanied by a change in the other. The social habits (institutions) and the metnal habits (attitudes) are the same thing in so far as they are expressions of the work being done in that field, that is, of the actions and interaction of those concerned in it.
The relationship between one social field and another is not necessarily so close. This means that attitudes and institutions in different social fields are not always changing in the same direction or at the same rate.
There must be some interaction, no matter how indirect, between any two social fields, but some fields will have much closer interrelation than others. Where the interrelation is very close, two or more fields may behave as a functional unit. In the degree to which this happens, attitudes and institutions of one must be consistent with those of the others. In the degree to which the interrelation is remote, the various fields may show divergent attitudes and dissimilar institutions. But since each social field is part of the environment (near or remote) of every other, mutually conditioning each other, there is a tendency towards conformity in all fields. Further, we can show that this tendency has a significant general direction.
In the course of history, the changing activities of men continually change their institutions. New ones emerge, sometimes in a limited field or in relative isolation.
They are said to be " ahead of their time ". Others lag behind the general development, and are called anachronisms. But the interrelation between social fields becomes closer as society develops, and this on a world-wide scale. The attitudes and institutions of one social field are less and less able to develop independently and maintain themselves in isolation.
This is in line with what the Party already accepts, although the Party may express it differently; as, for instance, in the Socialist Manifesto, where we say (p. 17): " (Capitalism) found the means and methods of production crude, scatterred and ill-ordered ... it leaves them practically one gigantic machine of wealth production, orderly, highly productive, economical of labour, closely inter-related ...
Periods of relatively rapid and radical social change (revolution) are those in which a significant trend has accumulated sufficient force in the snfficientely large number of fields to sweep through the remainder. " Snowball ", " ava'anche " and " emergence " are all useful analogies to help us to visualise the complexities of social change. The Partv has developed two theories of how socialism will come—the snowball and the avalanche. But these are faultily presented when they imply that people's increasing understanding of socialism develops in isolation from, and indeDendent of, the instituitions of capitalism, which are alleged to remain unchanging.
For example, Gilmac says, in FORUM February '54: " Capitalism will not evolve gradually in'o socialism; up to the moment of establishing the new system, capitalism will retain all its main features—private property, commodity production, the wages system, the State. The establishment of socialism will be a sudden basic change, involving the abolition of property."
In the previous July issue, Rab puts a Do'nt of view which is neaver our own when he savs: " I do not think that capitalist contvol of state machinery can ignore a growing sentiment. I believe all sorts of concessions will be made to powerful socialist conviciions. I anticipate that a 20% socialist electoriate calls for far different behaviour by the capitalists than the current .0001%."
It seems to us that the way Gilmac puts it is to fall into the same error as do those who ask our speakers who will do the dirty work, or "what will happen if people are greedy. These questioners are projecting some present day conditions into a social context in which they are inappropriate. Thev srant that social instituitions will have changed but assume that mental habits will have remained unchanged. The Party is tarred with the same brush if it fails to recognise that the spread of socialist attitudes can only come concurrently with changes in the same direction in other aspects of society. We can accept the fact of snowball accumulation, and we can agree that there may well be some measure of avalanche at some stage, but we cannot accept them as applying to ideas in isolation. We can accept them only as applying to ideas and institutions alike. We hold that in the actual movement of capitalism there are changes in the direction of socialism, however halting or lame or confused, and that the more we can make people see that this is the general and significant direction of social change, the better can we help to accelerate the movement.
31.4.2 II
RECOGNISING that developments of present (capitalist) society include the changing of the institutions of property and authority (the institutions of class and porter and privilege) in the direction of socialism.
We do not say that all developments of existing society are making for socialism in the same way or at the same rate. Nor are we just referring to the vaster social move-mentes which are so obviously paving the way for socialism, such as the approach of a world society, and the growth of man's control over his environment, both technical and human. What we want to show is that there are significant changes in social institutions to-day in a socialist direction, and that this is the most consistent direction of social change.
Let us deal first with the question of free access to the means of living, that is, distri-tion according to need, money being out of the question. Any application of this principle, however partial, any encroachment on classical commodity relationships, should have our attention. In our view the area of this encroachment is expanding.
One example is the growth of social insurance. The principle of all insu'ance i-the flat rate payment and the receipt of benefits according to need (the accident or loss sustained). In national insurance the premiums vary a little in accordance with ability to pay (as between juveniles and adults, men and women, etc.); and the principle of need is extended to benefits paid to persons married or single with children and in respect of sickness, injury, unemployment. maternity. old age. etc.—bearing little relation, for the individual, to the money paid in.
Insurance is not socialism, but the attitudes and instituitions of paying into common pool and taking out what you need are more akin to socialism than to shopkeeping. There is no delusion that the contributors as a whole (the workers) get thrir medicine or cot blankets for nothing. But in the same sense no more will people get things for nothing under socialism. What society doesn't put into the pool by working for it, can't be taken out. It remains that the characters of contributions in accordance with ability and benefit in accordance with need are socialist characters, and the development of such institutions make socialism more thinkable, more operable, and more matter-of-course and natural.
Such institutions and attitudes constitute one of the two most consistent qualitative changes in the evolution of capitalism. In the 350 years of capitalism between Elizabeths I and II there has been a progressively increasing allocation of national wealth to-words providing goods or services to which access is free : roads and bridges, parks and playgrounds, reading and writing, water and d'ainage, books and barristers, gramophone records and refuse removal. The Poor Law Act of 1601 was a tiny snowball of cold charity which has become an avalanche of local and central government handouts.
The designation "Welfare State" signifies acknowledgment of a radical change from the relationships of cash and carry. To the socialist it has a different significance, for although it is only a change within capitalism it has its face towards the much vaster, universal, and therefore qualitatively different freedom of access to the means of life and organisation of society on the basis of needs and abilities which is socialism. The face is blind, and in our view it is precisely the function of the socialist to put eyes in it.
The second of the two most consistent qualitative changes in the evolution of capitalism is in the development of institutions and attitudes which promote the social equality of Persons independent of age, sex, colour or ability.
In education, for instance, not only has there been a continuing trend towards equalising free educational facilities, but there is also an increasing concern to provide facilities in accordance with needs, without the social stigmas or distinctions which attended the cnde div;sion into so-called bright and so-called dull. Again, there are all sorts of canitalist reasons and capitalist limitations in the process, but its social effect is to exnand the acceptance of the social equality of all peonle.
The same influence is at wovk in the treatment of the sick, in the care of the institutional poor, in penal reform, in the treatment of young offenders as more sinned against than sinning, and in the desperate efforts to get neglected or orphaned children out of instiutions and into family a background.
In all these instances there is the same revolt against their treatment as " cases " or as " units " of poverty and crime, and the acknowledgment that they are human beings. Like social insurance, this is not socialism. They are capitalist sick and capitalist poor, and capitalist sinned against or sinners. But the change is towards equality of consideration which, universalised, is socialism.
