8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

1/8

Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.

E BALLOT;.' g::hy letter, published in FORUM,~::er and November, 1952, Comrade

~ts his thesis, an answer (as heillQ " group of Boston comrades" who" " e :. .. _~ t ed to a principle question whethersocialism will come about through the?: zaeznber of the "group of Boston_ - = " . . Hin question, I have news' for Com-c..:...._or. The position on the Ballot asin the original Open Letter was notnor "elevated to a principle question"in Boston. What Comrade Canterill-eeogni e, despite all our literaturee ~ . iect, is the fact that this is and has; : : : : e position of the Companion Parties=e .P.G.B. was first organised. Despitep:h of the comrade's" reply", he didion to mention even once the fact~:ion of the 1951 Conference, which?X to draw up and which he defended'-.: in his treatise, was defeated in the:: Party Referendum, even if by a: :r ose margin.~ir i that due to past laxity in member-_ _airecients and/or laxity in a study of. mre, there is a minority in the

0:;), "::0 do not accept the Party positionsocialist revolution. This is bad enough,

., -'I- opinion of this writer should not be: 3m when a member who rejects oursuch a vital principle, attempts toound views with those of theto make his views those ofand brush off the original Party

; : : ; : : . e views of a small " group of BostonC . . ., , ,, ,, - ~tilat is till worse.

; _ r g - . . ! . : T I e n t s of Comrade Canter have, of, ~ been presented to us before by.;.I;:i' ,cs of rno t of the radical organisa-- '" country and they have all been::. ::. :.._, our speakers and writers. It-- _?:' that we must go into it once

= . . . . . : : : : . so we request space in FORUM:I'::o..-er the subject. We shall try~ = = a:;::~ ::0 the point.upon which we base our case.- - - - ' e rr : :::: 'e ::rrarcationbetween socialists

-:,,-=="-~ ... m e belief or non-beliefIna

FEBRUARY 1953From America

SIXPENCE

v. COMRADE CANTERabout by the ballot and by no other way isthat the only other conceivable alternatives thathave been offered involve means which, whenanalysed, fall too short of fulfilling the objec-tive. Let us begin from the following premises:

(1) the revolution requires a majority ofclass-conscious socialists in society;(2) this majority must take organised stepsto achieve its aim;(3) the first of such steps must be towrest control of the capitalist state

from the capitalist class.Flowing from these simple premises we havesome equally simple reasoning:(a) the most logical way that a majority canmake sure it is a majority and knowjust what it agrees upon is throughelections.(b) We cannot conceive of any organisedmanner in which a majority can act inits own interests other than through apolitical party which places its candi-dates in the field in open opposition toall other parties.(c) If the object is the wresting of controlof the State from the capitalists, thenobviously this can only be accomplishedby gaining a majority in the organ ororgans of State power such as will existat the time, not by creating" its own"bodies or conventions and attempting toarrange "its own" elections.

Simple as this reasoning is, however, it seemsto be incomprehensible to Comrade Canter andthose who agree with him.The" reasoning" of Comrade CanterRunning through the comrade's statement'

we find the following main arguments:(1) The advocacy of the ballot is all veryfine, we all advocate it, but we must leaveloopholes for other means because the ballotmay be taken away from us; (2) the capitalists

Head Office ForumTHE NATURE OF THE

SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONF. Evans G.S R, Parker McClatchieH. WaiteSazs, February 14th" 21st 7.30 p.m.

will never allow us to' become a ballot majority;(3) history has taught us that the capitalistswill use violent means to keep us from becom-ing a majority; and (4) anyway, the wholeidea is worthless because the American politicalsystem (unlike the British!) prevents the over-throw of the American capitalist class becauseof its involved systems of "checks and balances"and because the socialists, even if elected wouldnot be permitted to take their seats.All this, mind you, from a man who, withtongue in cheek, claims to advocate the Ballot,even if not as the only way.Similarity between Canter and S.W.P.(Trotzkyite) positionBe this as it may, we should like to pointout that Comrade Canter's arguments re thedesirability but improbability of revolution atthe polls and his analysis of the American

political system are not original. He mayormay not be aware of the fact that Mr. AlbertGoldman, a Trotzkyite defendant at theSocialist Workers Party "treason" trial inMinneapolis in 1941, used the same arguments.Comrade Cantor states:"There is no specific virtue in the use ofviolence, nothing to commend it as a way tosocialism. But history has taught that theviolence .always arises from the other side,from. the side in power, and that the workersare forced to defend themselves physically."(Forum, Oct./52.)Comrade Canter states:"The question, however, is not whether it

is desirable, but whether it is possible . . History knows no example of the peacefulsurrender of an exploiting minority to anoppressed majority. The actual conduct ofthe capitalist class at the present time, theviolence which it uses against the workerswhen they strike for an improvement in theirconditions, confirm the historical .lesson, andjustify the prediction that they, who will losetheir wealth and power will utilise all formsof violence against the overwhelmingmajority." (In Defence of Socialism, PioneerPublishers, p.41, .42.)Again in FORUM for November, 1952,Comrade Canter points out the difficulties ofovercoming the U.S. Constitution. He showsus that it "takes a two-thirds vote of bothhouses of Congress to offer an amendmentand under the system of proportion described

above, this might mean a representation of75 or 80o /c of the population ", etc.Mr. Goldman points out:"The form of government in the UnitedStates practically guarantees the ruling clu.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

2/8

FORUM February 1953domination against the will of the majorityf the people. To introduce socialism by lawould require an am.endment to the Constitu-ion and for that, a two-thirds majority ofoth houses of Congress and a majority inhree-fourths of the State legislatures areequired, etc." (In Defence of Socialism, pAZ.)So far, there is not much difference, if any,the presentations. But it turns out that theredifference, and in Mr. Goldman's favour

that. He goes on to say:" If there is anyone thing that will preventhe capitalists from using violence, it will behe strong organisations of the working class.he "reater the strength of the working classlrga.cisation s, the less violence will there be."id, pAZ.)Were Mr. Goldman to .have emphasised thatse working-class organisations must beialist to be really effective in preventing theof violence, he would just about have theP. position.evolutionary Majority Will Not BeConstitutionalists

