8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

1/8

JULY, 1954

Internal Journal ofthe S.P.G.B. 6d.

serious errors in the draft particularly thedefinition of the class struggle and the am-biguous use of the word property. Politicalaction for socialism means the securing ofproperty for everybody (common property).This is the issue in the class struggle, and notmerely trade union action which Paddingtonsuggest is the entire class struggle.The draft denlores the effects of class

society without mentioning one of them apartfrom a vague mention of millions going short.There is not one substantive fact in the wholedraft, but just a conglomeration of loosephrases literally oozing humanitarianism.Great care is taken not to offend anyone orany group; and the few useful things thedraft has to say are well diluted and theedges so blunted that they will harmonisewith the main content. The chapter dealingwith "What socialism will be like" is purelynegative and a literal fraud, and should beproperly called "Socialism-what it won't belike." In spite of their criticism about thefailure of the party to formulate a policy onSocialism and what it will be like, the bestPaddington branch can do when formulatingtheir own policy, is to re-state the old Partystuff of over 50 years ago, i.e., production foruse, no buying and selling, no armies etc. Itis no argument to say that space was limited;the draft is so repetitive that its message couldbe written in a quarter of the space. In addi-tion to this there is an utterly worthlesschapter headed "Equality" which will cer-tainly raise more problems than it : :e~s out tosolve. The fact is that Paddington havenothing to say on "Socialism--what it willlook like," and, according to the main themeof the draft, even less to add to partypropaganda.The branch circularised their criticism of

Waters' address which they considered un-suitable. Certain criticisms could be and weremade of V f . !aters' address. In spite' of thifeatures of telling people what elections were

No. 22

THE PARSONS OF PADDINGTONA cnticism of the branch's draft electionaddress, (see June issue).

It is a pity to watch the degeneration of aonce responsible branch of the Party intowhat is rapidly becoming a revolutionary sectwho apologetically admit to being revolution-ary. The draft election statement is so- innocuous that it can only be regarded atbest as essay on the principles of morals.The bewildering factor is that Paddingtonbra;1ch have chosen to present this essay asan election address. It is even more bewil-dering that the branch should be in favour ofelections at all, as they' deny the issue in-volved in an election, i.e., capturing controlof the machinery of government etc. by theS.P:C.B. This is not expressly stated. Hadthe drafters done so openly it would havegiven the whole game away and somedifficulty might have been experienced ingetting official branch .backing, not only onthis aspect but on all the other hobbY 'horseswell and truly flogged in the draft. Thepenultimate paragraph is proof of thisreluctance to stress the need for politicalaction based on socialist understanding : "Wescarcely need add that we do not beg for yourvote-we only ask you to consider seriouslythe ideas that we put forward." In other.' words it doesn't matter whether people vote! for socialism or not so long as they havesocialist ideas. This point is amplified in thefinal paragraph: "That is why we insist thatit is necessary to change people's ideas inorder to change the way we live to-day. Thisis the socialist revolution ... " This is not thesocialist revolution, which is the dispossessionof the capitalists of the means of production'and their transformation into the commonproperty of society as a whole. In short achange in the social basis. As this can onlybe achieved by political action it should beevident that socialist ideas in themselves areworthless without political manifestation cul-minating in political power. There are other

Waters' address did have the redeemingfeature of telling people what elections 'werefor and why we were contesting. And- of thefutilitv of reformism. This does neithere.ItsUriah Beep approach has emasculated=ourcase to the point where it isn't worth saying.This invariably happens with those individualswho try to bring socialism in the back docir :they must smother it in order to do, 'so.Paddington's draft puts Socialism at a dis-advantage by trying to make it 'respectable'.Moral reform replaces political reform as thewhipping boy.The draft literally begs the question on

human nature and mistakenly assumes thatthis forms the basis of people's objections tosocialism. We are told that human ignoranceis the obstacle. What a glorious abstractphrase. Why not the old correct partyanswer-social and political ignorance. Notethe reluctance to use. the word - political!Human emotions (greed, jealousy, selfishness,love,) the whole stock-in trade of the polit-ically frustrated, intellectual nomads anddilettantes are included; economics areavoided like the plague, The entire drafthasn't even the merit of being original andhas been based on the Iirst chapter of "Ques-tions of the Day" (What Socialism Is). Hadthe chapter been inserted in its original formwithout being chopped around to cater forthe "hobby horses" of sex, mass productionand equality, the present volume of criticismwould have been made from the standpointof its suitability as an election address' andnot its content The chapter in any event waspurely introductory and does not etand on itsown. If the best Paddington can do at elec-tion times is to re-issue a chapter from a partypamphlet then why have an election addressat all? One particular amendment from theorginal deserves a mention. Original:"Human energy is used up in advertisementcampaigns . . . in purely financial- dealings,in attending on the useless luxury -of thewealthy ... (Questions of the Day, p. 7).

