-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
1/8
Internal Journal ofthe S .P .G .B . 6d.No. 21 JUNE, 1954
THE WORKERS -UST THEIR CONDI,TIONS WORSEN?Horatio in the May
issue of Farum useshe law of the falling tendency of thete of
profit" and "Relative Surplus value"support of his views that under
Capitalisme conditions of the working class steadilyorsen. I do not
think these two propositionspport Horatio's contentions.It is
indisputable of course that the increasethe organic composition of
capital, showssteady rising trend. Constant capital, i.e.achines
and raw material, .has proportion-ely gr.own greater in th~total
capitalvancedthan variable capital (wage bills).is in the C/C+V
equation surplus
lue can only be made from V, that anycrease in the ratio of C to
V must lead to all in the rate of profit, all other conditionsing
equal.But they never really are, as Marx wasick to point out.
Changes in the organicmposition of capital are generally accom-nied
by increased productivity of labour,. an increase in the rate of
surplus value.is operates as a check on the falling rateprofit.
Thus if in any undertaking, V
opped to half of its original amount and Creased
proportionately, but the rate ofploitation was doubled, then the
rate offit would remain the same.If then we can reasonably assume
thatnerally, changes in the organic compositioncapital are
accompanied by changes in thee ofeurplus value, then the trend of
thee of 'profit will itself be indefiinite. Thely way the rate of
profit would fall is if thee of variable capital to the total
outlayffered a greater percentage decrease thanprecentage increase
in the rate of surplus
Now it can be argued that changes in Cll be so much greater than
changes in thee of surplus value that increases in theter will fail
to act as an effective counter
agent to the falling tendency of the rate ofprofit, which will
show a consistent downwardtrend. This would of course compel
thecapitalist t o feverishly intensify the exploita-tion of workers
and further to try and depresswages if only to retard the falling
rate ofprofit. If af course this was true then thetendency of the
falling rate of- profit wouldlead to a steady deterioration in
working classstandards 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 perworker has increased very rapidly
althoughnot perhaps so rapidly as some are inclinedto think. But
the growth in the organic com-position of capital is not merely a
technicaldevelopment, but a value expression. Sideby side with the
growth of the physical magni-tude of constant capital has gone ali
increasingcheapening of the elements of constant capitaldue to
increased labour productivity. Thusalthough the value of constant
capitalincreases it does not increase at the samerate as its
physical volume. Marx of coursedeals with the cheapening elements
of con-stant capital as a counter tendency to therailing rate of
profit.Marx aha mentions the reserve army of
labour operating as a check to the fallingrate of profit. First
because as a competitivefactor on the labour market it tends to
depresswages and so raise the rate of surplus value.Secondly, where
unemployment is consider-able it stimulates the setting up of
newindustries with a low organic composition ofcapital and
consequently a comparativelyhigh rate of profit. .To put the matter
into. better perspective it
would be true to say that Marx saw tenden-cies and counter
tendencies in capitalism.It is from this conflict of opposing
forcesthat the general law of motion of Capitalism
emerges. To the question which tendency islikely to prevail,
Marx gave no clear indica-tion. To have dealt with any of
thesetendencies like the falling rate of profit inabstraction,
divorced from the actual existingconditions of a class society,
would I think,have been foreign to his method.This o.f course has
not prevented somemarxist writers from giving a mechanistictwist to
the falling rate of profit, picturing itas operating in a
continuous downward trendto reach a point where the system
wouldcease to work.As for the question of relative surplus
value. Marx's own view can best be expressedin his own words-"
Hand in hand withthe increasing productivity of labour goes aswe
have seen the cheapening of the labour,therefore a higher rate of
surplus value buteven when wages are rising, the latter neverrise
proportionally to the productive power ofLabour" This seems to
suggest that theworkers can improve their living standardsthough
not to the extent that they are able toreap the entire benefit of
their increasedproductivity. But even if this is so one findsit
hard to accept the fact that this is tanta-mount to a law of
increasing misery.Moreover, how much the workers can
obtain whe~ there is an expanding periodof capitalist investment
and how much isstandard of living cannot be decided by
purelyincorporated as a permanent feature of theirtheoretical
considerations, but on the actualstrength of class relations, viz.,
in the workerscase, the power of the Trades Unions.Again it cannot
be deduced that increase inthe organic composition of capital has
as itsimmediate aim increased productivity. Inother words in any
period of extendedcapital expansion employerstend to meet lessand
less reserves of cheap labour '. Thecapitalist attempts to meet the
situation by anincrease of machinery, (constant capital).
