Spgb Forum 1956 41 Aug Sep

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1956 41 Aug Sep

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spgb-forum-1956-41-aug-sep 1/8

41 AUG.- SEPT. 1956 NINEPENCE

FORUM- I;bscriptions: 12 issues 10/6, 6 issues 5/3. Cheques

d P.O's. should be made payable to E. Lake, S.P.G.B.

IALIST DISCUSSION JOURNAL

ARDS BETTER UNDERSTANDING I I

The Meaning of Education

e obvious has often to be pointed.

often, however, it is laid down as a

llphant conclusion instead of a point of

rrure. To say that education under

sm is education for capitalism is to

a truth, but a not-very-profound one.

lace is at the beginning, not the end.

is far better, in fact, to consider that

is the object of educational systems inpochs. Education is the process ofting and equipping children for the

in which they live: implantingity, fostering attitudes and habits,ing the basic skilis which that worldres. Primitive peoples educate theirdrenfunctionally, having them learn theof physical life, the laws of social lifethe techniques of economic life fromcontact. Civilized systems are more

plex, less direct, but just as functional.

single example may show what ist. A hundred years ago Denmark hadblic-school system which aimed at pro-

gentlemen-farmers; its reverencesfor the land and the humanities. Eightyago the German states next doore a single nation-state, swelling andg with aggressive nationalism. .In ale of decades, the Danish systemged to meet the new situation; its head-

IN THIS ISSUE

HN STEINBECK.Another "Writers and Society"

article.

O UNITY AND NO OPPOSITES.Part 3 of "Do We Need theDialectic? "

APITALISM IN 1956.Cuttings from a current Survey.

VIET POST-MORTEM ON

From official Russian sources.

TUDY CLASS NOTES

e opinions expressed in FORUM are those

he individual writers, and are not to be

as the Socialist Party's official views.

masters became Kaptains, its tone loudlypatriotic.All education works like that, aiming at

no more and no less than to fit the young tolive in and maintain their society-not as arulers' conspiracy, but as a necessary function.Every community, every society must haveit, and the shape it takes is generally theshape of society's dominant economic unit.Thus ,in communal, tribal groups, educationis communal or through the family; thus,since we live in afactory world our educationis given in factories and on factory lines.The Acts of 1870 and 1871 were not a

new departure but the completion andregularization of a process which had beengoing on through the nineteenth century.It is wrong to suppose-as many people do-that non-one could read or write beforethere were Board schools. In the MiddleAges, priests were teachers; Chaucerdescribes the Clerk of Oxenford:-" ... gladly would he learn, and gladly

teach."

At all times there was a good deal of familyeducation, and apprenticeship to most craftsimplied learning the three Rs.It was estimated in 1850 that eight

million, or just under a quarter, of thepopulation of Britain could neither read norwrite. The well-to-do had their own schools,of course; the working population's chiefinstructors were the Church of England's" National Society for Promoting theEducation of the Poor in the Principles ofthe Established Church" and the Noncon-formist "British and Foreign School Society."In addition, there were the Ragged Schools,Sunday Schools the Dames' Schools (five-pence or sixpence a week), and a host ofunclassiable desultory day or evening schools.All predominantly in the towns, of course;in Middlesex and Surrey, the Londoncounties, illiteracy was only half what it waselsewhere.

If it is wrong to assume general illiteracybefore the Education Acts, it would beequally wrong to assume universal literacyafter them. For all the outcry in recent yearsabout unlettered adolescents, there wasundoubtedly more sheer illiteracy forty-fiveyears ago than there is now. It was concealedby teachers, simply because there was a"payment-by-results" system in which

inspectors could and did recommend payreduction for teachers whose charges showedlack of reading; nevertheless, the Armybefore 1914 had to teach a large proportionof its recruits to read from the C-A-T: ca tstage.What actualiy happens in the State educa-

tional system? To start, all schooling fromeleven upwards has been categorized intogrammar, technical and "modern" sincethe 1944 Education Act was given effect.All children must stay at school until theyare fifteen; it is not so widely known that anEducation Act as far back as 1921 empoweredand recommended local authorities to extendthe leaving age to fifteen, but none wasknown to do so. Again, the question of"education economies" is no new one.Educational reform has always been directedby the needs of major industry and resistedby the greengrocers on the town councils,who in this case wanted to lose neither theirseats by a rise in the rates nor their cheaplabour by a rise in the school-leaving age.

