8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

1/8

FORUM 6d.INTERNAL JOURNALOF THE S.P.G.BNo. 29 February 1955SCIE ~C,E AND SUPERSTITION

There has been steady pressure to - securethe resignation or expulsion from the Partyof those who criticise the Object and D of P,in part or in whole. ~This has culminated inthe decision of the E.C. to call a Party pollon the subject -

"Shall members of the Party whodo not accept its' Object andDeclaration of Principles becalled upon to resign, and if theyrefuse to do so, their membershipbe terminated."This position has only' arisen since themembers concerned, explicitly questioned theD of P. Exactly the same arguments,when previously put without mentioning- theD of P, aroused hardly any serious pro-test. But as soon as the D of P was actu-ally mentioned, angry cries arose.To an ordinary observer, this would

strongly suggest that the D 0 . P was anemotive symbol, dear to members in exactlythe same way as the flag is dear to patriots,and the cross is dear to Christians. We inthe Party, however, know that this is~'riottrue.: the D of P is simply a rational state-ment of aims, facts and suggestions for action.It is a very fine statement and shows clearlythe development of Socialist ideas which hadbeen reached in 1904.Already in 1904 Socialist ideas had de-veloped beyond the views put forward byMarx and Engels. Quite a number ofthings which Marx and Engels originallystated, such as the position on war, we dis-owned, because the Party represented a fur-ther stage of development. 'This happenednot so much because there had been greatchanges in capitalism since Marx's time,but rather because the particular ideas inquestion could now be seen to be inadequate,as a result of the development in Socialistideas themselves.

This development is still going on. It isgoing on in the heads of members of theParty. Up till recently, it was generallyfelt, that the modifications of view which hadso far appeared could be squared with theD of P, by giving certain phrases a particu-lar interpretation. Nsw, however, severalmembers have begun to take the view thatthe D of P' is' acting as a~fetter on, the' fur-ther development of Socialist ideas and wantto bring the wholequestion~ of a D of Punder the arc-light of discussion.They point out that this urge to bring thewhole D of P under discussion is somethingnew in the Party. It represents a revolu-tionarychange in Party attitudes. For thatreason alone, it would seem to be wisest tolet the dissenters continue to elaborate andClarify their views, until all members canhave an opportunity to hear the .full story and

make up their own minds o n the actual differ-.ences involved.The attitude has been, however, ','Let themget outside the Party. Then I'll discusspoints of difference with them." 'To saythis is to say that Socialist ideas cannot befurther developed. Yet we know that theycan, because our ideas are different in somerespects ,from Marx's 'ideas. There seemsto be a contradiction here.1f the Socialist Party is to develop Social-istideas-and one would have thought thatthis was one of its most important jobs---itmust permit discussion, even of the D of P.To put dissension outside is to' refuse-to learn

from it; because it is shallow hypocrisy to say"Get outside; then I'll consider your views."The SpeB as at present constituted onlyconsiders the views of outsiders in order tobash ,them.To refuse to discuss the D of P with othermembers is to say that the D of P must beaccepted without question. Yet how we

should jeer at any other organisation whichrequired unquestioning acceptance oJ itscreed!The D of P is not handed down fromGod; it is the work of men like ourselves.blinkered and confin~d in a capitalist world.Like all other things, it is good within cer-tain limits and under certain conditions. Ifthis is so, it must he legitimate to discusswhether those limits have been reached, andwhether, those conditions have changed.Yet unquestioning acceptance is what thisPoll asks us to vote for. It asks us to votefor a Party consisting exclusively of men andwomen who have pledged themselves neverto question their Declaration of Principles.Christians can-and do-criticise the Bible:but the Socialist Party must never criticiseits Declaration 0 . Principles. Communistscan-and do-:-discuss the works of Stalin:

hut the Socialist Party must never discuss itsDeclaration of Principles. Scientists can-and do-s-question the Law of Gravity, theLaw of Causation, and Newton's FourthLaw of Hydrodynamics: but the SocialistParty must never question its Declaration ofPrinciples.Many of U5 joined this party because webelieved it stood for Scientific Socialism. Ifthis Poll were carried, it would put an al-most unbearable strain on our loyalty; forif it passes. this resolution, the party stopsbeing scientific. It becomes a religious orga-nisationvcomplete with infallible texts, sac-red founders, and all that follows. In fact,it becomes worse than many of the existingreligions. Nearly all of them permit dis-cussion of their sacred texts and dogmas.The Party was, founded on the basis ofmass understanding. In all the Party'spropaganda down the years, there has alwaysbeen one keynote. T,h,c workcr~, mus t ' under-

sta1nd, we said, before Socialism cain b e

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

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

2/8

FORUM February 1955

But this resolution doesn't mentionIt only speaks of acceptance.hat's something new itl the Party. Andt's something none of us can feel proud of.Talk about understanding, and you're on

he side of science; talk about acceptance andou're right in the territory of superstition.nderstanding can develop - acceptancean't. Y oucan understand more and more asme goes on~but you either accept or youon't accept .And if the development of understandingrings one to question the D of P, the cureor that is not to refuse to develop-to, throwut all chance 0 . over developing-but toeet the arguments on their own ground, ate next 'conference. j.c. ROWAN.