The same equalitarian tendency is apparent in the machinery of state. Members of all classes are being brought into government at every level, on the ground primarily of their ability to do the job. This widening delegation of authority (the wider dispersion of functions which were formerly the preserve of a small hereditary caste) changes the character of their functions by reducing the element of autocracy and privilege and increasing the element of social administration. As with the term " Welfare State ", the change in the operation to be given a name>—Bureaucracy.
This is not the old German and Chinese Bureaucracy, concerned merely with ruling. It is an instrument for the collection and interpretation of information — production figures, population, consumotion, transport and distribution figures—including information about the detailed working of shops, offices, fields and factories which were once regarded as trade secrets, not to be revealed to any outsider. Many long steps have been taken in the direction of that free access to society's vital statistics which must characterise socialism, and new bureaucracies like O.E.E.C. show that further steps are still being taken.
The cumulative effect of these changes is that power and authority are more widely delegated (for the collection and organisation of the data), while policy itself becomes more ancj more determined by the data, and less by personal discretion. The shape of the institutions and attitudes we call "power" and "authority" are changed by imperceptible degrees. But the blind face, in this case again, turns towards allocation of jobs in accordance with ability and the " social administration of things ".
As one more example, let us look at the changes in property institutions. "A general weakening in the ideas tied up with property ownership . . . has been provoked by social development during the century, including the mass destruction of property during wars, the changing personnel of the owners and the movement from direct ownership of industries to ownership through share and bond-holding. Property ownership, in the narrow sense, no longer has the universal hold upon people's minds that it had 100 years ago. Ideas are changing. The general insecurity which world wars have disseminated has helped in this process." (Gilmac, FORUM, Feb, '54.)
One must remember, also that one of the features of property which we most object to is the assumption that he who owns somethings can do as he likes with it, even if this is clearly harmful to the community at large. This assumption is being questioned more and more to-day, and has resulted in such measures as the establishment of a Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
" Ownership is a word summing up a very mixed bag of rights, and the contents of the bag are continually being changed. But these changes have the same general direction as the other changes mentioned; property moves progressively away from the private to the social. The competitive mature of capital (as Evans puts it in Forum, Oct. 52) " urges on the concentration of capital in the State; State control furthers the depersonalising of property; this deper-sonalisation begins the expropriation which is the socialist aim. It begins to change domination of class by class into anonymous administration of things."
It is not possible to do more than touch on these changes, but the fact of change cannot be denied, and the general direction of the change seems to us to be away from commodity relationships and towards the relationships of socialism. And if it is recognised that this is taking place it becomes not only more difficult, but quite unnecessary, to accept the view that socialism will come as a sudden .break with capitalism.
In the gradual development of things like free access, the increase in the administrative aspects of the State, the weakening and breaking down of property ideas, the increasing inter-dependence of social spheres and units, the movement towards treating people simply as human beings—in all these ways, and in many more besides, socialism can be seen taking shape in existing society.
31.4.3 3
RECOGNISING AND DESIRING socialism as a way of life characterised by production soMy for we as an integral part of a freer, more equalitarian and more harmonious society.
We recognise the value of defining socialist society in terms of its mode of production, but think our propaganda should be more positively directed to expounding the human ends of which that mode of production is the means.
If we accept the view (as we must) that society is the mode of existence of the human species, we must acknowledge also that it is the mode not simply of obtaining material wealth, but the faculties, maintaining the sense of individuality and the sense of belonging, of providing not simply assurance of physical needs but security of acceptance as a person. These needs (which are all aspects of one another) are satisfied in varying ways and in varying degrees as society changes.
Production for use, and the satisfaction of all these needs, go together under socialism. This is the reason why there will be abundance under Socialism. The abilities of all members of society will be tapped to the full, as never before. This means that the problem of how to tap the full energies of men and women is a problem for socialists. It is not simply a question of " removing obstacles " and " creating conditions ", but of working actively for the understanding and furtherance of human co-operation.
Human co-operation is not a matter for airy generalisations but something which is the subject of proper study. Social scientists have become increasingly concerned with the problems of human co-operation. This has been very largely because of the capitalist interest in " incentives". While the achievement of the 19th century was the development of machine technique, the problem of the 20th century is that of human technique. But although it is of interest to capitalists for the purposes of profit, it is none the less of interest to socialists from the point of view of understanding what socialism means as a way of living.
Throughout our whole conception of socialism runs the thread of equality. Under capitalism, the intention to treat others as equals (as like oneself, as human beings, as ends in themselves) can hardly be more than a pious wish. And yet managers concerned with profit have found that the closer they come to treating workers in this way, the more productive do those workers become. The less they insist they have power over the worker to make him do his job, and the more they emphasise that all equally have functions to perform in a common endeavour, the better the results.
The more equalitarian character of socialist society is obviously a concomitant of production solely for use, that is, of free and equal participation in social production and free and equal access to the social pioduct. But this oraer of equality, reaching to the roots of society, inhabits also the flower and the fruit. Alt relations between people (however remote from the " field of production ") become freed from the poison of status resting on privilege and power. Every human being is relieved of the crippling burden of self-defence, of the need to go girded and guarded against loss of face, ol the suspicion of intentions, of false fronts, of the demoralising disparities between precept and practice which bewilder the young and falsify every adult sentiment.
This welter of false values is counterpart of the welter of raise- needs, the load of rubbish to which our godlike powers of production are geared. '" production for use ", which appears superficially as an economic category, is thus in fact a cultural one. It can exist only as part of a social whole in which faculties of men both as producers and consumers, making social co-operation and the sense of self the essence of each other, raising both to a level we barely glimpse.
We emphasise here the integral nature, the oneness, of equality, social co-operation, individuality, and production for use—not so much because it needs to be said, as between socialists, but to emphasise also that any effort or aspiration which is equalitarian, co-operative, etc., is a contribution to socialism. The more we realise the unity of society (of "base" and "superstructure", for instance), and the unity therefore of social change, the more our essentially educative function is seen to involve participation in the activities of men which face towards socialism.
Our concept of socialism is thus no static one. It is implied in what has been said that all the concepts ". which we see as most certainly true about socialism as a way of life are limiting concepts; that is, a process is going en which has socialism as its limit. This means that we can always go on working for the fuller realisation of socialism; there is no point at which we stop doing that and start doing something else.
People with predominantly socialist attitudes are today a tiny minority (and even then the attitudes are streaked and distorted by contact with a capitalist world) and institutions with predominantly socialist tendencies are a tiny minority (and similarly streaked and distorted). But it is all a question of more or less. Attitudes and instructions are more or less socialist, and elements within both are often conflictingly more or less socialist. The emergence of socialism is the emergence of the more out of the less, rather than the all out of the whole—and this in attitudes and institutions together.
Along with all other socialists, we hold that there will be production soiely tor use, free access to what is produced, no exclusive ownership, etc. It is because we are so sure about these attributes of socialism that we can say that changes in existing society towards free access, and so on, are changes in a socialist direction.