The opinions expressed in this journal are those of the
individual contr-ibutors, and are notto be taken as the official
views of the party
-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
2/8
42 FORUM June , 1954This is actuated by a relati~e~carcity in .
the.labour market. This leads to a 'fall' in therate of profit but
it does not necessarily followthat the capitalist is compensated by
anincrease in the rate of surplus value. It couldinvolve a loss.
Neither does it follow thatany increase inconstant capital with
itsaccompanying productivity produces resultswholly favourable to
the employer. Workiilgclass resistance to intensification of the
labourprocess may be a considerably factor in thesituation.Iam not
of course saying that increases in
working class standards are not subject tograve restrictions.
When the price of labourpower is such as to threaten profits to
anygreat extent then the capitalists will seek toincrease the
organic composition of capital asan answer. This means workers will
be putoff, unemployment will grow and as a compe-titive factor it
will serve to depress wages.Thus wages are regulated between the
upperand nether millstones of this process. It isthis which makes
it impossible for workers toabsorb in wage increases the whole of
surplusvalue. .I think it better in order to understand the
economic function of capitalism to regard thefalling rate of
profit and relative surplus valuenot as isolated features, but as
related partsof the general law of capitalism, i.e. the lawof
capitalist accumulation. That is the needof the capitalist to
expand his capital byconverting 1. part-the greater part-of
sur-plus value into additional capital. It is thisthat gives rise
to a demand for labour andwith it a rise in wages. This leads to
areduction in the rate of profit. The capitalistthen seeks through
the introduction' ofmachinery to offset this. It is this which inmy
opinion puts the increased tendency of arising organic composition
of capital in itsproper perspective. Whether this action willtend
to restore the rate of profit or furtherdepress it cannot be proved
on generalgrounds.
One thing we can say is that a theoryof increasing working class
misery cannot bedecided by appeals to the falling tendency ofthe
rate of profit considered in vacuo but isa result of a highly
complex interactingsituation.Just one point further. Horatio's
statement
that crises are caused by the inability ofworkers to buy back
the goods they producefills me with grave concern. Ipropose in
alater issue to deal with what Ithink is theMarxian view of
crises.I am glad, however, to discuss these
differences with Horatio because such discus-sion makes for
theoretical clarity which is'important for a party such as
ours.
E.W.
POLEMICS ORPROPAGANDA?
S.R.P's article' A Policy on Social ism'purports to deal with my
earlier criticism ofA.AN's article Class Struggle and theS.P.G.B.'.
As S.R.P. has reduced myarticle to six points Iwill answer his
criticismsaccordingly.(1) Members will notice that he avoids
dealing. with the essence of my original state-ment which is ..
Do al l people have tounderstand Socialism prior to its
establish-ment?" Instead he poses an academicquestion asking me to.
show .. in whateconomic circumstances people cannot under-stand
Socialism". My answer is thatpeople cannot understand Socialism in
theeconomic circumstances of Feudalism.
(2) My original statement claimed thata struggle existed over
the product of labour,which I called property', between TradeU
nions and employers. Whilst Trade Unionsargued to the degree of the
division ofproperty, Socialists sought to dispossess theproperty
owners and introduce commonproperty. Surely the meaning is clear.
Again,S.H.P. alters the meaning of the words,equates common
ownership with no owner-ship ',and by some process proceeds to
accuseme of saying that Trade Unions propose toabolish property by
degrees. (Iam completelypuzzled by the statement .. There are
nodegrees in property, which consists in relat ion-ships that are
either supported or opposed ").Iake it that the product of labour
will existunder Socialism.
(3) All Parties I named in the originalarticle call themselves
Socialist' andsincerely believe they are. They work fortheir
objective which, due to a faultyanalysisof the forces of Capitalism
and its contradic-tions, is not Socialism at all, and usuallyturns
but to be Nationalisation. They cannotwork for Socialism because of
ignorance andnot intention. A logical inference to be drawnfrom
S.R.P's remarks in this connection isthat these Parties could work
for Socialismbut do not. .