The opinions expressed in this journal are those of the individual contributors, and are notto be taken 25 the official views of the party

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

2/8

49 FORUM July, 1954Amended version; "Effort is fritterc 1 :1',011 advert ising ca.npaigru, in purely ::In:~~il'-'dealings and on frivolous 'Iuxuties:" Th~stakes the bite out of the original text 'whichattacks the wealthy. Are Paddington opposedto this?The disquieting thing about the INl:01e

draft is that a branch of the party is preparedto bring controversy within the party beforethe electorate. Is it that the branch is beingused by a handful of members as a clearinghouse for the weird ideas the minority hold?The E,C. would be advised to think twice be-fore contesting the North Paddington consti-tuency at the next election in view of thepresent branch indecisiveness and confusion onthe class struggle and political action.In the meantime, Pacldington membersshould rouse themselves and feave this cup.and saucer socialism to the socialis; parsonswho for the time being, unfortunately, arestill with us.

D'Arcy,

Correspondence and articles shousd besent to FORUM, S.P.G.B., 52, ClaphamHigh St., london, S.W. 4. Subscriptions12 months, 7/6d, 6 months 3/11d. Chequesand P.O.'s should be made payable to:

E. lake, S.P.G.B.

EDiTORIAL NOTEThe following printing errors should be

noted from the June issue of FORUM. Inarticle by Reginald entitled Principles andPractice: From our comrade's head shouldread for our comrade's head. In article byW. Brain entitled Soeiaiists and the R etreatfro m R ea lity: pA 7, line 12 , It is not moredifficult should read Is it not more difficult.In article by Fcstina Lente entit led Q11es t ionsof the D azed : It does not run out of capi.-alism as a prisoner does out of jail shouldread It does not run after Socialism as achild would after a lolly-pop, but breaks outof capitalism as a prisoner does out of jail. Inarticle by Paddington branch entitled TheCase for Socialism : p.44, col. 2, under"Production for use"2nd and 3rd lines ofparagraph 2 omitted, viz: By contrast, underSocialism everything will be made as well asthey can be for their intended purpose s,houMread By contrast, under Socialism everythingwill be produced solely for the use and enjoy-ment of people. All things will be made aswell as they can be for their intended purpose.We apologise for these errors to readers andto the writers concerned.

THE NA TURE O F THE SOC IA L IST R EVO LUT IO NSo-me eo.mmettt6F rank Evans has put all of us in his

debt by the series of articles which havebeen running since the inception of FORUM.Even if he never writes any more, and evenif these articles had been the only ones everpublished in these pages, their content wouldhave fully justified the existence ofFORUM.This fact makes it all the more important

to correct any statements in that series whichfall below the high level of the whole. Thereare some of these, and this seems as good atime as any to point them out.The first statement which one must

quarrel with is that which puts forward theview that Hegel was a dualistic idealist.Evans says (Dec. 52, p. 5)~"What westill have to bear in mind is that Marx didnot demolish -the dualism of Hegel by invert-ing it, he only perpetuated it right side up.And it is dualism, the false separation (ofideas and action, mind and matter, etc.)which underwrites idealism." And again, onthe' same page, he says~"The analogy wetake over from Marx, which, in invertingHegel; still opposes base and superstructure(production and institutions) ... " He repeatsthis in his Aug. 53 article.This suggests that (a ) Hegel was a dualist,

and ( b ) that, in particular, Hegel talkedabout base and superstructure, but in theopposite way to Marx, putting intitutionsfirst, and production second.It is, on the contrary, very difficult to think

of any philosopher who was more opposed todualism than was Hegel. His whole approachrenders any dualism quite impossible, and inhis Logic (Wallace trans. pp.l 76-8) he pro-duces a very simple and quite irrefutableargument showing that the dualistic positionis an untenable one. It is obviously impossiblein a short article to give a full discussion ofHegel's philosophy, but any honest readingof the Logic must reveal at once an adamantdetermination not to lapse into any dualismwhatever. Even the shortest description ofHegel's philosophy brings out this fact: a200-page work on philosophy states~"Hegelrejected the unknown thing-in-itself of KantHe held that the entire universe could be'penetrated' by thought. He held that mindand nature are not merely manifestations of anunknown absolute, they are the Absoluteitself; nor are they two distinct realities, butintegral components of one process of self-revelation. "Evans seems to see this himself a little later

on in the same article, where he points outthat iMarx himself abandoned, at his best,

the dualism which he sometimes put forward.For there is no doubt that, whatever Hegelmayor may not have done, Marx and Engeh

both adopted a dualistic position when puttingtheir case, on many important occasions, andParty writers have done the same. The cel-ebrated passage in the "Critique", forexample, can he riddled with critical holeson this score. It states that the relations ofproduction are the base, and that legal andpolitical matters are the superstructure. Thisimplies that the relations of production are notlegal and political matters, that they aredistinct and separate.. Not only are they distinct and separate, but

one determines the other. One is the realioundation the other is nothing but a super-structure.' The word "superstructure" at oncesuggests something relatively fl imsy and easilyremoved. One can 'easily alter a superstructurewithout changing in the least the solid baseon which it stands. One can even destroy thesuperstructure-the base still remains.Now it does not require any massive on-

slaught to show that this corresponds withnothing in real life. (In real life the base isnot solid; everything changes subtly and shiftsbefore our very eyes. In real life legal andpolitical matters are not distinct and separatefrom the the relations of production; this ismost obvious in the Communist countries.)But if one still wants a massive onalaught, itis there in the Evans articles.However, Evans does not make the

mistake, as others have unfortunat;ly done,of supposing that to expose this dualism is toquarrel with Historical Materialism. As hesaY3~"It remains that nowhere does Marxexplicitly define 'mode of production' becausewith him it is implicitly society iisel]," Oncewe see that the mode of production is not apar t of society, but is the whole of societyseen from a special point of view, we canstart getting somewhere. As long as we seeit as a part of society, which is n ot some otherpart (the superstructure) we shall go ontalking nonsense.Luckily, Marx usually did better mpractice than his theoretical formulationswould have led one to expect. In practice,he usually did see society as a whole, andtreated the historical and moral elements withas much deference as the purely economicones.To conclude this point, we may say that