EDITORIALTh;s issue represents quite well the various

unctions of FORUM-internal matt~rs,fo " new speakers, questions of orgarnsa-ion, information about new developments inociety, and theoretical discussion. Thesere the things which FORUM was foundedcontain.We feel that FORUM is doing a good

ob in the Party. If it has sometimes seemednbalanced, that is the fault of membersemselves, for not JNriting the letters andrticles which would have corrected any suchaults. Today, new writers are contributing

and' more, and the balance is noticeablyproving. What is needed now is forranches to help boost circulation.Members and branches have, in the past,ften discontinued their subscriptions when auccession of articles have displeased themor some reason. This is not fair. Thetandard of FORUM, and the type ofrticles included, must vary a good deal fromme to time. If branches and membersupport it loyally, there is some hope of itnrovinz and eventually becoming all that~ may desire of it. If they withdraw theirupport, FORUM will be less and less likelybe of use or value to the Party.We therefore call on all branches to takee maximum number of copies which theyossibly can, and to push them in every waytheir branch membership. We call on

entral Branch, and individuals andranches abroad and in the Companionarties, to place regular orders, so that alid Party circulation is ensured.And we call on writers-particularlyriters who have not yet contributed-toeep contributing more and 'more articles, soat we can make every issue a balancedxpression of the life of the Party,

THE ELECTRONIC ORACLEAt an indoor meeting last year (1 953) the

view was expressed that the organisation ofthe socialist world would be complicated.For this reason it would be necessary to electthe most suitable people to he the seniororganisers or executives. '.As this viev - ap-peared to be held by a number of the mem-bers present, a few brief comments here willnot be out of place.Firstly, why should it be necessary to

elect such people? Is it thought that therewill be some fiddling? Will their friends gettwo jars of jam, instead of one everyone elsewill get? I. t should he obvious- that the mostsuitable person, mall or woman, will do thework, and a ballot will be unnecessary. Inclass society it is necessary to vote for Presi-dents etc., because there are groups withconflicting interests, and the vote measuresthe support 0f the different sections andgroups. In this way a divided society ismade to be as an harmonious unit. I see, nofuture of socialist society that resembles this,and so voting will not he necesasry.Although people realise that their own

jobs in capitalist society are quite straight-forward, administration, which does not seemto be the occupation of a large number ofsocialists, is thought to be extremely complex,and to require genius, to say the least. Thisis also thought to apply to socialist society,despite the fact that they know that thesocialist world will be much less complexthan the present class society, capitalism. Toarrange to send tea from India to the thirstymillions in England, or Alaska, in these daysof high speed communication and transport,does not require originality, or even brains.If there are good harvests all over the world(and a blue moon, because that is just aslikely) some of the produce may not be used,and we will all have worked two minutestoo long that year. It will be sad !To some, it is so much more difficult towork out a railway timetable, than to make

a good table and chair. :But is it really?Just as machines can be built to make things,such as chairs, so they can be made to docalculations. In "The Human Use ofHuman Beings" a book by Norbert Wiener,we learn that these sorts of calculations arechild's play to an electronic brain. All ex-ample of a fairly recent use of an electronicbrain on a more complex problem, in the fieldof politics, or military strategy, shows vividlythe poteniialities of these new machines. Foraccording to Robert jungk, a journalist ,

when General MacArthur was dismissedfrom his command in the Far East a fewyears ago, a deciding factor in the matterwas the calculations of an electronic braincalled SEAe. He has described the situ-ation as follows, in a recent book."The General stood for a strategy which

would have led our country on to the brink,or even into the middle of a world war.Here in Washington there were many adher-ents of the strong policy. The Presidentmight perhaps have had to bow before themin the end if SEAe had not delivered anobjective argument. We ran calculationson the thinking machine for several dayswhich we formerly' would not have attempt-ed to do at all because it would have takenvears. We had to work out how Americaneconomy in all its sectors would react to asudden entry into war at this moment. SEACgave the answer in clear, unambiguous num-bers; even the intensification of aggressiveaction demanded by the General wouldcause a considerable shock to our economicsystem; an outbreak of war at this momentwould be premature and might easily be un-favourable to us. Every proposal advanced,every strategic variant was figured out bySEAC down to its final consequences."T'omotrot is Alrmdy Here. by Robert

jungk. (Pages 228 & 9).Even if this report is somewhat exagger-

ated, it does show" The Shape of Things toCome."Incidentally other examples are given in

the same chapter explaining how electronicbrains are being used to forecast economictrends, and test and develop methods ofmilitary strategy, which should be understoodby any man of ordinary intelligence andeducation.As all the applications of such calcula-tions, to be of any use, require action at anational level. nationalisation or governmentcontrol (call it what you will) spreadssteadily day by day in the "Bulwark ofPrivate Enterprise". This is an interestingexample of a new technique transforming asociety, in a matter of detail, without being(or at any rate winning) a political issue.Science is often making previous argumentson the nature of socialist society nonsensical.In conclusion, the writer apologises for this

brief treatment of such important themes. Adetailed study is needed, and if this contri-bution provokes someone to make it, thisspace will not have been wasted.