(4) The answer to this point brings theword emancipate' into
dispute. Again, Istated clearly what Imeant. Emancipation,according
to the Oxford English Dictionary,means setting free from slavery or
legaldisabilities. Both descriptions fit the modern'working class
perfectly, and not the capitalist
class. If Socialism will not emancipateworkers 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 jnform us in simple termshow Socialism
will emancipate the capitalistin particular. Will it free him from
slaveryor legal disability? The statement" Socialismis a dire
necessity only for Socialists not forworkers or capitalists" is
rather mystifying.Surely Socialism is a dire necessity for
thenon-Socialist working class-it is not a direnecessity for the
capitalist class. In fact it isnot a necessity at all for them.
On this issue, S.R.P. and others who holdsimilar views, have
refrained from givingreasons why Socialism will benefit the
capita-l ist, of alternatively, showing what problemsthe capitalist
suffers from, Surely we areentitled to know them, The capitalist
appearsto have been buried under the heading of humanity and
mankind '
-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
3/8
June 1954 FORUMis an absurdity. You can only describe
socialsystems, including Capitalism and Socialism,from their
economic basis, the relations ofpeople to the means of production.
In short,the description contained in our object.S.RP . would
describe Socialism as the
establishment of social harmony', whichleaves us as wise as
ever. He is also notquite sure on whether mass production willtake
place or not. A number of other indivi-duals have made alarming
speculations, andit is no exaggeration to say that during thepast
two years polemics have been takingplace between individuals who
are supposedto agree basically. I am interested in propa-ganda and
not polemics. If S ..RP. wants toadmonish me and my analysis let
him do so ina clear statement showing what remarkableadvantages we
will gain by indulging in thisnew form of propaganda. Illustrations
please.
(6) Despite what S,RP. says, all theParty offers is democratic
control andcommon ownership. If S.RP. decides to referto these as
vague ideals he must have some-thing else in mind apart from
Socialism,because this is the basis of Socialism. Thestatement"
Labour, Communist, LL.P. etc.,all offer to re-create the world with
thesevague ideals" (referred to above) leads meto the conclusion
that it would do S.RP.no harm to do a bit of analysing himself,
andfind out what these political parties reallystand for.I repeat
the challenge to S.RP. and others
--show us the problems from which thecapitalist suffers, and let
us have the treatiseon Socialism and what it will look like.
D'ARCY
* * *ED ITOR IAL NO TE
\Ve have received many articles criticisingTurner' s article,
some of which seem to usto repeat the same points, and practically
inthe same words, as articles which havealready appeared. \Ve are
therefore notprinting them in this issue. If any writerfeels that
he wishes his article to appear in anycase, he should let us :know,
and it willappear in the next issue.We must apologise for two
printer's errors
in last month's issue. The title of the frontpage article should
course have been.. Cybernetics and Society", and not.. Cybernectics
and Society", The author' sname was ROBERT.
43
SOCI,ALISTS ANDPARLIAMENT
Peter Neweli will not find an answer tohis question .. Is
Parliament an Instrument ofEmancipation?" (FORUM, Dec-Jan)
byexploring the evolution of Parliament, norby considering the
views of M
-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
4/8
FORUM
THE CASEJune , 1954
F R SOCIALISMfo l/ow ing dra ft w as produc~dil; ~OI~~ ,
o f Padding/on Branch's circula teditic ism o f the Address sent
o ut by the Partythe N . Paddington by-e lect'ion o f Nov. '5 3O
THE MEN AND WOME
N. PADDINGTONThis is the fifth time that the Socialist
arty of Great Britain has run an electionmpaign in N. Paddington
since 1945. Wee not 'concerned with arguing party poli-s' in the
sense of seeking to get the membersour party into power and the
others out.ur sole purpose is to urge you to understandd work for
Socialism, which is the onlylution to the social problems that face
all oftoday. 'The .S.P.G.B. is organised for one purposeone-the
establishment of Socialism.lthough we are in opposition to the
policiesall other parties, our case does not reston mere criticism
of them. We have asitive alternative to the property systemat
exists today. Our aim is to convince youat this alternative (which
we call Socialism)both desirable and practicable.WHAT LIFE IS LIKE
TODAYThe way of life today is one of anta-nisms: nation against
nation, class againstagaimt man. The means ofoduction-land,
factories, railways and so-are owned by a minority. This meansat
the majority of people are compelled toork for wages or salaries in
order to live.This class division breeds a clash o f
Employers are always seeking to getrkers to produce more for
less, whilerkers have to struggle to maintain orprove their
conditions. This is the classuggle, and it is because of its
harmfulfects on every aspect of life that socialistsek to abolish
class society.The world is capable of producing anundance of the
good things of life. Yetillions go short. It is not people's
needsat count, but what one can afford to buy.rther, the struggle
between nationsepresenting capitalist class interests) overorld
markets, sources of raw materials, etc.,ds finally to war. Of
course, war is usuallypposed to be fought for other things, bute
securing of property can always be shownbe the real season.