Eval13 was wrong. both in calling Hegel adualist and in calling Marx a dualist, thoughall of us may slip into dualism when we arenot being careful. J. C. Rowan

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

3/8

July 1954l ./

,FORUM s o

WHAT IS THE DIF~ERENCE BETWEENUS AND THE OTHERS?

Is it that the S.P.G.B. is opposed toreformism? Is it that we are against national-isation ?-or the Soviet Union ?-~or 'leader-ship? The a~sweris no, since others now orin the past have opposed all these,things. Thereason why we are different from (not justopposed to) all the rest is that we have .acompletely different aim. a different objective.... Or have we?

Having heard some members advocatingthe "Dictatorship of the Proletariat";. "Atransitional period"; and a. lower and higher"phase" of Socialism; and others-"fYIinjs-tries of Culture"; socialist cops .: \Il;1robbers ?); judges et al., I. begin, to. doubt.And when Iecently heard one member ata debate at H.O. disagree that in aSocialist Society "each will work accordingto his or her ability, and take according to hisor her needs. each determining their ownneeds" I am forced to admit that somernem-bers (only a handful I hope l ) do not wantSocialism at all. They desire a glorified cap-italism like the Stalinists lOr at least theirconception of Socialism is so horriblyicon-ditioned by capitalism arid its ideologies thatthey mnnoi conceive of a different way oflife from the nresent one. Thesemember'sare not Socialists; they are just .anti-capital ist"Ninety fifty-four", "Th'eir ,,;~~g~is;Y;ervague-concept of Socialism tllqu out to-beakin to George Orwell's "Ninety Eightycfour" !

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 materialworld in which we live; we are creatures ofour environment. We must change our en-vironment (what into?) before we can s"ywhat sort of world Socialism will be like. W~can, then, only be negative un our pr9pa~ganda; we can only show the' 'world downvhich road humanity must travel,but we donot know what is at the 'endofthe:road;(How can we tell that it is (Mil)) the rightroad?) These are the arguments of the 'so"called scientific "Marxists" of theparty:

Of course. we cannot. g i v e a detailed blue-.print of. Socialism. We do not know what.capitalism will be like in five years-a-whetherwe will have press-button factories, orwhether office work will be mainly done byelectronic computors and tabulating machines.We donot-knowwhat form transport maylake .in the future. Rut all th e sam e, as Ipointed .out in 'a :previous article, we can bemore positive . in . .our advocacy of Social ism.There i s much. that We can say. \'\1 e f e f l OWthat moncy-c-a-rneans of exchange-will beunnecessary; we know that war will be im-possible; that there will be no power orprivelege groups, or .coercion : that there willbe'.ilQ ,hasls'foVip'dwer or privilege with the.abolition Ofpl~operty 'and ownership; nopossibility ofcoerciorior authority withoutstate power to back it up. There are manythings that we know now will be different inthe fuhue-whether Socialism is establishedin five years or fifty.

CHANGiNG IDEASIn order to bring about anew society, a

new wa:yof .life, we must change peoples'ideas noni. We must help them to rid theirminds of race, sex, religious and other pre-judices. This is an aspect-a most importantaspect ,,, 0 , the "new society developing in thewomb'~nhe old",.Ynfortunately many mem-bers of th~ ' S ' ; P . C ? B . 'do not'seem to haveachieved this "mental revolution" necessaryfor the establishment of Socialism. Some onlyhate the capitalists, or capitalist society, whichis useless from a socialist point of view. Soc-ialists are, or should be, scientific, objective.~hey cannot let their emotions get the betterof them; and hatred instead of analysis ismore than useless toa socialist movement.Only by ridding ourselves of al l prejudice an dhatred can we achieve this mental revolution.Onlyby the mass of the people dropping alltheir prejudices and hatreds will they achievea better world. Our job is to plant the seedsin which workers a Jn d o th er s if possible canachieve theiro~n mental revolutions. Thesewill be :tlie'''quantative changes within ca;-italism, along' with the ever-growing con-tradictions, that will result in the qualitative

change-the dialectical 'leap'-to Socialism.

Men make history. But only by changingthe real world around them in which theyare brought up. But unless they have a prettygood idea of what sort of world they want inthe future they will not make much of a jobof it , Unless Socialists have some idea ofwhat Socialism will be like, they will have nosuccess with their audiences; and the SocialistParty will stagnate or atrophy. It will becomeapathetic.Therefore, in my opinion, socialist prop-

aganda must aim (J ) at defining Socialismin a positive manner as we / f !T ! O W it will belike; and (2) we should propagate the ideasof the kind of society we want Socialism tobe like.