Up to eleven, schooling is "primary"-that is, preliminary to the selection-by-examination for the three types of secondaryeducation. In fact, however, the selectionbegins three or four years earlier. Practicallyall infant' and junior schools use the" streaming" method, by which childrenare graded according to ability asA,Band C." A's" are feasible scholarship-winners andare egged-on and provided-for occordingly;" C's" are the sub-standard ones, the slow,recalcitrant and defective. In theory, "C ,'.children are carefully tended, receivingspecial attention to help them overcometheir difficulties. The practice, however, isusually rather different. A few teachers dospecialize in working with backward children.Mostly, however, they come in for the worstaccommodation and equipment and theirteachers are the new being tried -out, the .oldwho have been tried too often, and thosewho have drawn badly in the annual lotteryfor classes.That does not necessarily imply callous-

ness or indifference on the part of headteachers or education authorities. Thepressure for scholarships is so great that the" A's" virtually have to be given the best ofwhatever there is. In any town, perhaps3,500 children compete every year for 200

201



llar school places-one in six for thechildren . And if any school fails toquota, then the school managers, thetors and the parents all want to know

snobbery and jealousy over scholar-is remarkable. Otherwise sane andte people will pay ten shillings anfor coaching, promise gold watchesicycles as rewards for passing, and nagchildren into neurasthenia over" the

rship." The strongest motive of all isob one. Cyril goes to a nice schoolthey have to wear a uniform-and he'sFrench now. From this point of

it matters not that Cyril will probablyh unhappily at the bottom of thefor five years and end up a badly-paidin a shipping office: better to serve inn than reign in hell.

question of what is actually provedelligence tests and examinations willalt with later. The more importantat this juncture is the continual cream-process which goes on at every stageeducational system. Starting in the

t years, there is repeated selection ofost suitable children for training asand N.C.O's. in the wage-earningIt continues after eleven; there areiary examinations and courses of allin the secondary schools to ensureindustry gets just what it wants.tely, about three-fifths of the popula-of this country receives "secondary" education-that is, elementarying aimed at producing clerks, artisans,ssistants, factory workers and labourers.

scope of this kind .of elementary

on has widened tremendously in

recent years. A secondary modern schoolto-day provides for an extensive range ofactivities. Apart from what is now acceptedas the ordinary classroom curriculum ofEnglish, mathematics, history, science, geo-graphy and so on, there are rooms andteachers for art, handicrafts, woodwork,metalwork, plastics, gardening, housecraftand needlework; course in current affairs;facilities for social activities, films, gamesand physical exercise.

This is the sort of thing which superficialthought snatches as an indication oftremendous improvement in working-classconditions. In fact, the change in the contentof popular education is a product of changedcapitalist needs. Take, for example, the girllearning cookery and laundering in thehousecraft room of a modern secondaryschool. She has a trained instructor, and istaught in a room equipped with electriccookers, washing machines, refrigeratorsand every relevant gadget.

She is being educated in two ways. First,in necessary skills which her grandmother

learned" in service" or in the-home, wayswhich have disappeared as the nature ofboth upper-class and working-class homeshas changed. And second, she is beingeducated as a consumer, a future buyer inthe market for new kinds of domestic goods.She grows up to regard electric labour-savers as part of her way of life: a futurehire-purchase customer ready-made.

What part does religion play in education?The 1944 Act gave it a stronger footing thanit had formerly had in schools, by makinga daily religious assembly compulsory andlaying down syllabuses of religious instruc-

tion (formerly dependent chiefly on theteachers' disposition). The training ofteachers originally was entirely in the handsof religious bodies, but now there is a fairnumber of training colleges run by localeducation authorities. It is still generallyassumed that teachers should be religiouspeople, however. The Education Act allowsteachers to withdraw from all religiousbusiness and lays down that they shall not

be penalised for doing so. They are, all thesame: an openly atheistic teacher's chancesof advancement are small, and he can have

things made hot for him by a truly Christianheadmaster.