On the other hand, there are many details of the aciuai running or socialist society that are at this moment more speculative. Our views on detailed social procceses must necessarily be less definite than our formulation of the general principles-, in a world in which everything else is changing, it wouid be foolish to expect our more particular concepts of socialism to remain static. That is why we must keep discussing the details ol socialism—and advocating what we think is desirable. It is a most necessary part or tne socialism-developing process.
31.4.4 4
UNDERSTANDING that the purpose of the Socialist Party is to urge on the emergence of socialist society by encouraging the growth of socialist tendencies in attitudes and institutions.
If we recognise that capitalism moves towards socialism, what do we, as socialists, do with this knowledge? Our view is that tve should discuss, hold meetings and publish literature to show where more socialist attitudes and institutions are arising in society. We should try to establish lines of communication between ourselves and people who are working in socialist ways. We should look for those sides of every social movement and every existing organisation which are tending in a socialist direction. We should speak and write about them, and get the people concerned to speak and write to us. We should make them known to each other and to ourselves, and show how their efforts are helping socialism to come, and how they could do so more effectively.
Facilities for exchange of information and views would be set up lor all tnose \>no are consciously or unwittingly working in a socialist direction—and that can include teachers, reformers, scientists (particularly social scientists : we have always used their work, e.g. in combatting racial prejudice), advisers, writers—workers in every field of social activity. They would be made more aware of the work of other people and movements whose activity represents some aspect of the growth of socialism. The efforts of each would thus become more consciously and positively directed towards socialism.
The Party would not lose its identity in these movements: on the contrary, it would more coherently and positively establish its socialist identity. For in order to develop the consciousness of the socialist element in other people's activities, it must above all apply itself to the presentation of socialism as a science and a way of life.
Thus, in short, the Party exchanges identification with the working class for identification with society's incipient socialism. By exchanging for the exposure of the limitations of reforms the clarification of their socialist direction, by seeking out and plugging their socialist-leaning element, it extends the horizon of men and movements without slapping them down. The revolutionary act in our time is one which exchanges the nugatory policy of sympathetic opposition to reforms for the positive function of socialist participation in the ordinary affairs of ordinary men, precipitating the socialism which society generates.
F. EVANS (Lewisham)
S. R. PARKER (Paddington)
J. C. ROWAN (Hampstead)
A. W. L. TURNER (Paddington)

32. MAY 1955
SOCIALIST DISCUSSION JOURNAL
TOWARDS BETTER UNDERSTANDING
FORUM

32.1 Capitalism and Technical Progress
In last September's FORUM, F. Evans tells us how the competition of capitals compels an ever-greater raising of the organic composition of capital, which he says means taking on more machinery at a faster rate than the taking-on of hands. This, he adds, leads to greater labour productivity and hence to an increased rate of exploitation. Nevertheless, increased productivity via competition of capitals results also in cheapening commodities and allows an ever-increasing number of use-values to be embodied in the production and reproduction of labour-power; which, it seems, more than compensates for the extra intensity of effort on the part of workers so that their living standards are continuously being raised.
But this process of raising the organic composition of capital, i.e., the increase of constant capital relative to the increase of variable capital, is the means by which capitalism brings into being an industrial reserve army. Now, there is no ineluctable process in accordance with any law of progress which automatically brings an ever-rising organic composition of capital, although from Evans's remarks lie plainly thinks there is.
In actual fact the introduction of labour-saving machinery—the type which has predominated in capitalism—as distinct from capital-saving machinery is dependent on. a number of factors. The primary one is the level of wages existing at the time. If the level is high there will be an incentive to employers to invest in labour-saving machinery, which will again in part depend on the availability and the rate of interest on capital. In the case of an invention which enables machines to be more cheaply produced, the level of wages will be less of a factor. In short, where the reduction in labour costs is greater than the increase in plant costs, the tendency will be to encourage a larger proportion of investment in machine production. It was this which led Marx to make the general statement that the demand for labour-power did not increase proportionally with the accumulation of capital. It increases, but in a constantly diminishing ratio to the increase of capital.
It is, in short, this double action of the introduction of machinery and the appearance of an industrial reserve army that regulates the upper and lower limits of wage levels. It not only ensures that workers' wages will not increase to the point where the whole of surplus value is absorbed, but defines the limit of trade union activity. The history of capitalism shows that the increase in the organic composition of capital, by making workers surplus to existing requirements, increases the competition for jobs and acts as a downward pressure on wages. I am, of course, concerned here with the long-term trends of capitalism. Short-term trends gives a less clear picture, but to go into this would take us too far from the present subject-matter. If then the long-term trend in the raising of the organic composition of capital is to produce downward pressure on wages, how can it at the same time be the means which ensures continuous upward pressure? Unfortunately Evans's purple patches of description have never been blended with the sombre grey of factual analysis.
It may be of interest to note that in England, two crises—the last one in the 19th century and the 1929 crisis—saw prices fall faster than wages. In 1929 prices fell by about 15 per cent, and wages "rjy about 6 per cent.; thus the wage rates of those workers who were in employment rose by 9 per cent., although net earnings probably declined. This rise, however, was offset by the tremendous increase in unemployment and short-time working, so the general standard of living remained roughly the same. This increase in wage rates was not due, however, to increased productivity as the result of increased industrial activity, but to its very opposite.
Now the brief outline given above contains what are generally considered by Marxists to be the main factors which regulate wage levels. Evans does not accept them: instead he substitutes a piece of mechanism which he calls " capital's specific mode of existence." This mechanism is self-developing and self-regulating, and human activity is merely a cog in the process. It may help to retard or accelerate the process but its momentum and direction are given.
Its modus operandi is simplicity itself. Technical development via the agency of the competition of capitals turns out use-values in ever-greater mass and more and more cheaply. Workers get increasingly high standards of living, capitalists ever-greater profits. One can hardly resist saying in the light of this that capitalism takes on the aspect of " all this and Evans too." We are asked to believe that the present economy is one of almost unrestricted technical progress and unlimited markets. In Evans's empurpled language: " Through profusion of cheapening products. .. profit, property, power and politics dig their own grave." Or: " In proportion as productive power panting for profit showers indiscriminately on all an increasing deluge of cheap use-values ... dissolving the power of persons to withhold or bestow . . . changing social relations fundamentally, universally, continuously in the direction of socialism."
To put this rodomontade in sober perspective, the question boils down to this : do increases in productive efficiency bring about a continuous fall in prices which results in an increase in purchasing power? If this is so, then some highly interesting implications are involved. It would seem ifaat an automatic regulation of capitalism is involved. No matter how fast the introduction of labour-saving devices, it would cause no net displacement of workers apart from temporary and unavoidable displacements. The rate of consumption and the rate of industrial expansion would be synchronized. Capitalism—vide Evans—may be based on exploitation but it serves certain social ends. Evans's theory of progress looks suspiciously like the " hidden hand ' of Adam Smith.
In actual fact Evans is asking us to believe mat laissez-faire or cut-throat competition e the rule of capitalism. Such a theory might have had some justification in 1855, but it has none in 1955. The free play of the market which was the outstanding though not exclusive) pattern of early capitalism was being replaced even before the turn of the twentieth century by varying monopolistic forms as the dominant pattern of' market behaviour.