OF
WI-rAT SOCIALISM WILL BE LIKEWhen we speak of Socialism we mean
an
entirely new system of society that has notyet 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 beheld in common by
the people of the earth.Everything will be produced so le ly fo r
use -nothing will be for sale. Socialism means thateach person will
have access to what he or sheneeds, each determining his or her own
needs.A socialist outlook is not a nationalist
outlook, but one that regards all men andwomen as equals.
Socialism will bring allthe people of the earth into
co-operativeharmony. When property relationships andtrading have
disappeared, nations as suchwill have disappeared, along with the
armedforces and the rest of the state machinery.There will be no
conflict of property intereststo cause wars.
because no one will want to buy what he isfree to have. No
buying or selling means noproduction for profit, and so money will
notbe -needed and all the things that arenecessary only to a
money-based world willgo.Imagine the evils that Socialism will
remove by making money unnecessary. People'rIll, no longer have
to sell their self-respectfor it , 10 one will need to steal what
he canhave freely.People will behave towards each other
in a co-operative manner and, without lawsto break, there will
be no prisons, warders,police or lawyers. Bribery and
corruptionwill vanish along with servility and domina-tion, Cash
values will be replaced by humanvalues.
HOW PEOPLE WILL WORKWith Socialism, each person will have
full scope to give of his best, and he will be'amply rewarded by
the pleasure his workgives both to himself and others.Since all
people, in free association, will
control their conditions of living, the aim willbe to have as
full and satisfying lives aspossible. All human activity will be
carriedon under as pleasant conditions as can bedevised, and
occupations _hat are harmful tothe doer win be abolished,, What is
objectionable today is not workItself, but the kind of things we
have toproduce and the conditions under which wehave to produce
them. When things are madeto sell in a mass market they have to
beturned out as quickly and cheaply as possible,110 matter
theharmful effects that may resultto the workers.' Mass production
means thatwork is split into its simplest component parts-and the
ideal is that each worker shallmake only one movement as frequently
aspossible. 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
overcrowdedcities, the ceaseless hurry to save time (forwhat? )-all
are symptoms of a desease thatis inherent in capitalist
society..Socialism is an integrated society, which
WIll have regard for people both as producers~nd consumers. ,The
feeling of being a cogIII a vast impersonal machine will
disappear
P.RODUCTION FOR USEPerhaps you think that production for
use' applies today? True, people do usethe goods and services
that are produced,but that ~snot the primary motive for
produc-tion. Things are made today to sell in orderthat the owners
may make a profit. Conse-quently, a great deal that is sold is
shoddy,useless and even harmful., . By contrast, under Socialism
everythingWIll be made as well as they can be fortheir intended
purpose.Think of the quantity of human labour
that is wasted today. Much of the steel, oil,coal and textile
output is solely for warp,urposes. Effort is frittered away on
adverti-sing campaigns, in purely financial dealings,and on
frivolous luxuries. The latter do notgive real satisfaction, and
are only part ofthe act of .. keeping up with the Jones's" ina
world where competition and money-valuesprevail.This will give you
some idea of the
enormous amount of Labour that will be atthe. disposal of
socialist society. The dullroutme, both at home and at work
withwhich we are so familiar will give place tooccupations that are
interesting and havevariety.
NO BUYING OR SELLING~h~re -will not be anything for sale
under
SOCIalIsm. No one will be able to sell,
-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
5/8
1954 FORUM 45to work for what you think is desirable.communities
that are smaller and des ignedliving.
EQUALITYPeople will not be divided into classes asy are
today-s-some rich and most poor-ause there will no longer be
.sections withvileges. All will stand to, each other asal
equals,The position of women in society will besame as that of
,men. The sexes will
freely in' the va.rious occupations.eady the marriage
institution is fast chang-from the wife's econonmic dependence
onhusband into a union of companionship.
is form of marriage rests not merely uponeconomic tie, but
rather upon the needaffection. understanding and companion-
p that is denied people in their relationshipsh those outside
the family; In socialist
the fulfilling of these human desiresl be given full expression,
not thwartedconfined within the limits of the family.There wil] be
no groups of people seekinger and privileges over other groups,
i.e.racial discrimination, no age, occupationalother antagonisms of
interest. This doesmean that everyone will do exactly thee amount
of work and have the sameations". Each, according to his
mentalphysical energies, will contribute willinglythe production of
what is needed.. Noger will people have to worry about whatorrow
will bring forth; whether they willtheir job and go hungry, badly
clothed
unwanted, In other words.. there will besecurity of living for
all.