ROBERT.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

3/8

F e b r u a r y 1 9 5 5 107ORUM

HEREDITY ANDABILITY

Comrade Bott originally proposed to dealwith my view that innate individual variationcannot be dismissed without dismissing thebasis of biological evolution. He now atany rate accepts natural selection as .. onefactor" in it, so I gladly leave it at that-bar catching up on some of the misrepresen-:tations which have had twelve months start.It is common ground and common know-

ledge that organic evolution proceeds bycreation and elimination 'O f species, not bythe gradual modification of one species intoanother. A species remains virtually un-changed until it !becomes extinct. Thehuman species is a product of .organic evolu-tion, and it does not cease to be an animalbecause it 'has a special capacity for sociallabour, nor does the evolution of that labourmake him a different an'imal. Being an ani-mal, he has the qualities o,f organism, inher-ent in which is >theinnate individual variationwithout which organic evolution would nothave been possible. And these va'riationscould not be the raw material of natural se-lection, could not have survival value, if theydid not affect performance. They affect per-formance whether a species is pushed aroundby environment or whether (as with man) hepushes his environment around. There seemsto be no practicable way of knowing howmuch or how little specific performances areaffected by innate endowment, and no pointin knowing, for it has no bearing on our.. naive" case against leadership.The dismissal of hereditary influence ondifferences in men's abilit ies seems to be partof the new absolute idealism which dismissessocial or historical laws, and affirms the abso-lute equality 0 0 individuals, thus discredit-ing the Party and the effort to discussSocialist society (which establishes the socialequality of unequal individuals). \Vhethcl'in mistaken fear of some geneticists' crackpotviews on leadership, or for any other reason,no useful purpose is served by refusing toacknowledge a fact of nature-hereditaryvariation and its effect on performance. Likethe human hand, the very range of humanvariation in detail assists economic evolution,as a magnification of opposable thumbs-asimile lost on Comrade Bott, who seems to

think my statement that the special structureof the human animal makes history p o ' s - s i b l emust mean that history is a biological process.So he prefers to use the .. valuable space"saved by refusing to say where I have mis-represented him to insist again that I holda biological interpretation of 'history, in spiteof what I have stated and repeated in repu-diation of it, Nothing I have said justifieshis .. assuming that Evans regards naturalselection as a force in the evolution of civil-ised man". Nowhere have I suggested.. that there is' in general any selecting ofhuman types in the evolution of civilisedman '. No one has more unequivocably heldto what is sometimes called .. economic de-terminism " . To speak (as I do) of naturalselection as the mechanism which has pro-duced the human species, is one thing, but tospeak (as he does) of natural selection as aforce in the evolution of civilised man, isquite another: in the first case the thingevolved in an animal (man) ;in the secondcase the thing evolved is civilisation (society).But 'having thus made one unobtrusive changein the terms, he then makes another by re-placing the more demure phrase .. a consi-derable force" by the bold .. selecting ofhuman types ". The operation of imputinga biological interpretation of history is thuscompleted by successive verbal changes eachof which is hardly noticeable like the game-of changing, say, the word .. white" into.. black." one letter at atime in as few movesas possible: white, whine, chine, chink,clink, clank, clack, black.It is this sort of verbal play which is thequality of his latest rash 0 . science as it wasof the earlier ones, and when he asks ifthere is a sense which transcends commonsense it invites the answer: yes, transcenden-tal nonsense. It is the combination 0 . am-biguousness and verbal sleight-of-hand whichmakes rejoinder at length impracticahle-even the dissection of a few samples is apainfully wordy business. For instance, hejustifies the carelessness which permits himto say in one breath that man thinks withwords, and in the next that he thinks withhis tools (i.e., hammer and chisel, notwords) by a quotation in which .. words are

tools" (of the mind-i.e., not hammer andchisel). F rom the passage I called carelesshe repeats the sentence: "Thinking in manalmost exclusively involves the use of words. . . ", but only Bott knows what thismeans. No one else knows whether he meansto exclude most other creatures (i.e., " think-ing in man, almost alone, involves the use ofwords") or whether it excludes kinds ofhuman thinking which don't involve words(Le., "thinking in man almost always in-volves the use 0 . words "). Of comradeBott's "good company" only one offerssomething more than platitude, and all com-bined say less on the matter of thinking,words and labour than was already said inForum No.4, p. 3. We have a world towin and nothing to lose but our dependenceon quotation.