It may be asked, however, whether technical changes influence the price level. The answer is to be found not in facile theories but in actual observation. If we make the assumption—and it is a valid one —that all branches of production improve meir productive efficiency (even if not at Exactly the same rate), then workers may be sacked and the same output achieved at lower costs. In that case, profits would increase. Again, if an effective demand for those goods was still maintained there is no reason why prices should fall. It might be liked: but what happens if there is a fall in the volume of employment? The answer could be that as the result of increased profits more is spent on luxury goods and, as a consequence, more workers employed in such trades and employment restored to the old level.
Again, increases in productive efficiency mean increases in investment and conse-cmendy more employment in the machine-making industry. As a result the demand for other goods will increase and prices will rcse. As I have pointed out in the series
:"Notes on Crises," during the revival times of the business cycle, prices rise. Nevertheless when the building-up process isover workers may become increasingly redundant and this may well constitute downward pressure on wage levels. But, it may be said, will not prices fall? Yes, but so will the wage level. It can be seen then that there is no over-riding compulsion in capitalist society to bring about a continuous fall in prices which ensures a permanent and increasing net gain to consumers.
The best way to test a theory is to find whether it fits the facts and phenomena of reality. Only people with the attributes of divinity can discover truth in the way Evans does. From my point of view, I can see only that any selected period of industrial activity fails to show any marked downward influence on the price level. Take 1924 to 1929, one of the most progressive phases of technical progress in capitalism: apart from the distortion induced by the return to the gold standard, it was a period of rising prices.
Again, in the U.S.A. productive efficiency during those years was increasing by 3 per cent, per annum, yet the price level remained practically stable. According . to the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics, based on the returns of 16,000 manufacturing concerns, wages paid out in 1926 were represented by 100. The total fluctuated but was again 100 in 1929. Interest and dividends represented by 100 in 1926 rose continuously to 173 in 1929. While we cannot have the controlled experiment in economics, we can apply certain tests, and the test applied here demolishes the airy assertions of Evans.
Another way is to take wages as a proportion of total income (here I am including only wages of industrial workers—in recent years salaried and professional sections have been included—but it will demonstrate the point). In 1890 the wage bill was 38 per cent. In 1925 it was 42 per cent., but fell to 39 per cent, in 1939. In 1944 it rose to 41 per cent, and in 1954 it was a little under 42 per cent. But, it may be argued, suppose production has continuously increased, then the workers will have got a bigger slice from a bigger cake. Here again, the evidence given in Phases of Economic Depression (published by the League of Nations) showed that productive efficiency in the advanced capitalist countries—including, of course, Britain—had increased by about 1 per cent, per annum. According to Colin Clark it is about the same now. Allowing for depreciation charges and some of the benefits of increased productive efficiency going to the capitalists, it can hardly be maintained that there have been sensational additions to the standard of living.
Capitalism remains a system of organized scarcity, and Evans has not offered the slightest evidence to the contrary. In the next article I propose to deal with monopolies and restrictive practices typical of capitalist society, and attempt to show the relation of capitalist investment to technical progress, which is far more fundamental than the preliminaries stated here.
E.W.
32.2 From the Government's Economic Survey, 1955
The increase of 351,000 in civil employment . . . was made up of an increase of 267,000 in the working population, a reduction of 64,000 in unemployment and a reduction of 20,000 in the size of the Armed Forces. With the growing number of jobs available unoccupied people went out to work in greater numbers, and the campaign to encourage the employment of older workers may also have helped to swell the working population, which increased by more than in any year since the war.
Manufacturing industry alone took on 258,000 more workers. Most of them went into the metals, engineering and vehicles group, which absorbed 177,000, including about 50,000 in vehicle manufacture and 50,000 in the industries making electrical goods and equipment. There were also increases in the other groups of manufacturing industry, except for textiles and clothing.
Now that nearly two million new permanent houses have been built since the war, local authorities will be increasingly concerned with slum clearance, and provision is made in the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, for the preparation of five-year slum clearance programmes.
The trend in textile manufacture towards increasing use of rayon and other man-made fibres continued, and output of these fibres, and of fabrics made from them, reached record levels. The total labour force employed in textiles and clothing (excluding footwear) remained fairly steady throughout 1954 at about 1.5 million, which was slightly below the peak reached in 1951. There was a further reduction in the number of unemployed from 17,000 in December, 1953 to 15,000 in December, 1954; tne worst figure reached during the recession was 160,000.
Personal incomes rose sharply in 1954, as in 1953 .. . Wages and salaries increased by 7.5 per cent. Part of this increase was due to the higher level of employment and the rise in productivity, but most of it to higher rates of pay .. . Consumers' expenditure is estimated to have risen by almost the same amount, which suggests that there was little change in personal saving. In each of the last two years between 7 and 8 per cent, of total personal income after tax has been saved.
* * *
The amount of short time worked in the manufacturing industries remained low throughout the year, affecting only one operative in every 200. Overtime working on the other hand continued to increase, particularly in the metals, engineering and vehicles group, and in the last week in November 28.5 per cent, of operatives were working overtime as against 27 per cent, a year before. Average hours worked in manufacturing industries rose from 45.9 a week in October, 1953, to 46.3 in October, 1954.
Estimates relating to the financial position of companies are set out... The increase in gross profits (including stock appreciation, but before providing for depreciation) led to an increase of over £200 million in the total income of companies. Tax payments fell by about £80 million as a consequence of the abolition of the Excess Profits Levy and the reduction in the standard rate of income tax in 1953; on the other hand, dividends are estimated to have increased by about £80 million. Undistributed profits after tax therefore rose by over £200 million.
. . . Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude from last year's experience that the rest of the world need no longer be concerned about the level of activity in North America. A recession in the United States more serious or prolonged than last year's could always have serious consequences for other countries, particularly if it were to start at a time when activity elsewhere was less buoyant, and the dollar position less favourable.
32.3 CORRECTIONS.
In the article " The Socialist Movement " the following italicised words were not printed, spoiling the meaning of the sentences concerned:
Page 127, col. 1, line 27, " the change in the operation of government has become big enough to be given a name— Bureaucracy."
Page 127, col. 3, line 11, "but also of providing creative and socially purposive exercise of the faculties."
Page 128, col. 1, line 23, " a social whole in which the fine products of joyful labour nourish faculties of men."
Contributions to " Forum" should be addressed to the Internal Party Journal Committee, at Head Office. If they cannot be typed, articles should be written in ink on one side of the paper only, and contributors are asked to give their addresses and the names of their Branches. Contributors intending series of articles should give an indication of the scope of their series, not send merely a first article.
32.4 THE WORK OF LEWIS MUMFORD
Historic Materialism and Modern Times
(Part 2)
In recent controversies in the S.P.G.B. on Mass Production, the Materialist Conception of History and other subjects, there has, of course, been at least one nigger in the woodpile, or genius in the background (depending on your attitude to these discussions) that has influenced a number of members. He has shown himself rarely, though his influence appears to have been appreciable none the less. He is Lewis Mumford, the author of " Technics and Civilisation " and a number of other books, which have undoubtedly influenced a number of the " new look " Socialists.