Although it would be wrong for a speakerto dogmatically say that under socialism therewill be no big cities like New York orMoscow, it would he quite in order for thecomrade to say why he does not want bigcities, and why .he thinks they would be un-necessary and undesirable. It does not matterwhether members differ on these points, solong as it encourages people ,to think abouta better world. The sum total of these ideaswhen put into practice by the "immensemajority" will be-socialism. That it maynot be quite like comrade "X" or "Y"postulated or desired five or ten years priordoes not matter, as long as they differentiatebetween (1) what they know will exist-production for use, equality, an absence ofauthority and coercion, etc.-and (2) whatthey want it to be like-no big cities, nobelt system, greater nobility of people, of freelove, etc. etc.

This positive approach to Socialism, thisemphasis on Socialism as a completelydifferent wayref life, will really show ouraudiences where we reall)) differ from allotherorganisations-c-uot the silly and mean-inglcsshostility dause in our Declaration ofPrinciples. 'PETER E. NEWELL.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

4/8

51 FORUM J uly. 1954

NOTES ON C R I S E SIV1arx was the fnst economist to give a

systematic account of the nature of crises,Due to the less rna lure form of capitalism,Classical Political Economy never seriouslyincorporated a study of crises into its schemeof things. The only thing we have on thesubject at that period is the now famous con-troversy between Ricardo and Malthus as towhether over-production -could arise due todeficiency in consumption and, as a result ofthis deficiency, lower prices, a fall in the rateof profit.Ricardo vigorously denied this possibility.

His denial arose from his acceptance of Say's"Law of the Market." This concept assertedthat every supply involves a demand; thatproducts exchange for products. Thus everycommodity put on the market creates its owndemand and every demand on the market soexerted, creates its own supply.Ricardo saw only the unity and harmony

of capitalist exchange relations not the CDn-tradictions and conflicts involved it them. ForRicardo the progressive accumulation ofcapita! was a veritable "Golden Journey toSamarkand." Not only were crises impossiblebut the self . .expansion of capital entailed nofalling rate Df profit. Accepting as he did the"Malthusian Population Theory," hethought-at least in the long run-that therewould always be abundant reserves of"labour" able to serve the needs of capita-list accumulation, Because new investmentswould enlarge the productive process including"labour," and the supply of workers or thetapping of new sources of supply, would beequal or greater than the demand for them,110 rise in wages need occur. So althougheach productive cycle would be larger thanthe previous one, the ratio in which capitalwas divided between productive equipmentand wage payments would remain the same.Therefore no fall in the rate of profit needarise.The only way the rate of profit would fall,

he argued, was due to the "Law of Dimin-ishing Returns." This he said would raisethe price of food and so increase the sub-sistence cost of workers and thus reduceprofits. Reduced profits would as a result,check the progressive accumulation of cap-ital. The only way to offset this was toimprove agriculture or to' import cheap corn.

( fla 'tt (!2ne)His charge against the landlord was thatwhereas all other persons benefited by cheapfood, the situation for the landlord was neverso prosperous as when food was dear, Thushe argued the interest of the Landlord isalways opposed to the interests of every othersection of the community.Malthus, on the other hand, contended that

increasing accumulation of capital might makeit possible for production to outstrip consump-tion. This would result in. a f

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

5/8

Ju ly 1954 FORUI'1 52immediate needs and constitutes for its ownera non-use value. Now although the act ofbarter can be expressed as C - C, commodityfor commodity, it is one of form and notsubstance; they are in fact two use valuesconfronting each other. It is only by theowner parting with something which has noimmediate utility for something which has,that harter takes the first step to acqumngexchange value.In a society which has advanced beyond

this stage to one of simple commodity pro-duction where money has become the univer-sal equivalent, the form of exchange becomesC -M - C, or commodity, money, com-modity. The introduction of money splits theact of exchange into two parts, C - M (asale) and M - C (a purchase). The intro-duction of money represents a great advance.Now the owner of a superfluous article nolonger has to find another who has somethinghe needs, and who at the same timepossesses something he himself wants. Hecan now dispose of .his product fOT money andpurchase his needs in his own time.In this way the introduction of money

brought about a great economy of effort, thusmaking possible a more diverse sub-divisionof labour, and so providing the basis forgreater productivity.CRISES OF SHORTAGESThe 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 topurchase from him then, the circulation pro-cess iJ incomplete, because M - C is an essen-tial link in the exchange circuit. As a result,the producer who has failed to sell cannot buyfrom another producer, who in tum is unableto buy from someone else, and so on. If thelinkage break becomes widespread, it will in~ime affect the whole economy.This rupture in the exchange equilibrium

will then bring about features associated withcrises, i.e. unsaleable stocks due to lack ofpurchasing power. In one sense it could betermed overproduction, but only in one sense.It must be remembered that the cause of over-production was due to a rupture of exchange,and not v ice vC 'l~ sa as in modern crises. Insubstance it would be a crisis of shortagesand not surpluses.CAPITALIST MOTIVATIONIn simple commodity production, each

producer owns his own means of production.