It is only a half truth, anyway, that think-ing depends on having words to think with.The converse is also true, that clear expres-sion depends on clear thinking. .. Careless "was felt to be a term kinder than wasdeserved. Never kick a gift horse in theteeth. It happens that with no other writerdo I .have to read every other sentence somany times to see that 'he doesn't mean whathe says, and to these must :be added those inwhich he has shifted the issue. ComradeBott was allowed to start off, no doubt ingood faith, on a note of preliminary personaldisparagement (which is known to be usedsometimes as a debating trick). No doubt ingood faith, having ohased his red herringsback to where they started, he has left atrail of confusion and misrepresentation" im-putting silly notions which can only prejudicewhat I have nearly finished saying in critic-ism of the Party position. He no doubtsuspects my adhering to the single term.. variation" as signifying an ignorance ofcontemporary evolutionary theory which hemust correct-not suspecting that approxi-mation may assist the creative use of know-ledge as distinct from its simple display(which also has its uses). He seems to havebecome all too soon tuned in to the Partywave-length-s-our assumption of superiorknowledge vis a vis the world, and there-fore in practice (because we really have noother audience) as between ourselves. Weare an incorrigible bunch.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

4/8

-----------,--,---,---------~-----FORUM

Y CHThe word "History" itself, apart froman; is a mere abstraction thatcan have noeaning. History is with man, and for manlone; 'Outside of man there can be no "His~ry", no "Time", no "Destiny". F urther-ore, all history is willed history, as thereever was, and never will he History that isot willed by man.To Comrade Evans, who accepts - theis governed by laws

of the will of man" -and whoas given us much of his time, explaining inis own particular manner what the MCH is,it means, how it achieves its ends, itsesults, and its destiny, Iask him these fouruestions: (1) What could history do with-ut the will of man? (2) What does itight without the will of man? (3) Whatit possess? (4) What meaning' can itve independent of the will of man? Iould he ever so pleased to have these four

answered by Comrade Evans, orny other member and supporter of theCH, who is quite openly prepared to

th e MCH in writing, and not onlyy mere lip service, and complete ignorancef what it really impl ies . For I have veryttle doubt that a great number of the mem-ers have given the MCH very little (if any)ought, and that also goes for the men on thexecutive and Editorial Committees, and theORUM Committee. However, Ishall tryprove to' you in this article my reasons forinking so ; of course, if I am answered bynyone of you in a satisfactory manner, Ihall discard my method of thinking, and

a disciple of the "Materialistic Con-ption of History."But if you now, the "Materialist", ask me,Ithink History is willed, Ianswer:

Because production is willed." Why, youay ask, is production wil led? Answer:Because survival of life is willed, and thisecause propagation of the species is willedespite the shortness o f the individual span offe", and here we get a motive for life andNtGI1i willed' life prior to know ing andd er sta nd in g. w ih at if llJQS; he produced prio r

hal)ing Gn]) ,~ l1o 'w le,dg:e o f pro ductio n; hem u rder ed a in d d es tr oyed prior to ha v-g ain]) co mplete idea of w hat he W as doing.Therefore, here I also disagree with S.R.P.ho puts forward the primacy of the "idea"the development of man. I claim, on thentrary, that the "idea" is a secondary fac-r in production and reproduction, and thate "will" is primary, in that the "deed"

F eb ru a ry 1955

llE E Tthe contrary, we must face up to them, butnot as mere dreamers, not as Utopia-builders,and not as men that look into the futurewith arrogant optimism. Such men will neverunderstand the real meaning of what exis-tence implies; it is men who understandwhat I S going on under their noses, and whoare prepared to base their thought and actionon the "now" instead of day-dreaming of the"Never-Never Land" that will never comeinto existence; that is the sort of men wemust have, and need badly. Man wills tolive; it is his most powerful urge, all otherurges are secondary; his ideas, dreams andfancies and knowledge, are only a cloak forthe will , for beneath this cloak of know-ledge, he is practically on a par with thelower animals, if not in many respects worsethan them. In no age, in no civilisation, hasman ever produced 'Such destructive weapons,for the intent not only to kill and maim, butfor a complete destruction that would van-quish for ever all the progress that man hasever made in his long and wearisome journeythrough social evolution.

The ~1ass WillIdo not drift away from the cntrcism 'Of

the MCH when I deal with such possibilities,in fact, it is just thesepossihilities which givemore power to my case against the MCH.However, as the "Materialist" does notaccept the "will" as a factor in History,and thinks that everything will turn out allright, independent of any willing, Icannotsee where he has a case at all, or even aleg to stand on, unless it be a wooden one.Of course the ",Materialist" may well

ask me-",How do you account for childrenborn into capitalist society, and would yousay that they willed that society?" Answer:"No, not consciously; but in that he or shewilled life, they did, part ly, and unconsciouslywill the system that they were horn in.o, astheir forbears willed to bring them into thatsociety, and also willed to have and main-tain that society"; for i f they did not willit, and will to bring children into it, itcertainly would not have existed.However, I hope it will be understood

that I am not just dealing with individualwills, for I am quite well aware that thereare individuals who do not will fully to sup-port any particular society, although they all

was prior to the word. But then again, asit is the "Materialists" Iam dealing withhere, I shall not go into S.R. P' s view-points.)It is possible that a great many "Material-ists" will not.ias yet, be fully satisfied withwhat I have said, in order. to dinrove theMCH. For Iwii l certainly be -asked bythe "Materialists": "Why did man willChattel Slavery,F eudalism and Capital ism ? "Answer: "Because he wanted these systems;ifl1e did not want them they certainly wouldnot have been there." Again, Iwill beasked: "Why did he want these particularsystems at certail1 periods and not in others?"Answer: "Because they served his ends, hisarts, his spirit at that particular period."Again I will he . asked: "\Vhy did they sat-isfy his ends, arts and spirit, at that particu-lar period and not in others?" Answer:"Because the ends, arts and spirit, had mean-ing only in that particular period, and couldnot fI~uri-sh tully in other periods or culturesthan .the spirit and soi l from which theysprung." -For instance, take ancient civilisations like