For that reason alone his work is worth reviewing. Here however, we shall mainly be concerned with his contributions to the subject he calls Technics, and space will restrict consideration to his methods and the main framework of his studies in that field.
His method is to follow his teacher, Professor Patrick Geddes, and divide the last 1,000 years into successive, but overlapping and interpenetrating phases. He explains the significance of this classification as follows: —
" While each of these phases roughly represents a period of human history, it is characterized even more significantly by the fact that it forms a technological complex. Each phase, that is, has its origin in certain definite regions and tends to employ certain special resources and raw materials. Each phase has its specific means of utilising and generating energy, and its special forms of production. Finally, each phase brings into existence particular types of workers, trains them in particular ways, develops certain aptitudes and discourages others, and draws upon and further develops certain aspects of the social heritage."—Pps. 109 and no, " Technics and Civilisation." (All refs. are to the 1947 edition made in Great Britain).
We see that he follows Marx (and he acknowledges his debt) in realising the importance of the techniques of the period. However he does not give it the pride of place found in the materialist conception of history, and he tends to describe and classify, while Marx analysed and searched for causes. Of course in that respect each was typical of his time.
He divided the last 1,000 years into 4 phases, calling these the eotechnic, paleo-technic, neotechnic, and biotechnic respectively. He has defined them as follows: —
" Eotechnic." Refers to the dawn age of modern technics and an economy based
upon the use of wind, water and wood as power, with wood as the principal material for construction. Dominant in Western Europe from the tenth to the eighteenth century. Marked by improvements in navigation, glass-making and the textile industries, from the thirteenth century on: by widespread canal-building and increased utilisation of power and power-machines in the later phase.
" Paleotechnic." Refers to the coal and iron economy, which existed as a mutation in the eotechnic period (blast furnace and primitive railway) but began in the eighteenth century to displace the eotechnic complex, and became a dominant between 1850 and 1890. Key inventions: steam engine, railroad, steamship, Bessemer converter, various automatic devices in spinning and weaving. Up to the last quarter of the nineteenth century the eotechnic economy remained as a recessive.
" Neotechnic." Refers to the new economy, which began to emerge in the eighties, based on the use of electricity, the lighter metals, like aluminum and copper, and rare metals and earths, like tungsten, platinum, thorium, et al. Vast improvements in utilisation of power, reaching its highest point in the water-turbine. Destructive distillation of coal: complete utilisation of scrap and by-products. Growing perfection and automatism in all machinery. Key inventions: electric transformer, electric motor, electric light, and electric communication by telegraph, telephone, and radio: likewise vulcanised rubber and internal combustion engine. At the present time, the eotechnic complex is a survival, the paleotechnic is recessive, and the neotechnic is a dominant.
" Biotechnic." Refers to an emergent economy, already separating out more clearly from the neotechnic (purely mechanical) complex, and pointing to a civilisation in which the biological sciences will be freely applied to technology, and in which technology itself will be orientated towards the culture of life. The key inventions, on the mechanical side, are the airplane, the phonograph, the motion picture, and modern contraceptives, all derived directly, in part, from a study of living organisms. The application of bacteriology: to medicine and sanitation, and of physiology to nutrition and daily regimen, are further marks of this order: parallel applications in psychology for the discipline of human behaviour in every department are plainly indicated. In the biotechnic order the biological and social arts become dominant: agriculture, medicine, and education take precedence over engineering. Improvements, instead of depending solely upon mechanical manipulations of matter and energy will rest upon a more organic utilisation of the entire environment, in response to the needs of organisms and groups considered in their —ultifold relations: physical, biological, social, economic, aesthetic, psychological. Pages 495-6. Culture of Cities. (1944 Edition).
Aluminum, phonograph, and airplane are of course usually called aluminium, gramophone and aeroplane in England to-day.
By telescoping down his descriptions, or definitions as he terms them, something of the fuller exposition is lost, so the reader who desires a more accurate description of the technological complexes should read """" Technics and Civilisation." However, this method has intrinsic limitations in the study of history. History is the dynamic of society. It is the study of the development of society. This classification method of looking at the past is only at best social statics and never social dynamics. It is like taking four still photographs, as against the record of a cine-camera. He describes each period, or technological complex, as if in equilibrium. His analogies come from static sciences like geology, where we consider the strata as results of biological evolution, rather than biology, where the mechanisms of evolution are considered. In fact though he predicts a biological age, biology appears to be rather a closed book to him.
He has also shown a partiality to writing of the need for an integrated view of society. An example is the passage quoted on the front page of FORUM of August, 1954, by S.R.P. Unfortunately he does not use the concept of integration effectively when he analyses society. He writes of considering society as an organism, but instead of using that approach, to get the, best out of the classification method, and writing of each of his1 phases in turn, he writes as if it is sufficient to consider the evolution of each aspect of society in turn, and so rather in isolation. Thus he writes four histories on different subjects, or aspects of society, technology, cities, etc., in turn, calling the books: 13 Technics and Civilisation; 2, The Culture of Cities; 3, The Condition of Man; 4, The Conduct of Life; instead of writing a book on each "technological complex,1 considering each aspect of the complex in turn, and then showing the integrated view of the phase, as an organism, how the factors interact, how the era came into being, and how it prepares the way for the next phase. For after all, as Plekhanov wrote: —
" Men do not make several distinct histories—the history of law, the history of morals, the history of philosophy, etc.—but only one history, the history of their own social relations, which are determined by the state of the productive forces in each particular period. What is known as ideologies is nothing but a multiform reflection in the minds of men of this single and indivisible history.—The Material Conception of History. New York (1940), Page 48.
It is important to consider the subject of our study, in this case society, in an integral fashion, but it is even more important not to merely pay lip service to the method, but to use it. It is not, in essence, novel, for it

33. No. 33
JUNE 1955
SIXPENCE
SOCIALIST DISCUSSION JOURNAL TOWARDS BETTER UNDERSTANDING
FORUM

33.1 Capitalism-Organized Scarcity or Organized Abundance?
It is a Marxist commonplace that capitalism is a system of organized scarcity —i.e., one whose economic functioning-inhibits the free use or the maximum use of the wealth resources socially available. While monopolies and trade associations with their price-and quota-fixing propensities may have distorted the capitalist anarchy of production, they have not essentially modified it. Anarchy of production leads, as we have seen, to an uneven rate of development in the various industrial sectors; when on a sufficiently large scale it brings about a crisis.
This unequal productive expansion, however, is in constant conflict with the basic mode of capitalism's existence—the self-expansion of capital. While the conflict does not always occasion crises it does account for the wasted resources, the duplication of function and that bugbear of capitalism, surplus or unused plant capacity. Profit expectation serves as a regulator of the rate of capital accumulation. Thus, as was shown last month, there are phases of high as well as of low prices—this fact against the notion in F. Evans's Nature of the Socialist Revolution that some process (unexplained) continually depresses prices. Both serve as a measure of business activity and so of the rate of capital accumulation.