The reasoning by Comrade Canter and Mr.ldman, however, re the obstacles that thesystem of government places in the patha revolutionary working class is, of course,eless. Let us point out that the capitalists have never allowed constitutional bottle-ks nor respect for their hoary document toie them when quick decisions were neces-, The U.S., for example, entered the warKorea without so much as a consultation ofgress, but if such a step were taken, therade can rest assured that the troops woulde been despatched with as little loss of time.oes Comrade Canter actually believe thatthink a revolutionary working class wille any more respect for the capitalist's Con-tion than they have themselves? No, aorious working class is not going to waityears or two years or even two day.s toe over. This will be a revolution broughtut by workers who have voted for socialismt by abstaining from the vote or by picket-the capitalist class,' as Comrade Canterld have it, or by voting with their feet, asLeninists delight in putting it. Socialiststheir heads, not their. feet, when it comesserious thing like the franchise. They willer permit such a thing as a Constitution,

a Senate, or a Supreme Court to stand in theirway. These" checks" will simply not berecognised.Will elected socialists be denied their seatsby the capitalist politicians? We think this mayvery well happen in the early stages. Like truelove, the course of socialist revolution does notrun smooth. With such an obstacle confrontingit, the issue could very well be forced in thesame manner in which the VictorBerger casewas forced. The fact that Berger was not asocialist is beside the point. He was stillopenly in opposition to their war and wasseated despite their opposition. Unfortunately,such trials will have to be met with as theyarise. Were Comrade Canter to offer any newand constructive method of speeding up theprocess, we should. be very happy to consider it.Do We Dictate to History?According to our critic, we, the authors ofthe Open Letter, are attempting to dictate tohistory. Even if, as he puts it, the revolutionwere to take place in some other way than theballot, we would declare that it was not accord-ing to Hoyle and would have to be made allover again by the ballot. This sort of argumentis pure poppy-cock. Were we to point out tothe comrade that he would reject a revolutionas non-socialist unless the gutters were to runwith blood and thousands, nay millions, oferstwhile capitalists were to hang by theirunmentionables from lamp-posts he would be-come indignant, or would he? We deny thatwe are dictating to history when we say thatsocialism will come about through the ballotand through no other means that our mid-twentieth century skulls can envisage. For itis incomparably easier for a majority ofsocialists in society to gain control of the Stateby means of elections than it would be to useany other conceivable means. Can we expectworkers to pit their strength, unarmed, andwin, .against the armed might of the modernstate?Can we expect even a vast majority to gaincontrol of the capitalist state by means of ageneral strike? Even though the majority ofthe strikers might be socialists, they wouldstarve just as fast as the non-socialist strikersand a whole lot faster than the capitalists. Does

it make sense in a highly industrialised countrrlike the U.S.A. to expect workers to organissoviets or workers' councils, to ignore tfcentralised political machine and build one 0their own? Only to the Canter type of rea oning would such a thing be easier or evepossible. rut this is not reasoning, thismadness. In short, we say that a class-consciousmajority must use the ballot simply becausthere is no other possible means they can useCould Ballot Rights Be Suddenly

Withdrawn?Can it be conceivable to socialists that thcapitalists can suddenly take away the ballot ootherwise make it impossible for the socialistto win an election; that they can do all thior that they would attempt to do all thiagainst a mass of public opinion? Is it nomore likely that they will attempt to fightgrowth of socialist opinion by selling theirsystem even more vigorously than they areto-day? The crushing of working class move-ments has always been made simple, becausethe majority of the workers could be propa-gandised into the "proper" frame of mind.Regardless of this point, however, just whatdoes Comrade Canter think a socialist minorityor even a socialist majority could do about iif such a miracle could transpire? If a min-ority were powerful enough to prevent even amajority from voting, doesn't it seem likelythat they would be powerful enough to preventthe majority from getting rid of them in anyother way? And conversely, if he thinks thesocialist majority in such a case could forcethe capitalists out through some other meansthan by the ballot, then why would they be sopowerless that they could not do the samet'ling by the ballot?The point is that a socialist majoritycannot be deprived of the ballot. Nor can,,,\major-ity of non-socialists who insist onhaving the ballot. The case in a nutshellis simply this: Comrade Canter repre-sents a type of thinking that is in directcontradiction to that of the Party. Thatthis is so is bad enough; what is worse,however, is that he refuses to recognisethis fact. H. MORRISON.

PRODU:CTION FOR USE--or Mass Production?What is Mass Production?is that method of production whereety is split up into more or less ex-ive occupational groups and the workgroup performs is broken down intosimplest process and each person be-es a detail worker.give an example-where most familiestheir own bread, there was still divisionBut this simple division of labour

r zaass production. Mass production:u . bread-making are only possible2 ras; mass of families, including the~ _ 2 : 1 : : : dauz zers, no longer bake bread.

Prior to mass production, thousands ofmothers and daughters were making tens ofthousands of loaves of bread, in fact plentyof bread-but it was not mass production ofbread. Once the mothers and daughters weretaken into factories, offices, etc., other methodswere required to produce the tens of thousandsof loaves. A relatively few professional bakersand assistants were necessary.In order that these relatively few people canturn out the bread formerly made by thousandsof people, vast masses of machinery have to bemade, machinery enabling the process of bread-making to be split up into its simplest opera-

tions and the labourers divided, classified andgrouped according to these functions, Thesemethods 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 hier-archy of labour, from the labourer at theworking-tool to the, organising manager. Itmust be remembered that this splitting of thefunctions demands speed and authority 11 1production and transportation.Division of Leb ourComrade Parker, in his article "Will therebe Mass Production ?", writes, "division of