In capitalism, ownership of these things isvested in a particular set of individuals.Those who are excluded from ownership haveonly their labour-power as a means of live-lihood.Capitalism 15 production organised for

sale with a view to profit, Means of produc-tion and labour-power are then bothcommodities. The capitalist functions as acapitalist by purchasing means of productionand labour-power. To do this he has to havea sufficient sum of money (capital}. At theend of each productive process the result isrealised on the market for money. Unlike theC " M - C process, which starts with a com-modity and ends with a commodity, thecapitalist starts with money and ends withmoney; or, if you like; he begins with ex-change value and ends with' exchange value.From this it follows that the major form ofcirculation in capitalism is M - C - M.The aim of the capitalist is, however, to

finance production in order that at the endof each productive act he will have a greatersum of money than at the beginning. This isrepresented byM e C - M', where lVI' is agreater magnitude than M.The motivation for production by the

capitalist is not one of use value, but theexpansion of exchange value. Capitali-m isthen a profit motive system. The facts of howprofit is made and its realization vi a theprofit urge is a universal motive. The drivemarket need not detain up here.It is not true to say however that the

for greater profit as a means of expandingcapital accumulation is a motive peculiar tothe economic function of an owner of capital.Because of the competitive compulsion ofcapitalism, each capitalist must try and keepin the race with his rivals, or, failing that,drop out. Thus his economic security, socialprestige and status as a capitalist are insep-arably connected with the process ofaccumulation.

THE WORXING CLASSOn the other hand, by far the larger

number of individuals in capitalist society donot take part in the appropriation of surplusvalue in order to devote a considerable por-tion for the purpose of accumulation. Theireconomic function is of a different order; toproduce surplus value, and receive paymentfor the maintenance of the energies requiredto do so. Starting as sellers of labour-power,they are concerned to get as many use values

a3 possible in return for services rendered.Their motivation is then one of increasingconsumption. This difference of motivationhas its root) not in any abstract category ofhuman conduct, hut from the different role thecapitalist and worker have in the socialproductive relations.It is of course true that the capitalist is

- interested in consumption. As Marx says-"At a certain stage of development luxuryenters into capital 's expense of representation... his expenditure grows with his accumula-tion without the one necessarily restricting theother ... But along with this growth there isat the "arne time developed in his breast aF austian conflict between the passion foraccumulation and the desire for enjoyment."

CONSUMPTIONCapitalism then can never be a system of

consumption qua consumption. -For the cap-italist the need to convert a large portion--the largest portion, in fact-of surplus valueto capital accumulation has priority of claim.Again quoting Marx-"The capitalist shareswith the miser the passion for wealth 'aswealth." Unlike the miser who withdrawsmoney from circulation in order to satisfyhis passion, the capitalist seeks to gratify hisby throwing money into circulation, in orderto draw out at a later stage a larger sum.The mainspring of capitalist motivation-

the urge to accumulate-has been rational-ised by present-day economic apologists into"the reward of waiting," "subjective costs,"opportunity costs," "scarcity principle," etc.It is true of course that orthodox econom-

ists have come to regard crises as importantphenomena (the Business Cycle theory) butthey treat it not from the class character ofcapitalism hut from the neutral point of dis-.equilibrium between supply and demandelements of investment funds. This arises fromtheir notion that capitalism is a social arrange-ment which shares out its productive resourcesin the ratio in which they are necessary to thesatisfaction of different needs. As Marx says-"This fiction arises from seeing capitalismnot as an historical product but as productionper se.'If all this seems to the readers of

FORUM a rather long preamble to thesubject of crises, I think it is essential if weare to put crises into perspective. In the nextissue I propose to deal with some of thefactors involved in crises and, later, toattempt to subject them to a closer scrutiny.E.W.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

6/8

5 3 FORUM J uly , 1954

WHAT SOCIALISM MEANS TO MEa fJ ! ,e ' t~CJ.naf Statement'Arguments proceeding logically from one

point to another may drive the individual intoa corner. But as a rule he will find some way-~if necessary a very illogical way-to retainhis beliefs. No change of convictions on anysingle point can be established in more than

Despite their references and questions tome, I think that to 'attempt to answer D' Arcy,Lock and others point by point would notget us very: much farther. Our disagreements50 far revealed indicate that we have adifferent approach to such vital questions aswhat .Socialism means, what socialist prop-aganda is, and why we are in the S.P.C.B.I do sincerely want to resolve these dis-

agreements, and think that this may be donel;iy a comparison of ideas tat a more funda-mental level than hitherto. Accordingly, Ishall try to state my views as positively aspossible, and only to mention differing viewsso far as this is necessary for clarity. Thefollowing statements are not intended to implythat other members necessarily disagree withthem.First, I am in the S.P.C.B. because of its

object. I think that Socialism is a desirablesystem of society, not just for myself or anyClass or group with which I happen to beidentified, but for all people. I think of it assomething positive to have, rather than as anegation of something to be got rid ,of. Incontrastto the popular notion that discussionof'thefuture leads us into controversy, tfindiharit is our attitude to the present, not" thefuture; that causes the most controversy.My answer to the question '\Vhat are you

doing about the class struggle?' is "trying toend it." The argument that the successful.prosecution of the last class struggle meansthe end of all class struggle has never sounded'convincing to me-perhaps it is too muchlike 'the war to end all war.'The S.P.C.B.'s work is not to champion

'One class against another. It is propagandafo r Socialism-no classes. It should alwaysact in such a manner that it will be recog-nised on this basis. Any other standard ofmeasurement of the S.P.C.B.'s progress willinevitably reveal its. inadequacy b]J t ih is o th e rs tandard. The real danger in our trying tohave a finger in every pie-trade unionism,

an ephemeral way so long as the individualhas not given up his hostility to the new setof values as a whole, to the extent of havingchanged from hostility at least to open-mind-edness.'