Evans holds that capitalism is organized abundance—organized by the mechanism of relative surplus value. It is this, he says, which brings about " the cheapening of products which is capitalism's specific mode of existence." The agencies for its realization, he contends, are capitalists " panting for profit" and "the competition of capitals." Increased productivity, we are told, is constantly reducing the value of labour-power, i.e., reducing the cost of articles necessary for its production and reproduction. On the other hand, the mass of use-values incorporated in it is at the same time constantly growing. Hence, Evans argues the workers' standard of living is ever rising. He agrees, however, that increased productivity involves increased intensity of effort. If that is so, then increased consumption may be a necessary condition for the replacement of the added wear and tear which the extra effort involves. If it is recognized that living standards entail a ratio of input to output, it may be questioned whether increased consumption and increased wages are synonymous terms.
Evans's views on relative surplus value raise implications which evidently he has not taken into account. Thus his assumption that relative surplus value generates not only ever-increasing wages but also ever-increasing profits means that there is an ever-accelerating rate of capital accumulation. The history of capitalist development refutes it. In actual fact capital accumulation is not any smooth continuous growth but, as Marx pointed out, bursts of business activity followed by more quiescent and even stagnant periods. It can also be pointed out that relative surplus value is, in everyday parlance, a method of reducing costs.
Whether a reduction in costs enables wages and profits to be increased depends, as was shown in Notes on Crises, upon other factors. It cannot be made an over-all assumption for the evolution of the entire capitalist economy. Again, the assumption of an equilibrium brought about by a nice adjustment of increased capital accumulation with an increased working population and an increased rate of surplus value, is evidence of complete ignorance of how the economy functions.
Of course, if capital accumulation proceeded in the manner indicated by Evans, an exhaustion of the available labour force would be brought about after a period. Before this happened, however, manpower would be in such short supply as to raise wages to the point which threatened the extinction of profits. Accumulation would then be rapidly choked off. Production would decline. Unemployment would appear and wages rapidly fall. In such a hypothetical situation, capitalism would be forced to do this to save it from self-extinction. There would ensue also a massacre of capital values, and any earlier productive gains would be wiped out. In a social organization where production is socially regulated and controlled, no such barriers would exist for the continued expansion of productive effort. Because of these barriers, capitalism must always be a system of organized scarcity.
Because relative surplus value (stripped of the grandiloquent language of Evans) is merely the attempt on the part of each concern to reduce its " labour costs," even though production may expand the net effect of all capitalists' action is, as the history of capitalism shows, to bring into being an industrial reserve army. Thus the tendency for wages to rise under the impulse of relative surplus value will bring a counter-tendency for them to fall. Without such regulating features of the upper and lower wage-level limits, profits could not be ensured and capital accumulation could no-normally proceed. Evans's view of some self-developing, self-regulating mechanism which ensures ever-greater masses of use-values and consequently ever-greater markets with ever-greater wages and profits has more affinity with some paradise of laissez-faire " where all good capitalists go when they
Even from a purely theoretical view, an accelerated increase in the organic composition of capital would bring an accelerated decline in the rate of profit unless—and this is ruled out by definition—workers become productive supermen. From a practical standpoint, a demand for plant, factories, buildings, etc., on a scale appreciably less than that imagined by Evans— providing the supplies of manpower and wealth resources were available—would lead to rapidly rising prices and, for the buyers : those requisites, rapidly increasing costs. Tie profit margin between machine costs and labour costs would soon disappear. Evans, in order to prove his assertions of iccelerated technical and productive progress would have to show steeply cumulative yearly increases in capital depreciation, which of course he cannot do. One can at lesst say for Evans that his views are never : implicated by any evidence.
Again, the Productivity Council based on Reports of the Working Parties (1946) spoke of the lack of technical innovation and the chronic excessive capacity that had occurred in many important sectors of industry: a sure sign of technical stagnation and a rebuttal of Evans's view that capitalism is a system of continuous technical development. Some idea of the rate of expansion of plant capacity is given by Dr. Rostas in the Economic Journal. He shows that between 1925 and 1948 the average yearly increase in physical output per head was less than half per cent. Colin Clark, in the Daily Telegraph of 7th November, 1954, says that the rate of economic progress was greater in the last half of the nineteenth century than new. This makes hay of Evan's unsupported assertions of some absolute cumulative expansion of production. Finally if there had occurred an ever-expanding production of the means of production – the indispensable basis for industrial growth—how explain the chronic surplus plant capacity for many decades in the coal, iron and steel and heavy engineering industries? To revert to the question of ever-rising standards of living, one test would be to show that workers have secured the major share of production increases, i.e., that wages have risen, during the course of capitalist development much faster than profits. Evan's views, of course, rule out the question of wages being increased at the expense of profits. Nevertheless, even on this score and examination of profits and wages over the last fifty years yields no evidence. If of course Evans has any sources of information for so wordy a writer, he is strangely reticent about them.
In the real world of capitalism one cannot make valid generalizations as to some progressive, overall, technical law of development. Technical progress varies from industry to industry and this for long periods. Even discounting cyclic fluctuations, there are times when conditions are unfavourable for either. Even when conditions are favourable, increased wages do not fall like ripe plums into the workers' laps. They have to be sought, argued for and even fought for. Neither the humanitarian impulses of the employers nor any ineluctable process guarantees them. Indeed the phase of relative surplus value, as Evans has been told, was not the result of an abstract law of evolutionary processes but the concrete outcome of class conflict. Thus capital accumulation had brought about in many sectors, labour shortages. Workers, organized into ever-growing and more powerful trade unions, sought in those conditions to improve their standards. The capitalist answer to this was the extension of labour-saving machinery, which in time changed the process of absolute surplus value to relative surplus value. One of the drawbacks of an all-embracing theory of immanent progress is that it allows you to see everything and consequently nothing.
On the question of the competitive mechanisms of capitalism, what evidence is there that they are agencies which provide for an accelerated productive expansion? As H. N. Leyland has pointed out in Trade Associations, competition often not only fails to eliminate surplus plant capacity but brings about the very conditions for it. That highly competitive-conditions lead to a price depression below the long-term norm is a fairly typical form of market behaviour. It can generally be said that such competitive market conditions will rule out technical innovations, even among the most efficient concerns. It also means that such competition does not reduce expenses but raises them because, due to excessive plant capacity, even the bigger firms become high cost producers.
What often happens in those circumstances is that agreements on quotas and prices are reached. Thus, the less efficient are preserved and the more efficient held back: technical development is again retarded. All of which suggests organized scarcity, not organized abundance.
Capitalists themselves no longer believe in the piratical practices of cut-throat competition. They much prefer, if and when they can get it, the comfortable life of agreed quotas and prices. It is true the very self-expansion of capital brings about evasion and termination of trade agreements, but the vigour and persistency that seek to renew them are proof that free competition is no longer regarded as an efficient instrument for the removal of that bugbear of capitalism, surplus capacity.