Since there will be no privileged classes,e will be no state'
power or governmentsprevent some from encroaching upon theileges of
others. Social affairs of all kindsbe administered with the full
part icipationall for the mutual benefit of all. Noverning body
orleaders will be given powerwield over others. Social matters will
beducted in an organised fashion, but with-'"
-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
6/8
46 FORUMexamples that he doesn't. His confusion PIvotson his
error that "every difference is Dot acause ". Every difference is a
cause of some-thing. How otherwise can he agree that unlikecauses
produce unlike effects?His first example does not show that
unlikecauses (different initial velocities) produce like
effects, but only that part of the effects isthe same ( terminal
velocity), The unlikecauses here do (as they must) produce
unlikeeffects-the conversion of the additionalvelocity of one of
the bodies into additionalheat. There is not in this case, as he
thinks,any " difference which is not a cause". Thedifference was a
cause, of heat (they oftenare).In his second example, the cause of
theredistribution of the sugar is precisely thedifference in
-vapour-pressure-a very queerexample of a difference which is not a
cause.
His third example, of the geneticallyabnormal stomach apparent
in moist but notin dry atmosphere, shows that he means, notwhat he
says (that every difference is not acause), but only that ~ev~ry
difference j _ S _ ! 1 0 tnecessarily relevant to some part of
theeffects.Example 4 (nautical). Six sailors, allsaucy but
otherwise all different, - lie downand fall asleep. Out of their
manifolddifferences comes a like recumbent50111no lence.I hope the
reader now understands, withcomrade Bott, that unlike causes may
producelike effects even thoug]: we agree 'they can't.\Vho argues
like this doesn't know scienceform yellow clay. Science must make
sense.\ 1 \ 1 e may of course talk sense without talking
science, but it would hardly do to say there-fore that science
is not exactly sense: rather'isit talking sense exactly. Anyway,
ifit isn'tsense, Greek and Latin words or the number-ing of
paragraphs won't make it science. Allthat comrade Bott tells us is
that all diff-erences are not necessarily relevant to everyeffect,
and any naive prole who has' staggeredhis way through this
"extraordinary confu-sion riot known to science" must have
askedhimself why he tells us something that does,not need saying
and uses a column ofscientific fancy dress to say it.It is not in
dispute that some innate differ-ences between men may not be
relevant tosome differences of performance. J . t is not indispute
that human behaviour is socially con-ditioned. It is not claimed
that the imbecile(or anyone) is an immutable bodily organisa-tion.
What is in dispute is whether inheritedfactors may have a bearing
on who does orwho doesn't need "interfering with andadjusting".
What I dispute is comradeBott's claim that innate differences have
nobearing on differences of performanceamong
men, Ihold that the examples he has givendo not show, and that
such examples cannotshow, what innate differences may be decisive11
1 (causes of) or irrelevant to (not causes of)what kind of
periomance, nor show what
. environmental inliuences may have compen-sated for what
genetic differences. I hold thatthe matter has no bearing on the
socialistaltitude to leadership; that the strained anddevious
effort to exclude the human speciesfrom the innate variation which
is the mecha-nism of organic evolution raises difficultieswithout
solving any; that on the other handwe can, without any bobbing and
weaving,accept that variation as enriching the possibili-ties
(particularly relevant to primordial man)of the co-operative labour
which is the springofa new kind- of evolution (history); thatthis
attitude towards individuation is morein line with tile historical
necessity we callSocialism than atavistic notions of equality,and
that these notions, with their new Idealismand new Absolute ("
technique "), are onlythe 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
ideologywhose evolution is socialism evolving.Comrade Bolt has not
answered the objec-
tions raised, and he does not further thediscussion (or" resolve
our probable cross-purposes) by repeating - my views
(alioutlanguage, or the social inheritance of tech-nique) as though
in answer to me; nor by thecarelessness which permits him to say in
onebreath that we think with words, and in thenext that we think
with tools (especiajly asin fact we think with our brains), or to
saythat' the "limiting factor within the humanbody" is something
outside it (" socialinheritance of technique "), nor by
foisting
June; 1954
on me views that run counter to all I havesaid ( such as the
silly view that socialdevelopment is determined by th~
biologicalstruggle for existence, when I have empha-sised
production as the agency of history atsuch length as surely to
leave no one else indoubt about it).It is a matter of taste what
one feels abouta charge of dishonesty in discussion, and ascomrade
Bott obviously does not share mytaste there is no point in
returning the charge.But he seems not yet to be aware that
evasiveaction by throwing up a cloud of scientificdust is the wrong
tactic in our outfit. Thefact that some of us still drum on our
chests~hen we've read another book, doesn't meanthat our hands all
brush the ground.There are two or three questions to which
comrade Bott owes an answer: the one in thesecond paragraph (in
connection with whichhe should also say what are his differences
onwhat he calls my naive treatment of thequestion of leadership),
and the one relatingto his original point of difference with me.