-Kurt Lewin.sending messages to strikers, etc.-is that itwin leave us with no appetite for Socialism.I am in the party because. it is helping to

bring Socialism, and for 110 other reason. Ido not ask, nor expect the S.P.C.B. to helpme in any struggle with an opposing economicgroup. It seems that some members think thatadvocating Socialism is not enough-theyseem to want the party to curry favour withnon-socialist working class organisations bya policy of 'all that the others have got andSccialism 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 cr i t i c ism of other objects,though it does not mean that we are obligedto express either support of or opposition tothese objects. When a socialist takes part inthe class struggle he does not "oppose" hisown actions nOl r need h ie j us fi t] J' them. Hisattitude should be that he wants to abolishCapitalism because it makes people enter intoantagonistic instead of harmonious relation-ships.Socialism means the emancipation of the

working class, etc. But it also means a newsystem of society. I am more concerned withwhat there is to he gained than to be lost-the world to win rather than the chains tolose. And so 'socialist propaganda' is a termI prefer to reserve to mean 'telling aboutSocialism'; not just in the sense of what itwill be like, but to show why it is desirableand possible as a new way of living; howeven today people do want to live harmon-iously, even if they don't want 'commonownership'; to avoid playing on the destruc-tive emotions of envy and resentment whichspoil our love of humanity.Now a word on party membership and the

D. of P. The party is essentially an organis-ation for propagating ideas. It has no dogma-nothing is sacred. The very concept ofsocial progress (which socialists should, above

all things, desire to expedite) demands thatevery opinion, theory arid judgment-includ-ing the D. of P.c-should give a reasonedaccount of itself, on peril of being superseded.To be critical of our principles today is notnecessarily to oppose them. It is (a"s,Ielieve,the recent Conference recognised) the necess-ary prerequisite of better ones. Membersshould not be shocked at the proposal to re-write the D. of P., as a living expression ofwhat holds socialists together, in the light of50 years' development of socialist thought.My main criticism' of the D. of P. is that

it emphasises working class capture of poli-tical power rather than the basic ideasnecessary to establish Socialism that are heldby socialists. For a definition of 'socialist' Iam quite content to make that given in theS5. (Dec. 1949): "one who holds thatSocialism is a practicable alternative to cap-itali~m and who seeks to establish Socialism."The real test is whether the socialist objectiveis ]Jour objective, whether you refuse to com-promise your advocacy of it, and whetheryou are prepared always to speak and act insuch a manner as to promote it by makingother people socialists.Despite the 'fellow workers' form of

address, I do not believe that the "classcharacter" of the S.P.C.B. is a fundamentalaspect of the socialist case. And despite itsappeal to members of the working class,people do not join in fact as workers but associalists. Workers who are not socialists arenot admitted to membership, anybody who isa socialist is admitted. This appears to me tobe the correct position for a socialist party toadopt, notwithstanding the D. of P.

SPECIAL ANSWERSI hope that the above explanations will

help to reduce the area of disagreement.Certain opposing points do, however. needsnecial answers. First to D'Arcy, who thinks

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

7/8

Ju ly 1954 54hat "people in the economic circumstances ofFeudalism cannot understand Socialism." Ifthis is so, then what message does he thinkthe S.P.G.B. should have for such people?Presumably we cannot ask them to work forwhat they allegedly cannot understand. Soeither we should advise them to do somethingabout their form of property society (such as,to develop Capitalismj==or we should saynothing. It seems so easy to avoid such adilemma by advocating Socialism in al lcircunsiances,.....OBLEMS OF CAPITALISTS0' Arcy further asks: what problems do

capitalists suffer from and how will Socialismemancipate them? Well, capitalists won't getkilled in wars, they won't get ulcers fromworrying about money or bored from livingidly. Lots of what Coster called "innumerableindividual and social difficulties and frustra-tions" are experienced by members of bothclasses. But unfortunately he got it thewrong way round; it is not that workers andcapitalists have different things to gain fromSocialism. They have different things to lose,but the same things to gain, namely, socialistconditions.