the Mexican, Indian, Egyptian, Chinese,Greek and Roman; they had much similarmethods of production, but their methods ofarchitecture, arts, sense of "Tim~", of"Space", of "Mathematics", differed 11 1many ways. But, then again the "Materi-alist" might well come again and say to me-"Look you here my dear friend, there isa slight possibility you have something there,and there may be a little truth in what yousay, but that is certainly not the 'real'issue, and all you have been say-ing up tonow proves very little, for there could have -been no Mexican" Indian, Egyptian, Chi-nese, Greek and Roman cultures and civili-zations if there were no labour and produc-tion, and that's where the MCH comes inand your 'will' goes out." Yes, Iagreewith you my ;friend to a certain extent, in thatall cultures and civilizations rest on labourand production, but let me again remind youwhat I havealready asserted, "that produc-tion is willed", and so my friend if my "will"goes out, then so does "Prod uction" , Forwithout the will to produce for the "now"and the "future" there would be no societiesat all, socialist or otherwise, as there wouldbe no life.We certainly wiI! not be wise men if we do

not at least consider these realities, especiallywhen they are all staring us in the face; on

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

5/8

b r u a r y 1 9 5 5 FORUM 109artly will to maintain them to a certainxtent; i-t i s the mass will of society I mean,or that is what holds society together. Thatman did not ask: to be iborn into any par-

icular culture, civilisation or society is nooubt true, hut nevertheless his forbearsilled them, and willed to bring him intoem, therefore he must bear the brunt ofat willing; of which ,he is a product. Toay that he is entirely innocent is to miss theark, and evade the "real" issue that is atake. For this would also mean that their foreears were innocent as well of the systemey lived in, and that they never willed itore than the newborn babe.The "Materialist" is still no-t satis-fiedith what I have said, and begins shakingis head, and tries to tell me that the willnot a factor at all, and all I have beenying does no-t refute the MCH. I say toe "Materialist", "then why my friend doese society exist if it is not willed?"Are we to believe that a society existsdependent of any will a-t all, any desire toaintain it and keep it functioning, whetherbe in the interests of Feudal Barons or theapitalist Class or any other Class?

Are we also to believe that exploitationis not willed, revolution is not willed, andWar is not willed, and that it all just hap-pens independent of human will?Then I say this to the "Materialist":

"You do not understand the world, nor doyou 'understand History; go and read yourfairy-story books where everything turns outall right at the end of the book but do nottry to convince me that this is true." If hetells me that I should not be in the Party,because I do not accept the MCH, I answer:"I am in the Party because I' am a Social-ist, and also because the Party is based uponprinciples which I acceptL-that is, Socialismw ill no t co me ;nt,o , exis tence until the m ajo rityo f p eo ,p le in so ciety w ill io have it, and notindependent of this will, as you my "Materi-alistic" friend point out." Here also is a glar-ing contradiction for the "Materialists" in theParty, in that the D. of P. contradicts theMCH, which they claim is essential forsocialists to understand. In my opinion theMCH does not hold water and should bescrapped. R. SMITH (Dundee)

Central Branch

SOCIALIST ORGANISATIONTECHNIQUE

The behaviour of the Paddington Branchquestioning the value of the Object andof P may reflect a dissatisfaction with theogress made during the past fifty years.e Paddington Branch 'would probablyntend that the main cause is the inadequacythis very old Object and D of P to fi t

e circumstances of the modern politicalorld: we must abolish it, or adapt it to theesent day trends.EW TECHNIQUES REQUIRED

1 . P fO I pa ga !1 1d aInterest in political events to-day is ad-itted on all sides, at least so far as thisuntry is concerned, luke warm. We shallt, however, go into this phase of the mat-r at the moment.Down the years out speakers have endeav-red to interpret world political, economicd social events in the light of our Objectd D of P. The style which this interpre-tion has taken necessarily differs with thelents of the speakers. They have been'itatorial, provocative, virulent and educa-nal, tempered by the nature of the audi-ce and the particular circumstances of thecasion. These efforts have been supple-nted with the printed word-Socialisterature. But what does it all add up to?

A membership which is" still microscopicallysmall; because it is so small is the obviousreason why our activities are restricted. F ur-ther we are living in, wh~t is often styled, a"speed age". Scientific methods are beingused which have opened up a vast range ofpossibilities for the outlet of man's energyand ingenuity. The whole tempo of life hasbeen literally revolutionised over the pastfif.ty years. The social atmosphere is nowofa world wide nature or complexion; themost remote hamlet as well as the towns andcities being coloured thr~ugh the universal useof radio augmented by the, fast moving motorbus and coach.