Hesaid (Jan. p.6): "I promise to deal, there-fore, with only one
statement, which appearsin Evans' last paragraph, viz. The
richgenetically determined variation in innateindividual abilities
cannot be dismissed with-out dismissing the basis of biological
evolu-tion ' ". If comrade Bott rejects naturalselection, what
other mode of biologicalevolution does he suggest? There was
noanswer in his first reply, and after beingreminded there was none
in his second. Blowaway the dust and there it is-gorn.
F. EVANSNOTE: This article should have appearedin the July 1953
issue of FORUM, but
was mislaid. (Eds.)
SOCIALISTS AND THE RETREATFROM REALITY
The philosophy on which SO
-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
7/8
June 1~54 FORUM 47,
If socialists are to hold up the retreat fromreality they
themselves must come to gripswith reality. There are, at the
moment, con-troversial views within the party; views
which,according to some, appear to be frontalattacks on fundamental
principles.While we agree that Ideas cannot bedivorced from
environment, we are not toocertain on the question of new
attitudesarising among ourselves, resulting from innerchanges
taking place within the generalenvironment of Capitalism. While we
agreethat the Idea is the skin of the environmentalbody, we cannot
all agree that it must stretchin keeping with changes within that
body. Isit enough to say that Capitalism remains thesame? Does not
its method of exploitationchange? It is not more difficult to
convincein thec:ild-fashioned way, the modern wageslave, tkat he is
indeed being exploited justas much as his forbears of the 18th
century,and this despite our learned explanation onth e fallihg
rate of profit? Is not this difficultythe result of the
innerchanges taking placewithin 'the broad field of
capitalistexploitation?Is notour attitude towards Religion
rather
archaic? Much understandable criticism hasbeen levelled at
Jarvis' articles on religion. It\ouldhe a tragedy indeed if the
partydeveloped its anti-religious propaganda at theexpense of
Socialism. R. Smith brings asense of 'proportion along when he
chides uson our attack against what are in some, casesworthy and
sensible sentiments found incertain religious philosophies.
Socialists donot need to be guarded against religion, butwe do
'need to guard ourselves against thepossibility of creating one of
our own. Wemust be careful that we do not cut our noseswith an
academic knife when we discussreligion with prospective members.
Would itbe a bad idea to get them in "souls an' all "and, through
better acquaintance withsocialist i.philosophy, convert them to
fullblooded' materialism?Perhaps we are being rather foolishly
pedantic when we refuse to violate' the Dof P by even suggesting
changing its Victorianphraseology . We look at the river
andobservethat it still flows in the same directionas when Marx was
a student, but we do notpay sufficient attention to the change
ofcurrents underneath, and it is the undercurrents that drrag one
dotun,Perhaps, if we take stock we may find that
one of the major causes for the slowness ofour progress lies not
wholly in the strength ofour class enemy or the apathy of the
workersbut in a stiffness' in versatility in, o urselves.Perhaps,
like Alice, we refuse to grow upeven though we grow older.
W.BRAIN
P R O B L E M S O F P R O P A G A N D A
The purposes of organisation as far asthe S.P.G.B. is concerned
are, I suggest:I. To gather and keep together socialists2. To
enable our ideas to be propagated3. To afford a measure of, and
a
stimulus to, the growth of those ideas.These purposes are not
separable (except
for a,nalysis); nor are they without influenceupon each other."