The truth is that schools do educate-inthe strictest sense of the word. Ex ducereis to lead forth, educe is to draw out, andour educational system draws out of childrentheir potential value to capitalism and drillsthem accordingly in skills and attitudes.There is a feeling prevalent even amongSocialists that, nevertheless, one gets some-thing necessary and worthwhile out ofelementary schooling. Don't believe it. If

that were the question, children wouldlearn as much and more by running thestreets all day. Indeed, if you consider that30 per cent. of school le avers are classedas "backward readers" (which includesilliterates), it seems obvious that they couldhardly learn less.

R. COSTER.

This is the first of three articles. The next,

in the October-November FORUM will

deal with intelligence tests, examinations

and the position of teachers.

ters and Society-3

JOHNSteinbeck is a novelist who fitsthan most into the category of

s about society." He has fairly con-, at least in the 'thirties, written ofor, the outcasts and misfits in society,f their sufferings. This is not to saye belongs to that group of "social

of the 'thirties with their stilted,

proletarian plots that followed theline. As F. J . Hoffman says in TheNovel in America, Steinbeck is one

se" whose work lifts them above thevel of the proletarian formula novel."pes of Wrath, which is perhaps hisnown work, deals with a group oft fruit-pickers in the U.S.A. It tellsarming family, dispossessed of theirwho trek across America in an ancient,d truck to find work picking fruit inrnia. When they arrive in the promisedey find that bad food, appalling living

tions and brutality is the lot of thes," as the migrants are called. They

STEINBECK

find that thousands upon thousands of theunemployed and dispossessed have come toCalifornia, like themselves attracted byhandbills promising high wages. Not onlyare the unprotected and unorganised "Okies"beaten and cheated by the fruit growers, butthey are hated by the local inhabitants, whosee in them a threat to their livelihood and

property.The elder boy in the family, Tom, is

released from prison on parole, and becomesembittered by the treatment that his familyreceives at the hands of the fruit growers,and, when his friend is murdered by strike-breakers, he kills one of them and becomesa renegade.This novel attained great popularity when

it was published (1939), and created quite afurore, and eventually the government hadto take steps to provide for the "Okies"reasonable living quarters and some kind ofprotection against the fruit-growers. Themessage of the book, however, is still relevant,

for the migrant workers are still the worst-paid and least organised section of theAmerican working class. In spite of somerather laboured symbolism, and philosophicalreflections of the fatalistic kind, this novel isa most moving and impressive study of thestruggles of a section of the subject-class.

Steinbeck's sympathy for the oppressed

appears in another novel, In Dubious Battle,which is a story of a strike among fruit-pickers in the Torgas Valley, and it could besaid that Grapes of Wrath developed directlyfrom this work, in spite of the differencesin presentation. The story is largely anaccount of the reactions of the three principalcharacters to the strike-the experiencedstrike-leader, the novice, and a doctor whois in the role of an observer. The discussionsthat take place between the three men havea certain amount of interest, and the studyof the reactions of the individuals concernedmakes this an unusual novel that stands outamong the many that the depression brought



forth dealing with similar subject-matter.The strike leaders are Communists, but of apeculiar kind. Steinbeck himself wrote:" My information for this book came mostlyfrom Irish and Italian Communists whosetraining was in the field, not in the drawingroom. They don't believe in ideologies andideal tactics. They just do what they canunder the circumstances."

In this book also, Steinbeck's somewhatconfused philosophy appears (in this casefrom the mouth of the doctor), although itmust be said in fairness to him that he isalways interesting, and sometimes rings thebell, as when the tyro Jim suggests that theviolence of the conflict isnecessary and thatone" ought to think only of the end; out ofthis struggle a good thing is going to grow,"to which the doctor replies that" in his littleexperience, the end is never very differentin its nature to the means."

The characters who seem particularly toappeal to Steinbeck are the tramps, the lazy,'good-natured, unemployable natives of the

poor quarters of the Californian coastaltowns. Cannery Row (1945) and TortillaFlat (1935) both deal with groups of thiskind, the latter, improbable though it mayseem, being based on the Arthurian legend.This book deals with a group of Mexicansand their leader, Danny, who are by normalcapitalist standards, misfits. It is a somewhatepisodic series of adventures of this group,and their struggle (if such a term can beused) to exist happily without working.Although no more than a folk-tale, the bookis extremely successful in holding one'sinterest and providing entertainment, whichis more than one can say for ninety per cent.of the output of modern fiction writers.