The war and its aftermath have changed the situation somewhat. The destruction and wearing-out of plant during the war have necessitated rebuilding and re-equipment of capital goods. Again, the large demand for consumption articles to make
good wartime deficits, plus the export drive, has lessened the incentive for restrictive practices. Nevertheless, as H. N. Leyland points out, trade associations are growing in number—there are about 2,500 of them now—and coverage. Indeed, there is little to prevent and plenty to support the view that surplus capacity is likely to become a problem once more.
On Evans's assumptions of expanding production and, of course, expanding markets, with the concomitant expanding profits, one cannot ask why the formidable and steady growth of monopolistic tendencies —only how, in such conditions, they could ever have appeared. Leak and Maizel's report on vertical and horizontal combinations (1944), based on the 1935 Production Census, while it cannot be summarized here, shows a 70 to 90 per cent, concentration in many sections of British industry.
No suggestion is made here that there is some inevitable monopolistic law which will leave the world under the control of a few industrial giants: an idea beloved of Communist theorists and pseudo-Marxists. Experience shows that monopolies are in constant process of being formed and breaking up, just as it can be shown that there are circumstances which favour them and circumstances which don't. For that reason it appears to me that Professor Sweezy's quite valuable contribution on monopolies in The Theory of Capitalist Development was somewhat overdrawn, just as was his notion that the monopolist is the world calculator of marginal profits and costs. It can be said of the laws of monopoly what the text-book said of snakes in Iceland— there are none.
Monopoly is something not absolute but relative; not a question of kind but degree. While it may be possible for them to control prices, they can do so only to an extent which will not encourage other powerful concerns to enter the field. Again, many monopolies are hedged round with powerful outside " interests," and examination shows that monopolistic dividends are not on average higher than non-monopolistic ones. There is also fierce competition between many monopolies. Because monopoly helps to breed monopoly, monopolistic sellers are often confronted with monopolistic buyers, and fierce competition is the result. Whatever may be said of monopolies—and a detailed examination is impossible here— they do not alter the characteristic pattern of capitalist production.
Again on the question of technical progress, many monopolies provide an impetus for technical innovation and research; on the other hand, many of them are restric-tionist in this respect. That is because of their control of markets and productive substance, which makes them less susceptible to the shock of new techniques and innovations. Thus, they are under no compulsion to scrap plant before it is worn out. Such monopolies tend to slow down both the rate of capital accumulation and technical progress.
.-
Undoubtedly the concentration of economic resources—which the 1948 White Paper on Monopoly regards as the normal development of existing society—has changed and is changing market behaviour based on free competition. Instead of price-cutting as a general practice (often retaliatory, wasteful and even ruinous), sales promotion and advertising technique are becoming the competitive form of existing society. The old adage " alike as peas " no longer holds. Certain proprietary brands set out to show that nothing could be more unlike peas— especially their peas which, they claim, are unique. By selling products and claiming for them intrinsic qualities, firms seek to attract custom from rival firms. This is known as imperfect competition.
This attempt to increase sales without recourse to price-cutting has led to an enormous growth in distribution costs. To give some idea of this, it was stated in 1938 consumers bought goods in England to the value of £2,800million. Distribution charges were estimated to have cost over £1,000 million. In America, the proportional distribution costs are said to be greater. Such is the colossal misdirection of wealth resources peculiar to capitalist society. Add to this the vast growth of bureaucracy and expenditure on armies, navies, air forces, military needs, etc., and one realizes to what extent capitalism is a system of organized scarcity.
In exhorting workers to ever-increasing productivity, real anxiety is in that appeal— for unless increased productivity is maintained the vast unproductive agencies of modern society cannot exist. Even present living standards might fall dangerously back.
The fact that someone propounding a theory of progress should himself be so unaware of what actually is taking place is not without irony. Evans's struggle to use a Marxist tool of analysis to demonstrate his theory of progress, as I said on a different occasion, reminds one of a small child trying to use his grandfather's sword. One may add: what a pity that, when Evans set out to find socialism, he never discovered capitalism en route. E W
E.W's. next article will deal with the reasons which, in his estimate, prevent capitalism from being a system of cumulative technical progress and organized abundance.
33.2 CORRECTIONS.
Last month's issue of FORUM was wrongly numbered; the May issue was No. 32, not 31.
In the article Can War Hasten Socialism (April), a printing error gave Colin Clark's estimate of the average yearly productivity increase since World War II as 2 per cent. This should have read: " little more than 1 per cent, per year."
33.3 The Colour Question
We are working for a society which, as yet, exists only in the minds of a little over a thousand people. It may be true that the only definite thing we can tell people about this society is that it will be based on common ownership. They, however, insist on knowing more, just as we ourselves when dealing with people advocating a different kind of society insist on hearing more about it than a vague generalization. Do we not ask our opponents: Will there be wages? Will there be a coercive authority? We cannot demand of others what we are unwilling to give ourselves, so we must, as far as it is possible, work out theoretically the many facets of the future society. As always, of course, theories are only theories until they are proved correct or otherwise, by application. However, if we are to have a safety-line of consistency for action and propaganda we must continually try to perfect our theory and always check our original ideas to make sure there is no contradiction.
We could not agree that a majority of workers who accept the necessity for getting rid of private ownership, but still possess prejudices about race, could bring about Socialism as we visualize it. Or could we? We need not be so concerned about the slight disharmonies which may arise due to colour prejudice, but we must be concerned about the ideas of people who are assisting us to bring about that society. How important this is, could be seen recently at a meeting of workers who were discussing a strike resolution. The seconder, who seemed to agree with a lot of socialist ideas, ended his contribution by saying: " We are not niggers, we are white. Let us be treated as such." That man, when giving an analysis of capitalism's wealth distribution, sounded no different from the socialist. But we could not agree to his being in the Party with such ideas about the supposed superiority of the white man. This is the reason for dealing with the possible problem of assimilation of different colour or cultural groups under Socialism.
The colour question in capitalist society can be described as the problem which arises when, due to simple prejudice or the clashing of different cultures, groups of people with different pigmentation are unable or unwilling to assimilate. Real assimilation would mean inter-marriage, equal status in social and working life, etc. I think it is true to say that for most people there is no colour question until there is a clash of economic interests, as in South Africa at the moment, or as when occasionally we hear of a row between a coloured landlord and white tenants in London. It is on those occasions that hidden prejudices viciously come into the open and, of course, hinder the possible solution of what is in reality an economic problem. Even though it is true that for most people the problem of race does not
concern them until it hits them economically (or appears to), in my view it is not just sufficient for the socialist to explain that what seem to be colour problems are usually economic problems, and that the elimination of economic conflict would mean less opportunity for the arousing of those horrible prejudices.