Gathering" at present means, perhaps
one or two members a week. There is adanger that we become
reconciled to thisintake, that we gear our organisation to takethis
number, and so preclude any substantialincrease. The problem of
integrating newmembers into the Party is one which deservesmore
attention than it gets now. It is deplor-able how rare it is for
anyone to get into theParty on anything less than a couple of
yearsacquaintance with it. The number of oursympathisers is far too
large in proportion tothe number of our members, and we shouldtake
steps to correct this.The bureaucratic and inconsiderate way
in which members are enrolled in the Partytends to result in
what may be called post-enrolment apathy', which may easily
turninto despair. There have been nearly 6,000members on our books
since 1904, of whichonly 1,1 00 remain. Physical death hasaccounted
for only some of the losses: deathof enthusiasm for probably the
greater part.It should be realised that it is part of thefunction
of the Party to keep its membershappy-to study their needs, to make
themfeel wanted by giving them tasks that affordsatisfaction
without draining off reserves ofmental 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 con-centrating our
propaganda efforts, largemeetings and election campaigns (in
whichwe appear larger than life, as it were) andtowards the latter
by overcoming such diffi-culties as asking people to identify
themselveswith a small group.
In some mysterious way, the concentra-tion of propaganda has
come to be associatedwith the pernicious doctrine of
selectivity.There is an easy way to distinguish the two.The
selcctivists think" We have come here
because We think 'you are the people." Thoseill favour of
concentrated propaganda think"We have come here so that YaH will
thinkWe ore the people."
* * *Little need be said about the importance
of organisation to the mechanics of propa-ganda. Except to point
out that it means notonly a certain degree of centralisation
butalso of individual responsibility. The Partyitself counts for
relat ively lit tle in propaganda-the unit of literature sales and
meetings isnormally the branch, and of writing andpersonal contact,
the individual member. Thefact that personal contact has played
such alarge part in our growth indicates that theParty and its
branches are not so effective asthe separate members who compose
them.We enrol people in the Party as a con-
venient way of registering the' fact that theyhold socialist
views. But this line we drawbetween members and non-members loses
allconvenience if it is over-emphasised. Itbecomes instead a
barrier which segregates.The fuss and bother about selling
Forum
to non-members and about the subject-matterof Head Office Sunday
meetings indicatesthat some members still think we shouldn'ttell ..
all" to non-members, although theyrationalise this belief by saying
that it would" confuse" them. What a subtle form ofinsult this
really is! How can members be soinsensitive as not to realise that
people: desireabove 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 toencourage the latter to become the former.It is
.. not done" to ask people to join theParty-and this attitude is
justified by say-ing that when they are socialists .. they willknow
what to do ". Yet to what extent mightit also be true that they
will be socialists whenthey know what to do?So reconciled have we
become to the micro-
scopic 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 massmovement. The
respective merits of these
-
8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 21 Jun
8/8
8 FORUf ' -1
theories need not concern us here. The impor-tant thing is not
to use "en masse" as arationalisation of our lack of progress.
Thep~'essing" need of th:, Party IS .to becomebigger. En masses
tomorrow IS a consol-ing theory, but no substitute for rolling
thesnowball today.
\Ve must look upon the Party organisa-tion as not 50 much a
means of keepingnon-socialists outside as of getting
socialistsinside. Quite a few of those outside unques-tionably hold
views very close to those ofmembers. Yet the very fact of their not
beingincluded in the membership largely denies
" Q U E S T IO N S O F T H E D A Z E D "Answers to some of the
questions as/red at the
50th ConferenceQuestion: \Vhat is the Party's attitude
toPsychology, Monogamy, or Genetics?Answer: What is - the Party's
attitude toballistics, acoustics, eurythmics, or hierogly-phics?
The only "ics" the Party has anattitude to is Economics. Party
speakers whoknow Economics, can answer questions onSocialism from
any source. If a Psychologistor Geneticist claims that his idea
invalidatesSocialism, let him prove it.Question: .Why not allow
speakers to putforward contradictory ideas j- If a chemistwants to
find something, does he notexperiment?Answer: Analogy false.