SOCIETY A PROCESSI am at a loss to understand the attitude

of those members who think of Socialismonly as an economic solution to "physical"needs of members of a class. and their studiedindifference to "mental" problems of membersof a society. To me, these distinctions be-tween the physical and the mental (mind andmatter, evolution and revolution, basis andsuperstructure, etc.) are unreal and discussionaround them singularly unhelpful. Societyshould be viewed as a process rather than asa sum of static institutions; thinking should bein terms of class struggle and co-operativeendeavour rather than of the two classes and"common ownership."NEW LOOK SOCIALISMLastly, I do agree with H.B. that

Socialism is worth every effort. Don't how-ever, blame the present half-heartedness on"new look Socialism." It is deplorable if ourinternal discussion becomes an incessantwrangle between two or more side" empha-sising and preserving differences rather thansimilarities. The true object of our internaldiscussion should surely be that tomorrow'spropaganda should contain all that is worth-while in toclay's plus new ideas. In 1954, nomore than in 1904, has all been said thatcan be said on the subject of Socialism.

S.R.P.

FORUM

A W O R K I N G - C L A S S P A R T Y F O R S O C I A L I S MIn opposition to Turner's thesis as laid

down in 25 points (February Forum), Ipresent the following:Socialism (the suffix "ism" = ideas or

theory) is that critical analysis, of society,especially Capitalist Society, which lays bare What are these "something other than?"the economico-historical causes of human Are not economic interests "human" becauseexploitation and working class poverty arising only humans have economic interests andfrom the social relations' of production, and such have only been evolved by human beingspoints the way to the solution of the problem in association .through changing those relations to one ofcommon ownership of the means ofproduction.Socialism does not mean "social equality of

humanity" but advocates a society in whichsocial equality shall exist. Socialism is not inthe interests of alt. Primarily it provides themethod through which workers must attain Its propaganda is primarily an appeal tofreedom from capitalist exploitation. This is that Class because it is they who have mostagainst the interests of the capitalist class to gain in striving for the new society viz. :whose very existance as an exploiting class economic security,depends upon the retention and maintenance The Capitalist Class possess the means o fof the present social relationships, viz., wage- life and as a result have all the luxury of anlabour and capital. It is in the interests of the exploiting class. Consequently they look uponworking class, not as wage-ea.rners within this society as the best possible and are deter-these relationships, but through the revolution- mined to hang on to their property, privilegeary process to the complete change-over to and prestige by every possible means. .Socialist society . .socialism teaches. them why "Humanity" and "Mankind" are justand how this process must be pursued. empty abstractions when considering the capit-Turner's statements (points 1 -& 2) ignore alist world, and to talk of appealing to ALL

the process of social evolution, the emerging human beings to think and act as equals infrom ~apitalist, society, which the Capital,ist"iy,such a world is just nonsense.Class nave an interest as exploiters m roam-I!'" . (1 7 20) Th . f . dtaining, into Socialist society in which, oft to ne question 0 coercion an. tl in t ts of al'~ will be equal the use of armed force would depend uponcourse, re II} eres ~ . I k i d d . f . bDurincr the process the Capitalist Class and t re . II}. an quantl~y 0 resistance put up yI .:"> - , '. capitalists and their supporters. As Statet .ieir supporters put up some resistance. " I C . I h . b f S .c I. . . .. power IS essentia to' apita the jo 0 oela -.COl~cern1l1g ,(6) the implication IS that ists is to disarm them (the Capitalists) by get-\Vorkmg Class mterests are confined to wages ting control of the State.and the cost of living as wage-workers. Buttheir interests extend further, i.e. to solvingpoverty by ending the wages system throughthe establishment of Socialist Society.In con tradition to (8) : Working class

interests ultimately do equate to social inter-ests because only through the establishmentof the new society can they end their povertyand degradation; i.e. Social Equality beingthe only way to solve their problems, it logi-cally follows that herein their interests are inline with the whole of society into the future.Turner's arguments in points. (8-1 0)

result from a formalistic approach, as heassumes some class or group interests apartfrom "Human Interests." The class or groupinterests are concrete, real, arising out ofpeculiar social circumstances, and are humaninterests. His "Human Interests" are an ideal

abstraction which ignores the social circum-stances, the social relations which determinethose interests. This is to say that class inter-ests are something other than ",HumanInterests. "

(11 to 15): A Socialist Party, of course,comprises people with socialist ideas and whileit is not an "economic unit" it certainly repre-cents the interests of the Working Class, as Istate above, and is consequently a WorkingClass Party.

As the police and army consist mainly ofworkers, when the majority are socialists,those in these forces will simply fail to func-tion in the interests of the Capitalist Class andthe latter will be rendered practically helpless.To talk of using Government as It I S usedby and for the Capitalist Class just shows a

failure to recognise that in a situation as abovedescribed 'Government' ceases to exist. Thegeneral trend of governments within capit-alist society to control social economy, e.g.transport, postal services, radio, railways,banking etc. ,becomes completed in socialistsociety into economic-social administrativeinstitutions but without the character ofgovernment .While a Socialist Party relies upon the

socialist understanding of the Majority that

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 22 Jul

8/8

5 5 FORUM------------- ..--------- ----- -__------PR INC IP LES AND PRACT IC Eajority cannot ignore the importance ofhaving control of government. I t is not a qu :3-

tion of "relying" upon the use of law andarmed force to establish the new system or ofmaintaining it, but of disarming the CapitalistClass. The final word, of course, is in thedesire for change always providing that theconditions of production are so far developedas to warrant it.Finally, the logic of Turner's thesis is that

the Socialist Party should renounce politics,cease to be a Party and b~tome a mere philo-sophical society. H. G. HAYDEN