If our case, therefore, has been difficultto put over before, it is multiplied ten-foldtoday. Notwithstanding these factors thepublic meeting places are valuable opportuni-ties for our representatives to make morewidely known the socialist message and tofeel t'he political pulse of the people. Theyare in short display occasions and a trainingground for speakers. But as a means of win-ning membership, these methods have shownthemselves to be practically useless. Eventhe collections taken and the sales of litera-ture are but small recognition for the workinvolved, notwithstanding the fact that our

speakers have invariably been able to attractlarge and interested audiences. The fact hasto be faced, therefore, that propaganda tech-nique which we have used, whatever elseit may have done, has not brought us newmembers. To win these the branch lectureroom and our Head Office must be the placeof the future, an aspect which we will nowconsider.

2 . Infcrnal~ aid7 71ii1 1istrative and B ranchfUl1ciiolnil~g.If we recognise the importance of winning

new blood to build up the Party membershipwe must provide opportunities for discussingand debating the. implications of our Objectand D of P in relation to world events. Thisis vital for the membership as well as the sym-pathiser whom we must make every effort tointerest and win for membershin. This taskhas been more or less overl;oked in thepast, or at the most given only secondaryconsideration. The reason for this has beenprimarily due to the practice of circulatingE. C. reports. In a Party of our size thispractice 1 S not justified. Little of import-ance occures week by week to warrant thetime involved. Also in the absence of thepro and con discussion, the reports are for allpractical purposes worthless. Besides theperiodical Delegate Meetings and Conferen-ces there are sufficient occasions to reviewthe woA of the Party.Secondly, the Branches should be encour-

aged to attempt to function until they hada qualified numerical strength, i.e, a HUm-berof members able to represent the Partyand the necessary funds to meet the expensesof hall hire and pay for Br~nch premisesindependent from H.Q, assistance.THE SOCIALIST FRATERNITY

GROUPSThese will be indispensable for the future

well being of the Party. We should nolonger ignore what a vitally important fac-tor in the life of the Party such groups canbe. It must be remembered that as well asbeing political, the majority of us are, socialanimals as well. This is a fact we shouldseriously consider, if we desire to, build up aSocialist Party on rational and sane lines.Members and sympathisers need more oppor-tunities to enjoy one another's company inan atmosphere of Socialist fraternity wherethe philosophical temperament may be culti-vated., This would materially assist the mem-bership of the Party to react favourably tothe day to day struggle which all of themhave to face, constituting a valuable contri-bution- to the spirit of bonhomie within theParty. It would attract and encourage

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

6/8

FORUM February 1955hat we have found from experience to be,at shy and diffident sympathiser to make aerious effort to join our ranks. It would ben important help to persuade them t~ com.emongst us, leading eventually to t~eIr sen-us interest in the work we are doing, Itakes all sorts to make up a world, so itust take all sorts to make the Socialistarty-from each according t~ his .abi~itiesc. ?With these few ruminatmg tit-bits Ian think of nothing better than to concludeith the following lines, written by F. ].ebb during the first world war:

at this time of brute force paramount,When death itself is made the creed of

men :When love itself is held of small or no

account,

And beauty scornel alike of VOIce andpen;

There yet should be, hidden amidst thecrowd.

Some finer spirits, shrinking and alone,Who hear the voice of wisdom cry aloud,Before life's temples stricken, overthrown;Now 'should they lift above the noise andstrife ..Their song of hope, of confidence supreme.In love and beauty; ~ o w indeed should

scanThe wid~horizon ofa boundless life,Wherein the poet's song, the dreamer'sdreamShall 'stem the mad brutality of man".

O.c.A.

IMPROVING' THE SOCIA~IST CASE3-The Position of a Socialist Organisation

The two previous articles examined theeclaration of Principles in detail. Now we0on to consider it more generally in relation0 the Party and to Socialism.. .. ..Nominally, the D. of P. IS. theex~~tmg

asis of membership. Applicants .arexpected to satisfy the branch. before whicheir application cop;-1es.hat;,they .understandn::l accept the pnnclples. In practice,owever, greater attention is paid to thepplicant's altitude to the wider socialist case'

Central Branch applicants are. as.kedon reforms, Russia, trade unlO.l1ISm,

eligion, etc.), This indicates ~hat being aocialist means much more than Just agreeingith the D. of P. Part of being a socialistI suggest, to put the D. - o f P. in per-pective as the m o s t s o cia lis t basis o f member-hip that a group of socialists could formulate

years ago.I~ the first article it was noted that one

fficiaL Party explanation of why the workinglass will turn to Socialism is that theirosition relative to the capitalist class willIt is this line of thought that leadsembers to assert that they are socialistsecause they are workers. Against this, ithould be realised that socialists want a newstem of society from the point of view ofeonle who are to live in that society. This

is important and deserves further\}(Ie want more wages-as workers. Weant more wages not as socialists, becausehen we get them it will still leave our desirer Socialism unsatisfied-we are stillorkers. No amount of making the workersetter off adds up to Socialism, even if the

former is the policy of a party that combinespropagating Socialism with wanting politicalpower, for the workers. Whatever we wantas workers we want within the framework ofCapitalism. As soon as weehave as OUIobject something that no longer involves OUIbeing workers, We are doing so no t a .sworker s . We are doing so from the stand-point of people who want to live in classlesssociety.The adoption of any class-interested

standpoint can at best only be regarded aspreparatory to this socialist one. The meansemployed determine the nature of the end(object) achieved. The socialist objectiveis incompatible with a pro-working classattitude that involves thinking and acting onthe basis of a class movement. The socialistmovement is a unity-it is not divisible, asBelfort Bax supposed, into militant (identi-fied with class) and triumphant (wi-thHumanity).Althollgh the S.P:G.B. does not act as if

it were a class movement, its thinking is verymuch coloured by a desire to identify itselfwith the working class, Occasionally thisdesire produces a gesture such as a Partymessage to workers, on strike, but suchgestures are not taken seriously and are of.no consequence. They cannot be regardedas part.of the work of a socialist organisation.. CLASS INTERESTS .Now let us consider the reasons given

by members in justification of the Party'spro-working class attitude. Many of thesereasons are derived from the D. of P. andits explanation, and were touched upon IIIthe first article.