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

3/8

1953 11is only harmful when excessive ". _When= ::> thi he has granted me my whole case.are mass production methods but exces-::insion of labour?er then says: "Further, however, it isthat mass production necessarily in-ve s pace-making, is exclusive to capitalism,

is inseparable from large towns: Thesemore controversial statements with whicho r one, disagree:"eeing that Marx has been quoted, may Ipermitted some references?"The feundatien of every division of labourhat is well-develeped, and breught about by

he exchange of cemmedities, is the separa-ien between town and country." (K.- Marx,apital Vel. 1, p.345, Sonnenschein Edition.)case members doubt the wisdom of statingthe future will be regarding the mannermethods of production within Socialistety-that it is not" scientific" but merelyian :

"The abolitien of the separation betweenown and ceuntry is no. Utopia, it' is anential co.ndition of the pro.po.rtio.nate distei-tion of the greater industry throughout theo.untry. Civilisation has left us a number ofrge cities, as an inheritance, which it willake much time and trouble to abolish. Buthey must and will be done away with, how-ver much time. and trouble it may take."Engels, "Landmarks of Scientific Social-m, p.Z44, Kerr Edition.)"In a higher phase of communist society,fter the enslaving subordination of individ-als under division of labour and therewiththe antithesis between mental andhysical labour has vanished, after labour haseceme net merely -a means to live but haseceme itself the primary necessity of life,ter the productive forces have also increasedit h the all-round development of the indi-

and all the springs of co-oper-ativeealth flows mere abundantly-only then cane narrew herizen of bourgeois right be fullyft behind andseciety inscribe en its bannereach accor-ding to his ability, to eachdin g to. his needs." (" Critique of theotha Pregramme." K. Marx Selected Works,566, Vol. II.)hilst - quoting Marx and Engels, I amto agree that supporters of mass pro-crion may find other quotations that mightear to bear a different interpretation. Thisthe futility of relying on anyone personexpecting to find the 100% correct positionnyone book. But what it does show is theldishness of the accusation that it is utopianne states that under socialism the excessiveon of labour will not exist, and that towncountry will be abolished.sincerely hope that, now it is shown that"masters" of scientific socialism advocatedo f these thir rs, members will not dismissarguments by merely labelling' themOf course, I am fully aware thate Marx and Engels advocated these pro-izions it does not make them correct.

Production for Usehis article, Parker says: "There seemsreason v . - ! : i y it should not be possible in a

which people control their own::iiio::,5 oi "ark, for a machine to relieve:_ "!::3 : ., and vet not entail boredom," It- - = = - :=:~ i : :- O " w this, that he thinks that__ ::m:ss produ tion are the ame

FORUMthing and, consequently, thinks that memberswho state that there will be no mass productionmethods under socialism are saying that allmachinery will be; abolished. This, of course,is nonsense.In closing, he says, " but don't expect societyto abandon social production of most chairsand tables." Here, again, it would appearthat he equates social production with massproduction-presumably there was no " socialproduction" until mass production methodswere employed!Iagree with Comrade Parker when, he sayshe sees no reason why it should not be possiblein a society in which people control their ownconditions of work, for machines to -relievearduous toil and yet not entail boredom. Butmass production methods preclude the opera-tive from control of their work, compellingthem to:(1) Standardise the machine processes.(2) Operate a single process.(3) Standardise the products.All three points of Parker's description ofmass production, as contained in theencyclo-pedia to which he refers us, demand that peoplemust submit absolutely to a central directingauthority. To standardise the machine pro-cesses must produce the excessive division, oflabour which Parker himself agrees is harmful.To operate a single process produces bore-dom, and I certainly question whether itrelieves arduous toil. Parker certainly givesus no evidence of this. -To standardise the product must meandictation to the consumers as to what they musthave. This is in opposition to a basic socialist

principle-Production for Usc. Production foruse does not mean merely the absence ofexchange; it also means that the needs ofpeople will determine production.Again, all these descriptions of mass pro-duction methods demand the development ofmono-culture and the division of society intolarge towns and rural communities, which mustprevent the all-round development of theindividual.Parker again shows that he do~s not knowmass production methods when he sees them.When dealing with monotonous and repetitivework, he says, "Mass production is said toinvolve monotonous and repetitive work. Soit docs, But so does a great deal of non-mass

SUPER-OPTIMISTSThe members of S,W. London Branch mustbe super-optimists if they reallv seriously thinkthat by raising the dues to 6d. per week theParty will have an income of 1,300 p.a.During the last ten years, including 1952,the income dues has averaged just over 300per annum, and during that time (or most ofit) the Party has had 1,000 members, so Ifail to see how the income from dues is goingto be quadrupled by doubling them .Let us be realists and face the facts.

W.T.A.

production. I wouldn't like to argue that Writingfiguresin a ledger all day is much less repeti-tive than operating an automatic machine."Surely the clerk who is writing figuresin a ledger all day is just as much en-gaged in mass production methods as theoperator of an automatic machine.

Time SavingParker says; " Time is worth saving on anyjob under any system, because it enables us toundertake other jobs or to enjoy leisure."Time saving does not mean the opposite ofwasting time-it means doing everything inthe 'shortest possible time. In fact, the peopleconcerned with saving time are usually foundtrying to kill time .. Why does everybody wantto do things in the shortest possible time?Because of the dictates of market production.It would be interesting to hear what Parkerhas in mind when he writes of leisure. Also,why should people within socialism want to" save time from productive work in order toenjoyother experiences"?Theterms "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 ownpleasure, hobby or recreation, called leisure.The terms' have no reference to what is beingdone, but why it is being done.Under socialism there will not be the con-dition=.nor the idea of "getting a living".Socialism means to me a way of life in whichpeople will have recognised that" the primarynecessity of life is WORK." (Marx).TI1en Parker tries his hand at speed. Hesays" Pace-making is certainly a feature undercapitalism, but remember it is not the machinethat sets the pace, it is the boss." Of course,it is the' machine that sets the pace. Certainlyit is the employer who agrees to the installationof the belt system, but once installed, the paceis set.Mass production machinery and methods area product of property society in which thingsand _'services are produced for a market. Insociety where there is no property, there canbe no place for the whip as used in past society,nor its modem counterpart - whipping-upmachinery and methods. People will work

because they want to and will need no whips,no threats, no promises, no punishment, NOreward.It is easy to write "There are manyways in which mass-production will bedifferent under socialist conditions," butnowhere in the article, or in discussions,have I been told anything about thesedifferences which will make mass- pro-GuCtign methcdsattractive within social-ism. I do hope we shall hear from mem-bers about these differences.