Cannery Row is a similar tale, also episodicin character, but this time about a group ofwhite vagabonds. Both of these books,although lacking the sociological punchof the two earlier-mentioned books, areextremely readable accounts of what was,and probably still is, an aspect of Americanlife. The Wayward Bus (1947)is also similarin character, and one of Steinbeck's lastpublished works, Sweet Thursday, is asequel to Cannery Row. The characters are,in the main, the same as in the earlier book,and the action takes place after the last war.The book is amusing enough, but hardlyjustifies the re-opening of a mine that Stein-beck had already fully worked out.

Of Mice and Men, another of Steinbeck'smore well-known novels, is also aboutmigrant workers, but this time it is a storyof two individuals. One is a feeble-mindedlumbering giant, and the other a short, toughman who has become the other's protectorand guide. It is a short, well-constructedbook, which packs into its pages a wealth oftelling description and quite convincingaction and dialogue.

Lennie, the giant, has murderous impulses,more from animal fear than from badness,and George, his protector, is constantly

struggling to prevent Lennie from getting

into trouble. The tragic climax is extremelytaut and moving, and the novel as a wholeis certainly one of Steinbeck's more success-ful ventures.

A later novel, The Moon is Down, (alsopublished in play form) seems to be aregression from the values that Steinbeckappeared to uphold in his earlier work. Thisstory of an occupied country (presumably

Norway) during the last war, appears tohave been written more with an eye onHollywood than on social problems, and infact the novel was turned into a play andfilm script almost without alteration. Thepoint that it makes is that the human spiritcannot be broken, and, that an occupyingpower will never be able to force the sub-mission of a "free people." It certainly doesnot give an accurate picture of the occupiedcountries, but as it was a wartime production,this is hardly surprising. As with themajority of Western writers and intellectuals,the destruction of fascism presumably be-came the most pressing need in Steinbeck'seyes.

Steinbeck's earlier novels, such as Cup ofGold and The Pastures of Heaven, are notparticularly interesting, as they contain allthe faults of the later books, without any oftheir compensating merits. The short storiesare somewhat better, but here too, one isconfronted with the top-heavy philosophyand a preoccupation with plants, insects andanimals.

Edmund Wilson, on The Boys in the BackRoom, has levelled much constructive criti-cism at Steinbeck and his work, but he doeshim less than justice when he suggests thatall of Steinbeck's characters are lacking in

humanity, and that they are presented in aclinical detached way in the manner of whitemice or insects in the dissecting room.

It is true that Steinbeck, who is a keenbiologist, is engrossed in the minutia: of theanimal and plant kingdoms, and is especiallyfascinated by the wanton slaughter that goeson in them. In the early pages of TheGrapes of Wrath, for instance, there is alengthy account of a turtle laboriously mak-ing its way across a field to the road. Thereare many examples of this kind of thing inSteinbeck, and apart from the symbolism,they add little or nothing to the plots oraction of his stories, except when they are

brought in as an incidental activity ofbiologically-minded characters (as withDoc, in Sweet Thursday).

The preoccupation with biology, however,is little more than a personal foible, and doesnot affect Steinbeck's presentation of hischaracters to any real extent. Tom [oad,Ma, Casey and the others in Grapes ofWrath could not, by any stretch of theimagination, be described as clinical studies,and in fact their humanity and suffering isso skilfully presented as to make them com-pletely convincing. Edmund Wilson himselfrecognised one aspect of this when he wrote"there remains behind the journalism, the

theatricalities, and the tricks of his other

books, a mind which does seem first-rate iits unpanicky scrutiny of life."

It could be said with some justification,that after his violence and fervour duringthe depression, Steinbeck has dried up, saidnothing further of any importance, and imerely settling down to a financially stableexistence producing light, harmless, Holly-wood-intended works with little or no bearing

upon society or its problems. It is somewhatearly in Steinbeck's career to make suchjudgment, however, and one can only hopethat Steinbeck will turn his attention andskill to the many problems that Americaoffers to the intelligent writer. Even if thisdoes not happen, Steinbeck will have alreadyearned a niche in the not overcrowdedgallery of stimulating writers about society

A.W.I.

Study Class Notes(Concluded tram page 208)

2. Morality. Chivalry, chastity, co-relatives of land-inheritance customs.Divorce permitted when no heirUsury very immoral. Worst possiblecrime was felony. i.e., breach of faithwith overlord.