Let us assume that the people of the world had introduced economic equality by abolishing private ownership and calling into existence common ownership. While there would certainly not be economic conflict, there would possibly still be this problem of assimilation. It is pertinent to ask, of course, whether it matters if people of different coloured skins do not assimilate to the extent which I would like? It could be argued that the job of the socialist is to help to establish the economic basis for Socialism, and leave the problem of assimilation to those who wish to be assimilated. Perhaps under Socialism different peoples with different cultures will wish to retain the identity which their cultures give them, and not be drawn into a world culture. That there will be harmful conflicts due to colour and cultural prejudice is hardly to be doubted. Though those conflicts may not descend to the level of violence, that does not mean there cannot be a serious disruption of social harmony.
What kind of disruption? Exactly the same kind that we see so often under capitalism, for which there seems so often to be no economic explanation. Take, for example, the taboos which cover marriages between people of different coloured skins. I cannot find, in England at any rate, any economic clash which could be said to be the primary cause of the ugly expressions of disgust and loathing that such unions often bring forth. They are simply results of prejudice: the strange prejudice towards that which is different. Again, in the matter of housing or work there is a tendency for people to retain the barrier of colour by forming separate groups, even though there would seem to be no economic explanation for so doing. If these phenomena cannot be explained on strictly economic lines then there is no reason to think they would disappear or be of no consequence when economic equality had been established.
If we can accept the possibility of disharmonies of the kind I have mentioned, then it must be part of the socialist case that the people of the world must not only establish economic equality, but also be so divorced from prejudice on colour that assimilation will follow quite naturally.
FRANK DUNNE.
" Socialist propaganda and unpunctuality have been largely synonymous in this country. The S.P.G.B. will change that."
(The Socialist Standard, June, 1905).
139
33.4 Historical Materialism and Modern Times (Part 2:Conclusion)
Although Lewis Mumford has pointed cut that a biological age (or " biotechnic complex," as he terms it) is developing, his concepts of biology appear at times to bear more resemblance to the idiosyncrasies of Saint Francis of Assissi, who was said to converse with animals and birds, than to modern science.
The experimental method of science has been very well summarized as follows: —
" All experiments boil down to two very simple operations: taking apart and putting together again; or, in scientific language, analysis and synthesis. Unless you can take a thing or a process to bits you can do nothing with it but observe it as an undivided whole. Unless you can put the pieces together again and make the whole thing work, there is no way of knowing whether you have introduced something new or left out something in your analysis."
(Science and Society, J. D. Bernal).
In comparison, Lewis Mumford writes as follows: —
" No analysis of the parts and no mere addition of analyses and abstractions will ever give any insight into the pattern or purposive configuration that endows them with a special significance: indeed, this organic relationship will not even be suspected when methods of abstraction and isolation are the sole ones employed." (The Conduct of Life). Considering this comment in its context, I understand that he was pointing out the need for " ensemble theory." The point about the purposelessness of electrons, protons and other fundamental particles of physics, which could not explain human feelings such as love, hate and joy, was made in the nineteen-thirties by C. E. M. :„;., I think. However, it is somewhat "" dated," because " ensemble theory," or ±e theory that shows the effect of arrange-—eut of a number of bodies, has been developed somewhat since then. Research m the field of general statistics was made faring World War II because of the use of such theories in the problems thrown up during the war. For an introduction to leveiopments in group theory, statistics, uuormation and communication theory, the reader is advised to consult such books as Wiener's Cybernetics.
However, treating the quotation as a general point, as S.R.P. did, what is its significance? Is it a way of saying that no real understanding of biological processes will ever be obtained? Does it mean that it is doomed forever to be a science of observation only? Place against this the achievements of the model organisms of Grey,
Walter and others, described in such books as The Human Use of Human Beings by Wiener and Minds and Machines by Sluckin. The fault is that when something —in this case society—is termed an organism, the analysis is considered to be complete. Nothing could be more wrong. We are lucky to-day to see cybernetics making great strides and explaining a number of features of organisms in an isolation process (how else can you experiment?) This is giving us knowledge of how biological organisms work, and will in the future cast more light on society as an organism. Already we can see the significance of loose couplings with feedback controls in the way the means of production brings the structure of society into line with it.
In understanding society we need to know more than the fact that it resembles an organism; we must understand how that organism develops. That is why we need a theory of history. We are not interested merely in what is or what has been, but wish to know why things have happened, and also how society will be in the future. Because he has not considered society in this analytical way, Lewis Mumford tends at times to muddle his classifications with his desires. He preaches as follows on mass production methods: —
" The fact that simple repetitive operations agree with the psychological constitution of the feebleminded constitutes a warning as to the limits of sub-divided labour. Mass production under conditions which confirm these limits may exact too high a human price for its cheap products. What is not mechanical enough for a machine to perform may not be human enough for a living man. Efficiency must begin with the utilization of the whole man; and efforts to increase mechanical performance must cease when the balance of the whole man is threatened."
Those may sound very humane sentiments, but do they really come from bis analysis of society? They do not. They constitute an example of his desires, not a description of the way twentieth-century society has been developing. What has happened is that more efficient and often less human processes have been developed in order to increase profits, while alongside this the social side of the factory has been developed to keep the worker happy, or at least content. Efficiency, as measured bv productivity, has not been allowed to fall for anv more human feelings, though it has been found that bv treating workers in a more human way efficiency can be increased.
From these trends, one would be more justified in saying that work is becoming more specialized at all levels, and alongside this more time is spent on hobbies and other activities in which the personality and the whole man are developed. Perhaps we can see this more clearly in 1955 than was possible in 1932.
Mumford tends also to consider that any possible aspect of the Paleotechnic Phase was bad, and that the Neotechnic and Biotechnic Phases are good. He considers (page 214 of Technics and Civilization) that World War I was a setback for the good and developing Neotechnic Phase, presumably because poison gas was used; this is a miners' weapon, and mining is a typical paleotechnic occupation. Also biotechnics is even better than neotechnics, so presumably biological warfare based on modern bacteriology is much better than neotechnic-style war with hydrogen bombs, or paleotechnic war using modern nerve-gases!
This tendency to mix analysis with desires makes his method of classification much less objective than it could be. If anything was designed well in the nineteenth century, which is definitely in the paleotechnic phase, it is termed either eotechnic or neotechnic. An example is the clipper sailing ship, which has beautiful design—and is therefore termed eotechnic. While, in the twentieth century, if any process (such as the belt system) is developed by the use of electric power, and also appears to be harmful to human beings, it is termed quite arbitrarily " really " paleotechnic.
It is useful to notice that if the process of industrial innovation is studied dynamically, or as a developing process, such inconsistencies do not arise. The mechanical aspect of this was described by this writer (FORUM, March, 1953) as follows: —
" Productive processes have been simplified so that each man does simply a few manipulations, and then a device is constructed to perform these manipulations more systematically (because it is cheaper) needing man then only for maintenance and adjustment."
He went on in September, 1953 t0 show how the simplicities resulting from the use of electricity lead to a new attitude to industrial welfare or scientific management, because with the increased flexibility of factory design the human operator becomes more important. Considering it as a process developing in time is both clearer and more accurate.
It is worth noting also that, although Lewis Mumford considers that progress in other sciences will increase as they rely more on the study of natural or biological forms, robot or control devices were retarded somewhat in the initial stages by over-concentration on the human form as a model.