From my point of view, mass productionmethods are even less attractive than thecartoon illustrating Parker's article. Some ofus, however, can find solace in the fact thatneither of these abominations will exist withinsociety where ALL work is useful.

A. TURt'1ER.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

4/8

FORUM February 11953to H. G.

ayden (below) ALL CAN ASSIMILATE AN:Y IDEAS.criticis~ co~sists ~f five para-graphs vhich I will discuss m the orderbich they appear.He quotes two phrases of mine and

< is that I am treading " the very shaky0-" utopism". I am not sure what he- by this, but it is possible that there isL:i1der tanding. When I used the phraseideas" I meant ideas about Socialismworld in which people would live in com-!IE ociation free of all the barriers that:- them apart to-day, and have split themrr in the past. As I pointed out in proposi-. ) thi idea, or these ideas, had emerged

2. result of past development, and once2!! emerged can be passed on to all human~ regardless of their present culture. In.. way, capitalist ideas are at presentpassed on to people in different phases~l1Ie. Even the people of Australia, theON BACKWARD NATIONS (?)"hen McClatchie states" there are noof people anywhere on earth,ardless of their present culture, whoincapable of assimilating socialist- and" so-called backwardnessnothing to do with mental capacity"treads the very shaky soil of utopism.~ern socialist theory was born of theof capitalist society, viz., the poverty

;:ris:OO with wage-labour, economic crises'e sumps) and international war. As these- ,- can only be understood by people"-"'t: received some literary education, and

- - = . . . : : : : . c l i t society needs a working class thatre, then therein are born both problems: : : :e conditions for their solution-a work--:=- capable of understanding them.ale who live in a social environment in= - peasant proprietorship or the tribal

still survives and all or nearly all are-",-- ,=: :an have no conception of, let alone.;-; ocialist ideas. The! problems that~ them are only those of peasants andTo talk of explaining Socialismappropriate to their culture" ise fact that, language and culture~ ~:errelated, then Socialism, which- the higher culture of Capitalism,_ _ : : e "explained" to those in a lower

TJ' i because (a) it is a theory that": 3:~[ed with the problems of primitive:::0':=' societies, and (b) of the illiteracy_~e in question.~ . . . . : . y takes up such problems as heread of capitalist economy over-~ ;:r: -' e earth and its permeation into- --..~ kward peoples will prepare the. : = " = :ae' reception of socialist ideas:-. --- 0 exrent that the mass of them become~ ; : - ; : = lcly dependent upon wages.

~-- _ -e ~ey will have to be rooted in thebefore they can under-ociali m,

II. G. R\)'DE~.

so-called aborigines, are absorbing capitalistculture without passing through the culturalstages that people of the West have passedthrough.(2) When Hayden refers to "modern soc-ialist theory' he evidently has in mind theMarxian analysis of Capitalism and theory ofhistory. It is only necessary for people soakedin Capitalism to grasp these theories in orderto understand the system under which they areliving and to be able to refute the claim thatCapitalism is the best of all possible socialsystems-the final fruition of social development.Further it is not necessary to have a literaryeducation to know that you are poor, insecure,suffering the horrors of war, and that Socialismis a system in which these things will have noplace. It cannot be true that the problems ofCapitalism and their solution arise because

capitalist society needs a literate working class;both the problems and the solution were therebefore there was a literate working class-inthe middle of the last century when the Com-munist Manifesto was written. In fact, Marxhimself pointed out that the problems onlyarise when the solution is present:"The problem and the means of solution. 'arise simultaneously." (Capital,' p.60.)"Therefore, mankind always takes up onlysuch problems as it can solve; since, lookingat the matter more closely, we will alwaysfind that the problem itself arises only whenthe material conditions necessary for its solu-tion already exist or are at least in the processof formation." (Critique of Political Economy,

p.ll.)(3) I have covered the point in this para-graph. People in all forms of society arealready grasping capitalist ideas. This isafact that must be apparent to everybody and isevidence of the fundamental mental similarityof all mankind. Capitalist ideas are morecomplicated than socialist ideas. If people allover the earth can understand these, then it isreasonable to assume that they will have nogreater difficulty in grasping socialist ideas.What does complicate the question now is thatpeople are becoming bemused by capitalistideas before socialist ideas come their way freefrom 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 inwhich human effort can be applied in com-parison with other cultures, then Capitalismstands high; if the standard is the security,comfort and freedom from fear for those livingunder it, then Capitalism stands low in relationto other cultures.To explain Socialism to people who haveabsorbed Capitalist ideas, it is necessary todo so in relation to the Capitalist ideas theyhold. To explain Socialism to people whohave not yet absorbed capitalist ideas, or onlypartly absorbed them, it is necessary to do so

In relation to the tribal or other ideas' theyhold. Of course it would be' absurd to talkof surplus value, crises, .etc., to a Central

Australian native, but that does not mean thahe is incapable of understanding the culturethat we put under the heading of socialistsociety-working together. in harmonious co-operat~on to produce the things we need, inprofusion and for our mutual satisfaction. Thefirst reaction of the Australian native wouldprobably be the same as that of people livingunder Capitalism-" impossible you will haveto change human nature!" Ithas already been~emonstrated that there is no group of peopleincapable, for example, of learning to handlethe most complicated modern machinery. Onthe fringes .of civilised territory, native peopleare now doing the work connected with servic-ing .aeroplanes on the different world routes.When given the opportunity to learn to readand write, they show themselves to be as com-petent students as are to be found anywherein the West.The following quotations indicate that theviews expressed above on the mental similarityof all. groups of people are also held by anthro-pologists and allied investigators:

"We have th~ same brain, perpetuated byreproduction, which worked in the skulls ofbarbarians and savages in by-gone ages."(p.61 Morgan Ancient Society, 1877)" Over and above the sheer intellectual fun ofsurveying humanity at large, there is unlimitedmoral gain to be got in the enlarged conscious-ness of the fact that man is of one kind-thatas a species we are near enough to each other inour. type of mind to share all the thoughts andfeelmgs most wurth.having." (R. R. Marett, Head,Heart and Hands lIZ Human Evolution 1935)

"As far as. is known, all peoples 'are abieto sha~e creatively in all known cultures and totraJ_lsm:~them through education to their off-sprmg. (p.65, Jacobs and Stern, Outline ofAmhropology, 1948)."Tha~ all populations to-day have the samecomplexity of structure of brain and centralnervous system is decisive evidence in favour of theJudgment that all races are potentially equal andthat there are no genetically superior or inferiorra~~s." (p.39, Jacobs and Stern Outline.). Babies ha,:e the same central nervous systemsm all populations, but what they do, think andbecome,. ~eems to depend entirely on custom andon familial or social environment."