C. HISTORICAL FUNCTION.

The development of a world marketvia. the advancement of productivetechnique as employed in handicrafts,

Definition: Feudalism is a system osociety based upon land tenure, sub-ject to military and/or agriculturalservice.

BOOKS.Engels: Origin of the Family. Adams:Feudalism (Encyclopsedia BritannicaI9II Edition). Bogdanov: Short Courseof Economic Science. Stenton: EnglishFeudalism. Gibbins: Industrial Historyof England.

There have been a good many funnythings said and written about hardupishness,but the reality is not funny, for all that. Iis not funny to have to haggle over pennies.It isn't funny to be thought mean and stingyItisn't funny to be shabby, and to be ashamedof your address. No, there is nothing at alfunny in poverty-to the poor. . . A poorman is despised the whole world overdespised as much by a Christian as bylord, as much by a demagogue as by a foot-man, and not all the copy-book maximsset for ink-stained youth will make himrespected. Appearances are everything, sfar as human opinion goes; and the manwho will walk down Piccadilly arm in armwith the most notorious scamp in London,provided he is a well-dressed one, will slinkup a back street to say a couple of words toa seedy-looking gentleman.

The Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

-Jerome K. Jerome.20



oWe Need the Dialectic?

3-No Unity and No Oppositeshe three major dialectical formula, asalready been stated, are the unity of

osites, the negation of the negation, andtransformation of quantity into quality

vice-versa. The first, which may beld to be an overall definition of theIectic, holds that there can be no suchg as absolute opposition. Opposites areaysrelated. Thus, there can be no Northwithout a South pole, no negative

out a positive-just as a way out viatreet door is a way in.apitalism itself may be regarded as aof opposites because in such a society

two classes are inseparably connectedyet mutually opposed. Ne ither classdevelop without the other. The workersclass cannot live without selling their

ductive energies to the capitalists, andcapitalists cannot exist as a class without

oiting the workers. It is from this basical relationship that the contradictionsapitalism spring.he negation of the negation can belly exemplified by stating that the smallscattered private property of the pre-trialist capitalist era was negated byscale capitalist ownership, which inwill be negated by the social ownershiphe means and instruments of wealth

he transformation of quantity intoseeks from the standpoint of social

tigation to show that major socialcannot be accounted for by evolu-

ry processes. Marxism does not denyevolutionary development of society.ed, it delineates and underscores theutionary character of the social forces

sists that there can be no qualitativechange without a prior quantitative

lopment. It holds that all revolutionsbut movements in a general evolutionarylopment of society. Nevertheless,it

that any social transformation con-a c c leap" or a " break." While these

or breaks are intimately bound up withous development, they nevertheless arets of departure from old evolutionaryrns to new ones.

his dialectical formula-the change of

ntity into quality-seems to me to havenuine metholological value insofar aseals with historical analysis and theamic of social change. I fail to see, how-that it has any methodological validityl or even the majority of other fields ofigation, or that conversely it can bearded as a universal law of nature. Inr case, as has already been pointed out,hange of quantity into quality cannotth a scientific postulate and a universal(although Engels himself seemed toit could).

e examples given by Engels of theformation of quantity into quality are

to be found in Hegel's Logic. Thus we havethe conversion of water into ice, water intosteam, acorns into oak trees, etc. In fact,some dialecticians have gone sofar as to assert

that the transition of the number-c-o to10

or 99 to 100 constitutes a dialectical leap .It may be added that the examples of leapsfrom quantity to quality given by Hegel andEngels are quite arbitrarily selected, and itdoes not at all follow from them that allquantitative growth must lead to qualitativechange. Baby elephants only grow intobigger elephants and little fieas into biggerfleas. And while little drops of water may byquantitative addition become a puddle,pond or lake, they are always water. Like-wise, no increase in the amount of lead willat some quantitative point convert it intogold.Again, if everything were in a process of

becoming and changing into somethingqualitatively different, then scientific investi-gation in such a ' state of affairs would beimpossible. Indeed, in most scientific systemschange is so imperceptible that they can beregarded as static for all practical purposes.One can hardly suppose that scientificisolates can be made from inherentl y unstableand qualitatively changing situations.It is also not true to say that every quality

has a quantitative aspect. There is no yard-stick or quantitative measure for such thingsas mercy, charity and kindness. It is evendoubtful if Intelligence Quotients quanti-tativelyassess something called intelligence.