CORRESPONDENCEDear Comrades,

Nobody has complained, but. I am sure some members think that twoarticles by me in the June "Socialist Stan-. dard" was one too many. I should likethrough "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 hadreason to telephone to them. They hadalready one article from me, but told me theyhad insufficient material of any sort and werein an extreme predicament. Somebody had towrite something in a hurry, and I promisedthat I would. Hence "The Edwardians,"~hich I had intended for the following monthand did not incorporate nearly as muchmaterial as I wanted to collect.Ihink there is value in the sort of articleI've been writing for some time now-,-the

investigation of minor social phenomena. At. the same time, I think one in a month issufficient. Hastily written articles, too, areunlikely 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';'ith a remarkably high standard, and I cer-tainly can't approach that standard when I.am rushing my literary cojones off.

The Branch-room critics of the Party"paper-e-and the advocates of planning eachissue-might think on these things. PerhapsI may say something else. A lot of membersbelieve -I used to believe it myself-that'the Editorial Committee "rejects good, articles." By invitation, I have been attendingthe Committee's meetings for nearly eighteenmonths, and that simply isn't true. Mostmonths there are just enough articles to fillsixteen pages; some months there aren'tenough. And an article is rejected only forone of two reasons: it says incorrect things,or it is just God-awful.

R. COSTER.

The main object of this month s con-tribution to "Principles and Practice" is anendeavour to show further why the controv-ersy around the D of P calls for early Partyconsideration and decision.It is probably not rcaliccl that mi';(ii~'i1l0Jas to certain words and phrases have beenentertained for a very long time; a desireto avoid controversy, and ,"get along with thebusiness," strengthened perchance by a smallpinch of mental reservation, has inhibitedopen expression; Stella Jackson's scathingremarks re "diametrically opposed" were anexception.The circumstances under which the first

D of P were formulated must be taken intoaccount in considering this question. Generallyspeaking, the early Manifestoes were a just-ification for the splendid revolt against theexecrable "leaders" of the SDF; firmlyplanting for the first time in history a trulydemocratic Socialist Party (do we adequate-ly recognise what a magnificent, momentousevent this was?) the new Party inheritedcertain unmistakable features of i ts unholyparent; the solemn crooning of the dismal"Red Flag," to mention one very minor, butstill significant item, soon disappeared. Theassumption that the SP was committed toVIOLENCE, if only of the police variety,was a clear inheritance from their forebears,and carries implications demanding earnestattention.

I is quite understandable that a Declara-tion which has preserved itself intact for over50 years should acquire a sentimental value,And there is a useful place for the Roman-tics in the Party, but the danger of becominga political Fundamentalist must be guardedagainst.In the event of a relatively drastic revision

of the D of p, I must point out that otherchanges would necessarily follow: the word"OBJECT" would make its bow. I'suggest(in all humility) something like this at thehead of the actual D of P.

WHAT SOCIALISM ISSOCIALISM IS a SYSTEM OF

SOCIETY which will utterly supersedeCapitalism.ALL the means and instruments (fields,fact.ories and workshops) producing wealth

will be COMMONLY OWNED.GOODS wil! he produced for USE;

prof t will disappear.The production of Wealth and its dis-

tribution will he DEMOCRATICALLYcontrolled.There will be NO distinction between

RACE. SEX or COLOUR.TO EACH ACCORDING TO HISNEED: FROM EACH ACCORDING

TO HIS ABILITY.I propose next month to begin examination

of the separate items of the D of P.Reginald

A R E T H E V V O R K E R S B E T T E R O F F ?"An appreciable rise in wages pre-supposes

a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapidgrowth of productive capital calls forth justas rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, ofsocial needs and social pleasures. Therefore,although the pleasures of the labourer haveincreased, the social gratification which theyafford has fallen in comparison with theincreased pleasures of the capitalist, whichare inaccessible to the workers, in comparisonwith the stage of development of society ingeneral. Our wants and pleasures have theirorigin in society; we therefore measure themin relation to society; we do not measure themin relation to the objects which serve for theirgratification. Since they are of a social nature,they are of a relative nature."

(Chapter VI. Relation of Wage-Latourto Capital.)

The following quotation from "Wage-Labour and Capital" by K. Marx is pert inentto the discussion. The final paragraph in myview gives the answer to the question.

D. W. LOCK"A house may be large or small; as long asthe neighbouring houses are likewise s.nali,it satisfies all social requirements for a resi-dence. But let there arise next to the littlehouse a palace, and the little house shrinksinto a hut. The little house now makes itclear that its inmate has no social position atall to maintain, or but a very insignificant one;and however high it may shoot up in thecourse of civilisation, if the neighbouringpalace rises in equal or even greater measure,the occupant of the relatively little house willalways find himself more uncomfortable, moredissatisfied, more cramped within his fourwalls.

Published by S.P,G.B., 52 Clapham High Street, S.W,4 & Printed by L . E Westwocd Ltd.,:T,U.) 14 Kingstury Cr e en Parade, N,Vv,9