(p.60, Jacobs and Stern Outline.i" According to present knowledge, there is noproof that the groups of mankind differ in their

mn~te m_entalcharacteristics, whether in respectof. mtellIg~nc~ or temperament. The scientificeVlder:c.e ~ndIcates that the range' of mentalca?acitles In all ethnic groups is much the same."A.u normal human beings are capable oflearning to share In a common life, to understandthe nature of mutual service and reciprocity andto resl?ect s~cial obligations and contracts. 'Suchbiological differences as exist between membersof different ethnic groups have no relevance toproblem~ of social and political organisationl1l~raI ,~Ife and communication between huma~bem~s.. (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 GConklin, Gunnar Dahlberg, J. S. H~xley,' Ott~K!meberg, H. J. Muller, Joseph Needham, MorrisGInsberg, L. C. Dunn, Levi Strauss, FranklinFrazer and Costa Pintot." The 'p.owers of observation and reasoning ofthe aborigines are identical with our own.""After all, Professor Franz Boas would be the

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

5/8

ary 1953 FORUM 13. gree with me in the contention that

racial theory which would make the humandif ferenr as from one type of humanity tois not scientific." (p.xxxiii, Malinowski,to Coming into Being Among the

Ill Aborigines, by Ashley-Montague.Tills is not to say that the Australianigmal is a being mentally inferior to ourselveshe is incapable of our particular kind ofng, or that he has a pre-logical mentality,hat not. The facts point clearly in theme direction, namely, that the Australianiginal native endowment is quite as good asEuropean's if not better. In support of thestatement, there exists a certain amount of

e of the weightiest kind, such, for example,e opinions of observers who have lived amongfor many years and who are not by any

ns inclined to be prejudiced in their favour.there is the more direct evidence of theof schooling, the rapidity with which the

e learns, and, what is more important, ~hestency with which he generally maintainslearning, as is abundantly borne out by sucht as the recent .achievement ofa school whosers were composed entirely of aborigines,andfor three successive years was ranked as

highest standing school, from the point. ofof scholarship, in Australia. The ease withnatives acquire good English when it isn to them as compared with the difficultywhich the white man acquires the natrve

ge has often been remarked upon byw?iteers.' (p.ll, Ashley-Montague, Coming intog Among the Australian Aborigines, 1937.Itis not helpful just to state that peoplebecome solely dependent upon wagesthey can understand Socialism. It isry to explain what there is about thisy without which mankind is incap-f assimilating ideas about mutual co-Capitalism grew out of Feudalismeudalism out of a chattel slave-basedin the order of Western development.e, therefore, to assume that all cultureso through these three forms? If not,hy is Capitalism the, elected system?is necessary to experience Capitalismsei t precedes Socialism, then surely itlly necessary to experience Feudalismseit preceded Capitalism. In fact, groupsve never known either chattel slavery orare jumping straight into Capitalismstem that has emerged as a result ofevelopment and the ideas of which areexplained to, and assimilated by, peopleIent kinds of culture. What Haydenis that once an idea has emerged, itpassed on. People are not born intoism with capitalist brains. They areithout ideas and are taught them-insociety, tribal ideas; in feudal society,ideas; in capitalist society, capitalist;"11 children can be taught any ideas,grown-ups can assimiliate any ideas,advanced, if sufficient effort is pute process, because humanity at large ise;; :Jtally curious and reasonable.Inthe last paragraph, Hayden is unwit-committing himself to a view that hehold. If all people have to be rooted.::uIurre of Capitalism before they canthe meaning of Socialism, then allr::s saonld De directed towards spread--~r~ cnltnre as widely and as rapidly~ .e, i : . : order IO prepare the way for

G. .'.icC.I....nUlIE.

A BLIND EYE TO ELECl'ORIAL SNAGSThe Errors of Horatio

. . this bankrupt party, impoverished byreckless election spendthrifts ... ""A great deal of useful criticism can belevelled against the party's first electionbattles."". . . rash expenditure on' leaflets' andmeetings . . ." "

-HORATIO.DlD Horatio say that? He. most certainlydid-s-and the quotes (unlike some of hisown) are word perfect. A few well-chosenquotes ripped from their context and suitablyjuxtaposed and you can make anyone sayalmost anything. Then it may be necessary tofill in some ,of the carefully omitted parts inyour own words before you have a crack at ananswer.Such was the technique used by Horatio inhis reply to my article in the first issue ofFORUM. It can be highly successful if thereader is unable to refer back to the originalarticle 01' if, wanting Horatio to be right, hedoes not bother to check.