One can enumerate whole ranges of qualitiesfor which there are no correspondingquantities. So much, then, for the allegeduniversality of the transformation of quantityinto quality.Engels, in his attempt to universalize the

dialectic-and here he has been followed bythe Soviet dialecticians-extended it in sucha way as to include the quantitative andqualitative changes which occur in physicsand chemistry. Here Engels and those whohave followed him seem to exhibit consider-able confusion of thought as to the roleof the dialectic. The dialectic in both itstraditional and actual meaning had alwaysmade consciousness central to its purpose,yet we find Engels applying it indiscrimin-ately to non-animate processes. If,of course,Engels was merely asserting that the dialecticis identical with the concept of physicalchange then he was merely repeating aa scientific commonplace of his time. Butthis is to deny the distinctive character ofthe dialectic that its advocates have claimedfor it.Properly understood, the dialectic means

that in any inclusive whole there are elementswhich are opposed in such a way that theself-expansion of each is in conflict with theother. Each element, while only a part ofthe whole, strives to include the whole. This

mutual antagonism brings about a non-equilibrium in the situation which can onlybe overcome by the rejection of certainfeatures of the opposing elements and the

fusing of other features which are retainedand re-orientated into a new or highersynthesis or equilibrium. The new synthesisin turn is subject to internal oppositionsand the resulting tensions leading again to ahigher phase. Whatever may be the validityof such a view it cannot merely be identifiedwith physical change, and if Engels didthink that the dialectic was somethingsuperior to the scientific account of changesin natural phenomena, he never explainedin what way.Again, from a strictly dialectical stand-

point the transformation of quantity intoquality and vice-versa are held to be irre-versible. This, however, is inconsistent

with the claims of the dialecticians, who arefond of using the combination of chemicalelements into new synthesis as illustrationsof dialectical laws. Such combinations as ageneral rule can be re-precipitated into theiroriginal elements, thus contravening the" dialectical" laws. Even the alleged dia-lectical union of oxygen and hydrogen intowater can be reconstituted into the originalelements by passing an electric currentthrough it.Not only did Engels make the concept

of physical change synonymous with thedialectic, but also the dialectic identical withbiological development or evolution. Indeed,

I think I am right in saying that there is aview in the Socialist Party that holds thatthe dialectic is merely another name forevolution. But any reading of Engels inAnti-Duhring suggests that the dialectichad other implications for him; indeed, bothMarx and Engels believed that the theoryof evolution-Darwinism-suffered fromcertain inadequacies. Actually, Engels heldthat organic as well as inorganic develop-ment was dialectical and not merely evolu-tionary.It could be said that if all Engels was

offering was an explanation of the rhythmof development based on the outcome ofscientific investigation, then it did not need

the elaborate and confused procedures ofthe dialectic to give expression to it. Thedialectic added nothing to, nor in any wayclarified, existing knowledge; it merely con-fused that knowledge. Surely, once the dataof any aspect of biology or any other scienceis sufficiently organized, a clear and con-sistent account of it can be given withoutrecourse to such doubtful artifices as quantityand quality, the unity of opposites and thenegation of the negation.But Engels, it seems, was attempting to

do more than describe physical change andevolutionary processes; he was (a la Hegel)attempting to construct reality in accordance



with a dialectical principle, to bring allnature, society and thinking under one grandunifying concept. Engels could no more dothis than Hegel. Believing that contradic-tions existed in phenomena, he was forcedto an animistic conception of matter and soto a teleology of nature.Even the examples used by Engels to

illustrate the law of the transformation ofquantity into quality do not prove the law.