Capitalists are supposed to have aninterest to retain Capitalism, while workersare supposed not to have such an interest.A class interest is concerned with promotingthe well-being of that class, and thereforethe interests of both classes strictly requirethe continuation of classes, i.e., of Capitalism.We have, however, to consider a looser useof . the term .. class interest" to mean"promoting the well-being of members ofthat class as human beings ".Using "class interest" in the last sense,

members assert that capitalists stand onbalance to lose by Socialism and that workersstand to gain. These are purely subjective.estimates, and are in line with .. increasingmieery " and its modification, .. increasingseeing - how - big - the - difference - isbetween - them - and - us ". Accordingly,Socialism is supposed to have a specialappeal for workers, an appeal to whichcapitalists will turn a deaf ear. We mustrecognise the element of truth in this argu-rnent: a capitalist is unlikely to be interestedin "a workers' society'.'. The greatertragedy is that a worker who is interestedin .. a workers' society" is not yet interestedin Socialism. .

In order that a comparison may be made,the things compared must have commonfactors. It is only in those aspects of theirlives that are common to Caoitalism andSocialism-c-the satisfaction of their needs ashuman beings-that people can make com-parisons. No amount of money can equalfree access; that is why there is not a levelof income or capital below which Socialismis felt to be a gain and above which a loss.In any case, it is of the very essence ofSocialism that it seeks to achieve better livingfor alL .. What is there in it for my. class(group, nation, sex; etc.)" is a questionone asks from a property-society standpoint,not a socialist one.Another justification for the working-class

appeal is the tactical one. It consists inseeking to gain the interest of people witha meaty dish of working-class partiality andprejudice, and then introducing Socialism asit kind of dessert. There are two mainobjections to this procedure :it encouragesworking-class issues to be confused withsocialist ones, and it does not avoid thedifficult ies of getting social ist ideas accepted.For too long the Party has had a foot

in both camps: the working class (economic,fighting the class struggle, dominated by thevalues and institutions of Capitalism), and thesocialist (allegedly only political, but alsodeveloping and propagating the ideas ofproduction solely for use, etc.). A socialistorganisation is something more than a merepolitical party, since it cannot enter politics

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

7/8

February 1955 FORUM 1 1 1

with th'e object of governing (though it maycontest elections as a means of propaganda)The S.P,G.B.is the only organisation callingitself a political party that is concerned withspreading the ideas 0 . a new society.Why think of it as a socialist organisat ionrather than a political party? Because the

change we desire to effect in society is notone that will proceed, like the changesenvisaged by earlier forms of revolution,through the agency of a political party. Thechange we call Socialism is multi-dimensional,becoming effective in every sphere, the visionof its advocates encompassing the whole ofsociety. It is not just socialist productivebase-it is socialist work, socialist art,socialist sex, morality, architecture ... "thelot" .

History and SocialismTwo other aspects of a socialist organisa-tion must be considered-its view of history,

and its conception of how Socialism willcome, History is not merely a successionof class struggles; class struggle itself shouldbe seen as one phase in, the process ofdevelopment of control over the conditionsof life, Thus we cannot take a static,undifferentiated view of Capitalism-that itis basicall:y, the same today as when it startedand will remain the same until we getSocialism, A socialist view of history needsto be one that, above all, recognises con-tinuous growth and change to be moreintelligible than discrete systems andinstitutions.The S.P.G.B. is in this dilemma: itdenies that Capitalism can evolve intoSocialism, yet it cannot ignore the continuityof society. It therefore posits a transitionperiod beginning when Socialism is" estal;Ylished" (by working-class capture ofpolitical power) and ending when the statemachine has withered away or

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1955 29 Feb

8/8

112 FORUM F eb ru a ry 1955

WHY PICK ON TURNER?A Central Branch visitor to the Delegate

Conference who was not too conversant withthe "pros and cons" of the meeting wouldhave experienced an awkward set-back to hisnthusiasm. The high-light of the conferencewas undoubtedly to be "the T umer question,"and all other things took a secondaryplace tothis.The fact that Forum contained a front

page statement of Turner's views was by nomeans just coincidence. The statement didnot reveal anything in the nature of a, goodRoman Catholic who had committed blas-phemy against the Holy Ghost, but rather a

mild analysis of Clause 6.,_ Just what dctothermembers think of theclause - "tulln'ing an agent of oppressioninto ain agent of e'fnancipation"? Unfor-tunately even at the delegate meeting it re-mained unexplained. Suppose a majority ofSFGB candidates are elected to Parliament,a cabinet composed of the SPGB executivewould take over as a temporary measure,and issue some instructions to the machinery ofgovernment, including the armed forces.The present make-up of machinery which[unctionsto-day is dependent on instructionsof how t o act under any new set of circum-

_'_---.:.--' - ,

THE NEW CASEFrom reading in the columns of FORUM

t seems to me that the whole basis of thearty' sease is being challenged, but whats not clear, either to me or to many otherembers, is the precise nature of this chal-enge. Until this is dearly understood, its impossible to answer; so in an endeavourclarify the position, Im stating here whathave gathered from listening to variousembers and through the columns ofORUM, and what seems to be the naturef the case against the Party.