Strained MisinterpretationFor example, from my statement thatactivity is a short term method, whereas propa-ganda is essentially. a long term policy, hedraws the illogical conclusion that "thereforesocialist propaganda and contesting electionsare opposed" -and attributes it to me. Theactual inference was, of course, merely thatelectioneering was therefore an inferior methodof propaganda.Again, my assertion that the mostsensational methods which are useful toother organisations 'are not necessarilythe best for ours is for some unknownreason taken to indicate an opposition toelections as such.This applies also to his third point, in whichhis misinterpretation is so strained that he takesthree sentences to alter "figureheads" to" leaders" and to infer from this that I thinkthe Party is undemocratic. He does not, how-ever, tell us what other function a candidate hasfrom a propaganda standpoint. It must beremembered that these three statements re-ferred specifically to candidates considered asa propaganda venture, and have nothing to dowith their value as delegates to the House ofCommons, which Horatio cleverly assumes inorder to charge me with denying the Party'sprinciples.Clutching at StrawsAfter mentioning the main purpose for con-testing election, i .e., political representation, Igo on to examine secondary considerations tosee whether" the Patty gains some benefit fromcontesting an election which is not directlyrelated. to this main purpose." This promptsHoratio 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 ofthe propaganda value of elections I point tothe extra indoor meetings which are possiblein the constituencies and say that "'apart from

this it is difficult to see what can be done witha candidate which cannot be done withoutone." Here that bias, which I warned shouldbe guarded against, so blinds Horatio that hereads "these meetings could be held withouta candidate."My critic further tries to make a mountainout of the molehill of the extra 49 worth ofliterature sales at election time-2,OOO pam-phlets, he says! It sounds a lot until weremember that this increase over a period ofsix months does not even cover the extra copiesof the S.S. printed during the election monthitself.He then begins to clutch at straws. Inanswer to my comparison of the inability totrace any enquiries about the Party to election-eering with the numerous replies obtained fromadverts in esperanto journals, he boldly assertsthat these "were made only because we rancandidates" -forgetting that this work wascarried on around the time of the last election,in which NO candidates were put up.Horatio's Positive CaseThe next paragraph is a classic. After takinga number of quotes and semi-quotes from allover the article and juxtaposing them to putme in a false position, he then makes me arriveat an equally false conclusion by taking partof a subsidiary clause from five paragraphsbefore the last quote, misquoting it and stickingit on with a conjuction of his own to suit hisown purposes. Then, realising it doesn't makesense, he re-states the whole thing "in otherwords "-his own, of course. It must be aweak case indeed which drives one as able asHoratio to such contemptible methods.Next comes an appeal to our principles andpolicy. He turns a masterly summary of ourgeneral theoretical position and its applicationinto a rigid dogma. As if eight short para-graphs can answer all the questions in theworld and settle every practical issue thatarises. Even Horatio himself realises the falsityof 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 theworker the difficulties, but making its objectand method clear." Admirably put. I en-deavoured in-my article to assess the practicalconsiderations, and I am convinced that it istime we stopped trying to fool the workers(and ourselves) that we are something wearenot. We should endeavour to bring home tothem our difficulties and the urgent need fortheir support and work, so that we may thesooner be able to seriously challenge the controlof the state machine. J. TROTMAN.~C'\.AA\\._:>~"MUST THE S.P.G.B. CONTEST THE

NEXT ELECTION?"Debate between H. Young & J. Trotmanat Salisbury Road School, Manor Park,

Lonclon. E.128 p.m. Wednesday, February 25th

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

6/8

FORUM February 1953rNATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVPLUTION

he evolution of multicellular organisms,h involves the differentiation of partsans), involves also the development' ofrative mechanisms (the hormonic andsystems) to co-ordinate the organs asam, co-ordinators developing in step withincreasing complexity of organisms. Whatue of organisms which consist of coloniesells is true also of herds, which consist ofnies of individuals. Gregarious animalsmechanisms for quickening the responsesthe unity of the herd, so that, for instance,individual comes to the alert when hisbour does, or so that the signs of sentineleader may be unanimously acted upon:mong many of the higher animals, nottly" gregarious ", sex division involves theinuous association of male and female andyoung, and they therefore posses~ theanisms for this continuous association-essiven~ss, protectiveness, sympathy, dom-ce, submission, etc. They. communicateneeds or intentions, by purring, barking,ng, by song and dance. The parents teachxample, rebuke or reward, the young learnlay the arts of defence and attackthe gregarious animals, the socialnct is not merely one among others,

Correspondence and articles shoufd bent to FORUM, S.P.G.B., 52, Claphamh St., London, S.W. 4. Subscriptionsmonths, 7/6d, 6 months l/9d. Chequesd P.O.'s should be made payable to:-

E. Lake, S.P.G.B.

--_.: ._--ere is a decided and welcome increasee amount of matter we are receiving forcation. We have no complaints aboutHit continues and we were faced withaccumulating surplus, the only remedybe an increase in the amount of matterlished. This possibility would only beed if the cost of the increase was coveredales. In the interest of this new venture,important that the maximum sales areed throughout all the companion parties.

---.:+--COMRADES ABROAD

ge Gloss, Boston, U.S.A, article receivedbe published in March FORUM.~ RRoss, Victoria, B.C., Canada. Yourreferred to Frank Evans, who will deal

e observations you make.eezinzs to both and our assurance that we:ili:ra~ be plea ed to hear from the U.S.A.Canada,

4-S0CIAL MANbut paramount. It conditions the expres-sion.ef the other instincts-even the 50-called first law of nature, self-preserva-tion-for the group is the means by whichthe individual survives.

Apparatus of SocialityThe physical apparatu~ of sociality are thesympathetic mechanism, the' imitative facultyand suggestibility-heightened in man by hisrefinement, particularly, of vision and voice as.the receivers and transmitters of communica-'tion. Men have an extraordinary subtlety of,vocal .infiexion and facial expression, and, as.its counterpart, an extraordinary ability to'grasp at a glance a thousand permutations ofvoice and face (of which words are the slow

and laboured accessory)-receivers and trans-.mitters which respect the need for socialreference. The' measured artificial word is a'precision tool of labour: as flesh and bloodwe link by song and dance-the voice singsand .the face dances. By the interplay offrontal, orbital and naso-labial muscles weexpress not merely lust but affection, tender-ness; 'devotion; not merely fear, but horror or :anxiety; not merely anger or pleasure, but'disgust, admiration, suspicion, irritation, grief,approbation, resignation. A smile may varyfrom 'a ghost to a grin, a laugh may be full orempty, the lips are compressed differently fordetermination or disapproval, differently pursed.for doubt or disappointment.Refinement of the organs of communication,proclaims the natural need for kinship, ante-acedent to the social development which locksus in the bonds of labour and elaborates thelinguistic conventions. The development oflanguage itself depends on the sympathetic andimitative faculties which are mechanismsof theherd instinct. We show disgust, for instance,by wrinkling the nose as in retreat from asmell; the "faugh" of contempt spits out theoffending notion or blows it away as a thingof ti~account; the head is raised in defiance,while in the shrug of resignation it is tucked

into the shoulders to ride the blow which can-not. be avoided; the eyes creep sidelong insuspicion, in disdain they look down half -closedupon .the low person hardly worth noticing.The voice in turn mimics the face-in doubtor question, for instance, the rising inflexionimitates the raised eyebrows (raised to widenthe field of vision, to place in perspective thething in .doubt).Imitative and Suggestible