Chemistry is established as a Science as a result of ex
peri-mentation. An experimenter who insists onthe existence of
Phlogiston, denying theproven basis of Chemistry, would finish upin
the lunatic asylum.Question: Seeing that Socialism is for
every-body, why does the Declaration of Principlescall on the
working class to emancipate itself?Answer: Because Society is split
into twogroups, whose actions are decided by theirinterests. The
emancipation of the workingclass is opposed to the interests of
the
capitalist class; it involves their extinction,which they do not
want. The working classis driven to struggle by capitalism. It
doesnot run out of capitalism as a prisoner doesout of
gaol.Question: If you charge members wno saythat they disagree with
the principles, willyou not prevent all discussion of them?Answer:
No. Read your your rule-book.Every member has the right to' state
his caseto a conference. The delegates at the nextannual delegate
meeting or annual conferenceshall hear the case of the E.C. and
theaccused. The delegates shall submit theirfindings to a Party
Poll (Rule 33).Question: As the armed forces mentioned inpoint 6
now include things like Hydrogenbombs, would the founders of the
Party haveincluded this point if they had known aboutthem?Answer:
\Ve do not know what the founderswould have done, if they had not
done whatthey did. The Hydrogen bomb does notinvalidate the
Principle. On the contrary, themore efficient the weapon the
greater thenecessity to control it. The bomb hasdestroyed the
anti-parliamentary case, con-firming the Socialists.
" FESTINA LENTE ..
P R I N C I P L E S & P R A C T I C EThe April FORUM was
more than usuallylively, but from the free-for-all emerges
Caserious call for clarification of some vit'~lissues for the
Party.These issues, be it noted, are fortunately
ractically aU on the tactical plane. None willchallenge the
statement that the aim of theS.P.G.B., especially at the present
juncture,is, to use a homely but well understoodhrase: "To Make
Socialists". In spite ofl'rner' s " economic bastard ", with its
dulynumbered spiky hairs scattered over a baldpate of
sentimentalism, there is surely no callfor a frenzied cry from our
comrade's head.Here it is necessary to remind ourselves thatfifty
years of experience has adequately
safeguarded the Party against the admission(or retention) of
anyone dehnately holdingopinions not in conformity with its
basicprinciples.As to the making of Socialists: this in-
volves propaganda, and here of course a verywide field is
involved, carrying with it,throughout the history of the Party,
widelydivergent views--older comrades will knowthat such a superb
propagandist as Andersonwould have refused to admit TradeUnionists!
Peckham branch narrowlv missedadvice to the E.C. to expel him on'
accountof deviation from the then nominally acceptedcode of "
morality" in its narrowest sense-Yes, we have travelled since,
haven't we?
June. 1954them the environment of ideas which makessocialists.
Once inside the Party (and, ifpossible, given. a job to do) they
would.cease to' be preoccupied with the minor differ-ences they
have with the Party case, sincethey would have a personal interest
inpromoting socialist ideas as a whole.
* *In summing up these four articles on prob-
lems of propaganda, the connection betweenthe main themes can be
noted.I . A way of looking at propaganda asthe cultivation of an
attitude, stressing thepositive side-analysis plus synthesis.2. The
desirability of speakers assumingagreement and not hostility on the
part oftheir audiences.3. The wider scope of Party literature,by
ceasing to' divide socialist ideas intopropaganda and controversy,
and4. Appreciation of the fact thatsocialists are made WITHIN the
Party.S.R.P.Correspondence and articles should be
lent to FORUM, S.P.G.B., 52, ClaphamHigh St., London, S.W. 4.
Subscriptions12 months, 7j6d, 6 months 3/9d. Ch~quesand P.O.'s
should be made payable to:
E. Lake, S.P.G.B.ITEMS FOR JULY ISSUE
IN BY JUNE 8thIt is meet, right, and our bounden duty to
criticise all efforts put out in the sincere desireto "make
Socialists", .but to raise theseissues to vital principles (as at
too manyconferences) is a sad waste of time. Forinstance, the "
violence .. controversy seems tobetray a misunderstanding of the
role of theParty. It may come as a mild shock to somemembers to'
learn that I regard this question asbeside the mark. It is far from
certain, indeedunlikely, that the S.P.C.B. will effect theactual
Social Revolution; future developmentscan only decide, as future
developments canonly allay the somewhat naive craving for anice,
neat blue-print of what a SocialistRegime ",,,,ill be like".
Meanwhile theunique cutting edge of S.P. propaganda mustnot be
blunted by uncomradely strife.
I should like to add in a future numbersome remarks on the D of
P, which is clearlyinvolved on several points now raised,
onlysaying here how heartily I concur withwith Evans (father and
son) that clause 7.raised to a point of principle,
STANDS.REGINALD
Published by S.P.G.B .. 52 Clapham High Street. S W.4 &
Printed by L. E Westwccd Ltd.,:T.U.) 14 Ki(1gsl::ury Green Parade,
N.W.9