1 . We are not a political party butather an organization for studying, discuss-'

and propagating the idea of a socialistociety; therefore we do not need a D of P.2.' Socialism will not be achievedhrough the ballot box, hut will arise outf the changing nature of Capitalism,s follows: Capitalists today areindistin-uishable from workers; we all wear simi-ar clothes, drive around in cars, go abroad'or holidays, have all the health services weeed, assured incomes in our old age, asuch of the essential food, entertainment,tc., as is necessary for our well-being; andhere these leave something to he desired,hey will improve as the standard of living

3. Owing to the growing expense ofCapi ta l i sm, machinery, taxation, etc .,e burden of running Capitalism falls more

moreto the lot of the State, until there iso more difference between capital and wor-er than between coloured people and white,

Jew and Gentile, men and women, socialstatus etc., Russian and American-in otherwords, thedass struggle disappears. Fromhere onwards I am in some difficulty to un-derstandhow the change-over will take place;Icin ':drily assume that, as economic differen-ces disappear, everybody will see wages andprofits becoming unnecessary, and as social-istunderstanding will have been growing asthechanges have been taking place, everyonewill all see it to be in our mutual interest toestablish a Socialist society, and "HeyPresto!" : the revolution has been achieved., -'The only need for'the Socialist organiza-

tiori fs to continue l() collect recruits to itsmembership, 'in order to spread Socialist ideasthrough. propaganda, literature, etc.: andwhen we have all agreed to be good, con-scious Socialists we shall see it is no longernecessary to fight over surplus goods and themarkets for them, and all will be well withthe world.I have no doubt this will be called a clas-

sic case of oversimplificat ion. Ican onlybeg the members who object to the D of Pand the over-stressing of 'the class struggleto correct me where I' am wrong.' My endea-vour has simply been to clarify the posi t ion . inorder that the opposition to the Party's casemay be clearly understood, and a positionreached where Party members can carryonthe Party's propaganda without fear thattheir case may be contradicted or challengedby members of their own organization.

E. ROSE.

stances. If there was any opposition it wouldbe chaos; socialism must be harmony. Thepolitical leaders of the opposing parties wouldhave to be arrested; this could be done bythe police, but the more dangerous wouldrequire the army.The arrested men would have to get a

chance to defend themselves, this is calleddemocracy. The victorious allies even al-lowed this to Goering, Goebbels and Hess,so the whole legal circus would get going.It would be a nice chance for Sir DavidMaxwell Fyfe to earn another 27,000 aschief prosecutor and the verdict would soonarrive; after all, those who pay the pipercan call the tune.The question now arises, what to do witht hem. They could go to gaol, or be brain

washed (Russian style) or shot. (This iswhere the clause,-"irJJCll1id'ing these [orces" ."converted vnto all1' agent of emancipation,"-would come-in useful.)Now, fellow members, this is the logical

conclusion: Either everyone will attempt toestablish socialism or there will be opposit ion;Comrade Turner thinks there wiII be no' op-position, but a majority of delegates beg todiffer. Some of the opposition that ComradeTurner had to contend with at the meetingwas pathetic; it ranged from quibbling toclowning, all kinds of charges about break-ing up the party, "not believing in the classstruggle," whatever that means. If anyoneputs a "lot of hope in the class struggle via thetrade unions, they had better read the splen-did article : "The Studebalrer Story" in .thecurrent 'W estern Socialist.' ApparentlyKarl F rederickdoesn't think the workers willget far along class struggle lines and he sup-plies quite a' lot of evidence. One SPGBmember who was very active in 1937 , couldnot remember much about the Spanish CivilWar and the SPGB. . There were manyanxious to speak but no concrete criticism ofthe lucid statement in the first two pages ofForum. Anothe~ member, opposing Turner,_made the queer statement that he was thebest ever, exponent of the SPGB case; an-other didn'tIike "Sin alnld Sex."Turner has had quite a lot of success asa speakerduring the past 1 S years and like

popular people h~ must contend with thejealousy of others who wish but do not hitthe limelight; and that might explain whyParker, who can write much better than hecan speak, did riot get anything like thecriticism that fell on T urner at the meeting.Now comrades, "Come off it;" let' s get

back to sanity.DAVID BOYD,

Central Branch.Printed by L, E. Westwood Ltd, (T,V,) 14Kingsbury Green Parade. N,W,9, Colindale 3117 and published by S,P,G.B., 52 Clapham High Street, S,W.4