The imitative tendency enables us to learnwithout being taught, as a baby learns to smileor a child to talk, or as we adopt the ways andaccents of those we live among. Grimaces andgesticulations evoke incipient movements of thesame kind in the auditor (although sometimestoo slight to be detected without apparatus).This ostensive, unconscious learning facilitates

the identification and assimiliation of self withothers it quickens the responses and the unityof the herd.The same tendency, when it is applied tothe field of sentiments, attitudes, feelings, iscalled "suggestibility". Although we noticeour suggestibility mostly in the more violent(so-called pathological) forms, in panic andpogrom: in hysteria 'and hypnosis, it is a neces-sary structure for social behaviour, an organof social creatures. It is the mental counter-part, for the animal who thinks, of the sym-pathetic and imitative apparatus. Itconstitutesa permanent gravitational pull towards accept-ing 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 reasonwould be slow and uncertain, as teachinginfants to talk by grammar would be impotent,and would therefore retard social cohesion.Suggestibility dispenses with the need forcumbrous reasoning: it is reason enough thata 'certain attitude prevails. It does not eliminatethe critical self, but it ensures that the self issubjected to the unifying pressure of groupsentiment. It quickens the responses and theunity of the herd.In the crowd (the match or the meeting orthe stupid hoky-koky), we forget ourselves, ourinhibitions inhibited by the pressure, in the

l\::.;ht mass, of the sympathetic mechanisms.\7ith gregarious creatures, attitudes are irre-s.stible in proportion as they are unanimous,and it is this which underwrites the power ofpropaganda and leadership and advertisementand hypnotism. It is the knowledge that thegreat leader has a gr~at following that givesweight to his words, in proportion as hepersonifies, represents, a mass of men. Advert-isement achieves the same result by evokingmass sentiments (" a man's drink ", a " Britishproduct ") and by repetition, for repetition isonly a crowd by instalments. In the hypnoticstate, the voice of the hypnotist is the subject'swhole sensual world, represents the voice of allmankind, and it is this which gives his sugges-tion its irresistible force-e-provided it does notconflict with the moral code of the subject,that is, with his moral world.

Never AsocialWhat we call the" herd instinct" in othergregarious animals becomes in thinking menthe high susceptibility to approval or dis-approval, which is the core of his psyche andmagnetic north of his behaviour. It is not anaccident that the word" like" has two mean-ings: to be like is to be liked. Of all creatures,only man blushes-s-approval or disapprovalwill so disturb his nervous system as to effect

the somatic functions. He signals his socialdistress to a social world, which will respondto the confession and mitigate its judgment.In men, the most individuated and anarchist

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

7/8

953 15=::c-cious creatures, the impulse to accept-._~ _ a cept, in order to be accepted byis e all-powerful mechanism of social:::~.e centre of gravity of human mind.s .0":lS may be called "social" or "un-! ill they are never asocial; all the

- = e s 0: men-protective, dominating, sub-rain ambitious, competitive, virtuous- :,'"'ty-reflect the thirst for approval.difference in the' behaviour of the goodc:::i zh e bad is one of method, not motive.

wanted, the neglected, the illegitimate,wildered, the unsure delinquent, will- somewhere and somehow the modicum:;:~TCya1 and acceptance his sociality:s. or ki k you to pieces in desperation.veness uies to conquer by force thefear of social unacceptibility. Born-2::i inflated behaviour generally, reveal.-xious fear of inadequacy. Servility hopesarre the small change of compassion, and:" Xr : to preserve a status felt to be insecure.:c: the form but the fact of flattery that: o r it is that that flatters. Hypocrisy is::. ::::!.ageof egotism pays to sociality, and

isarion ", the finding of good reasons

WHATfollowing are a personal idea of theafter a new generation has grown upsocial conditions.

Communities.r- e will live in large communal commun-0: various forms, which will be scatterede ountry amid surroundings that are'- t and healthy. Each community will be orting as far as is practicable. Each:::;';::!udethe factories that are essential aschools, laboratories, playing-fields,and the like. Also included will be= -. domestic animals and arable land. for-. +egetables and fruit.communities will be connected with. ot er by transport systems and othercommunication. They will have store-"" IV en UTe and adequate and regular0: what is needed. There wiIl be hostsets and the like scattered about thes suitable surroundings, where couples: 'S can temporarily play-act and dream~e .oeether.21i1: i i .n! lS whether fo~ habitation, for

- ,,_ :0-;- entertainment will be fitting for~ " T V 1 " ' P < : ; harmonious, rhythmical andThere will be no huge factory areas,- - :2ere be great expanses given over to

:::0;), fruit and the like. Gigantic_ _ uge liners and other monstrousof man's ingenuity will also be absent.

:::::suitable centres there will be large":!:';:

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 5 Feb

8/8

FORUM February 195the nature of the work and the pleasurediscomfort it gives.

The buildings that comprise the factory willspacious, airy, well lighted and harmonious.e internal decorations will be such as con-ce to pleasure, including perhaps fountains,ols, flowers, statuary and pictures, wherepropriate, as well as the provision of music.Those who work in the factories will consistgroups of men, women and children of alls working together in harmonious co-opera-n for useful ends. They will not be placestoil but places of interesting and pleasurableupation. There will not be overseers totch that no time is wasted, nor will thereany need for speed-ups. Children will workthese factories as part of their general educa-

PAROCHIALMUST congratulate Gilmac on having thecourage to "stick his neck out" in such ahion as above. The interest taken, by thoseh inside and outside the Party in this sub-t is out of all proportion to the meagreount written on it. It is much to beretted that some members still cling to thethat propagating Socialism consists onlyanalysing Capitalism. Those who are re-tant to talk of the future should remembert present disagreements about it are alwaysly to be resolved by fuller discussion of thees involved,Yet I must confess that I nearly always findcriptions of the future a disappointment-aps because their authors cannot help beinguenced by the past and the present. Iw that whatever Gilmac or I or any otherialist thinks the future will be' like (and ituld be very unimaginative of us if we hadmental picture of it) our visions, mustessarily be crude and somehow smaller than. "To anyone who has at all adequatelylised the significance of the past evolutionmankind, all our halting millennial dreamsby comparison puny and impotent; thespective vision of accomplished fact is thest fantastic of all Utopias."

Communitieslthough he refers to communities as "large",rything he subsequently writes about themms to show he really means" small '.halets scattered about the country, self-porting as far as possible, the horse' andsailing boat-I get the impression thatse are the things Gilmac really likes, thethat he wishes to predominate. Theition of transport systems and machinery,ying that the communities would producefor themselves-all these seem to berimposed on the main picture as after-ugbts or concessions in a attempt to disarm

Travelhat particularly concerns me is the appli-of a principle, mentioned by Gilmac inwords "the world will have become a unit".r., concept of unity, wholeness, oneness,

tion. When a child knows it is taking part insome work that is useful and real, it is farmore interested and anxious tolearn than whenit is doing something that is just make-believe.Also factories will not be just machine shops;they will be the communal workshops whereeverything can be made and each can have thesatisfaction of accomplishing something newand original when seized by the desire to do so.-'Jobs that are purely repetitive will be per-formed by some agreeable system of rotation.The same method will be adopted if ithappens that there is a branch of work to bedone which is unavoidably unpleasant.

EducationAs education and experience will be many-sided and practical, there will not be theORGANISATION AND(Comments on "What Socialism will be Like ')universality-call it what you will-is surelythe essence of Socialism. It is inconceivableto me that people will be in any way parochialin their social organisation or in their thinking.Gilmac obviously has this in mind when hesuggests that people will travel to other partsfor temporary periods and extensively in theiryouth. But" in their youth" suggests to methat the norm will be little or no travel, andthis impression is backed up by the methodsof travel that he forecasts will be prevalent.Gilmac sees horses and sailing boats oustingcars and aircraft for popularity, Let us leaveaside the question of amusement and concen-trate on the practical aspect. Any change inthe means of transport-any change that isgoing to be more than a temporary phase or~n isolated instance-is bound to be progress,that is, more efficient, more fit for its purposeand not less.. This question of travel is not in itselfimportant, but is, I think, symptomatic ofother features of 'society. In this connexion itshould be noted that, whether or not we thinkit desirable to preserve the techniques of pro-duction that Capitalism has brought into being,there remains the element of necessity that mayoverride other considerations. Marx did notunderestimate this practical aspect:

"Men never relinquish what they have won,but this does not mean that they never relinquishthe social form in which they have aquiredcertain productive forces. On the contrary,in order that they may not be deprived of theresult attained and forfeit the fruits of civil-isation, they are obliged, from the moment whenthe form of their intercourse no longer corres-ponds to the productive forces acquired, to changeall their traditional social forms."Let ter to Annenkoo, Selected Correspondence, p.8

UniversalityAny picture that I attempted to paint of thefuture would be coloured by a much greaterdegree of contact, awareness and knowledgethan exists now or is suggested in Gilmac'snotes. Universality is no mere idea in men'sheads-it is rooted in material conditions. Itwill 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

comparatively isolated specialisation that . Icommon to-day, which requires single-mindeconcentration for years. Outstanding perform-ances by people who dedicate their lives to onepursuit only is unlikely. On the other hanit is probable that most people will eventualljsettle into occupations they prefer, but wiuhave other interests as well.When people will be free from commerciconsiderations, have a full and many-sidededucation, take joy in what they do and in theapprobation of their fellows, it is conceivablethat these conditions themselves will act as aspur to superlative achievement.

G. MCCLATCHIE.

universal means used to bring it about.As an example, let us take the- disseminationof news. It is reasonable to suppose that, afterelimination of "po.Iitics", society gossip,murders, etc., there will still be a demand forinformation about what is going on in theworld-a demand that will probably be en-hanced in otherdirections. In social organisa-tion prior to Capitalism, "the world" consistedof a tribe, a village, or at most a city. To-day,our news is largely national and, to a certainextent, international. With Socialism it willbecome world-wide, which does not necessarilymean the absence of more localised news. Itis impossible to foretell what the means ofmass communication will be, but it seems likelyt'iat there will be an increase rather than adiminution in the points of social contact.

Organic UnityPerhaps a better word to describe the worldthan "unit" would be "organism". Thiscomplex organism, which has grown from thesingle cell, is at present diseased, but thetrouble is not.to be remedied by removing someof the nerve fibres. When the treatment (socialrevolution) is given, the patient (humanity)won't become simpler-he will just be madeto "work" better.So "gigantic buildings, huge liners and othermonstrous products of man's ingenuity" mightconceivably be adapted to the needs of the newsociety. For it is not so much the size of thebuildings that is monstrous, but the uses towhich they are at present put. I am preparedto envisage some gigantic buildings underSocialism only because they might be moreconvenient in which to administer certainaffairs than another type of building.The world won't be a unity because lotsof people in communities will think it isa unity. It will be so because materialdevelopments will have taken place (farmore extensive Jhan any of us can nowforecast) that will knit people togetherin society as indissolubly as the separate

cells in their bodies are knit together.S.R.P.

Published by S.P.G.B., 52 ClaphamHigh Street, S.W.4 & Printed by L. ,E. Westwood Ltd., (T.U,) 14 Kingsbury IGreen Parade, t'-J.W.9