Thus, he tells us in Anti-Duhring that agrain of barley germinates and dies andfrom it arises a plant-the negation of thegrain. This plant grows and finally producesa stalk, at the end of which are furthergrains of barley. When these have ripenedthe stalk dies-is negated-and as a resultof this negation of the negation the originalgrain of barley is multiplied tenfold. Leav-ing aside the fact that it is difficult to seehow this involves any logical contradition,this negation of a negation has simplyresulted in a quantitative change, ten grainsof barley for one. In short, the grains remainbarley, and the qualitative change or higherreformation which is presupposed on the

dialectic has not taken place.It has often been said, and I believe it has

been repeated by many members of theParty both past and present, that at leastdialectical logic is superior to formal logic.While it may be true that the inter-connec-tion of phenomena is a fruitful way oflooking at things, it does not follow that thisinterconnectedness can be subsumed undera logic, dialectical or otherwise. Indeed, alogic which attempts to construct reality andmake that reality conform to its principles iscertainly on highly dangerous ground. Whileone is mindful, of course, of the inadequaciesof formal logic, it does seem that the attacks

made on it by our "dialecticians" are a littlewide of the mark.In the first place it is not the task of

formal logic to explain the nature of reality-which dialectical logic claims to do-butto deal with logical propositions. All thatformal logic asserts is that we must be con-sistent in our use of terms and symbols.Thus, if we make a distinction between thatwhich is A and that which is not A, wecannot say that it is A and not A at the sametime and in the same respect. Though, ifone is to believe some would-be exponentsof dialectics, one is obliged to believe thatit is possible to assert this! It has beenargued by Soviet dialecticians that A cannever equal A because no two things areever the same. Thus, a hundredweight ofsand will never equal another hundred-weight since a finer scale will always reveala difference.It is asserted also that if A is equal to A then

it does not change, but seeing that every-thing changes, anything which does notchange does not exist. But when we say"A equals A," we are not talking aboutthings or events but about logical thinking.What we are concerned about is that ourterms and references are consistent witheach other. The dialectician, in fact, cannoteven say that hundredweights of sand are

unequal unless the terms he uses areidentical.I remember, in my youth in the Party,

imbibing the dubious philosophy of Dietzgenvia Casey's Thinking (still sold, I believe,by the Party). In this application of dia-lecticallogic and its alleged superiority overformal logic we were informed that formallogic asserts that a door which is shut cannotbe open. Dialectical logic, on the other

hand, sets out to show that this is not cate-gorically true. Thus, a door which is shutto human beings can be open to a microbe.All this means is that the circumstancedsituation which makes a door shut to a manis not that which makes it shut to a microbe.Nevertheless, formal logic can still con-sistently maintain that a closed door cannotbe an open one at the same time and inprecisely the same way. If the statement:"This door is shut under the conditionsspecified " does not exclude the statement;cc This door is open," it becomes meaning-less. For that reason, the charges of the" dialecticians" against the inadequacies offormal logic are inadequate to the point of

fiippancy. To recap, the function of logic isnot concerned with the nature of reality butwith consistent statements involved in argu-mentation and propositions.Again, the dialectical formulation that A.

can be not A at one and the same time con-flicts with Marxism itself. From its owntheO"retical standpoint Capitalism cannotalso be Socialism. Again Marxists assert--along with Marx and Engels-that themajor turning points in history have offeredonly two possible alternatives. Becausewe say Socialism is the only alternativeto Capitalism we are committed in thisimportant respect to asserting that A cannot

be A and not A in the same context.Perhaps one of the most serious charges

against Engels is his use of the term"contradiction." It is true that when weuse the expression "the con traditions ofcapitalism" we are referring, of course, tothe consequences and incompatibilitiesresulting from a given social organization-and we are dealing with institutions, men'sactivities, their hopes, aspirations and wills.In this light the term is intelligible. It

is only when we transfer it to physicalrelationships that it takes on the characterof obscurantism.Itis true that Hegel saw contradictions in

"things," but at least they were hypostasizedinto forms of a divine logic; in the lastinstance things, events and occurences couldwith Hegel be dissolved into a series ofascending logical propositions. For Hegelthe dialectical process was the exhaustion ofinconsistencies, through triadic phases untilfinal unity was reached. Engels had nowarrant for transferring this to Nature,unless it was on the assumption that Naturepossessed the attributes of the divine.Contradictions in this sense then are logicalcontradictions and as such belong to think-ing not to things. When Engels tells us thatcontradiction is the dynamic of the develop-men! of phenomena, not only is the state-

ment utterly confused but it reeks withteleological implications.Again, when Engels uses the word

" opposition," he does so in many differentand often incompatible ways. We canreadily understand what is meant by clasopposition and conflict, but in what senseare we to understand opposition and conflicasmodes of behaviour of natural phenomena?It is true that we can recognize contrast and

juxtaposition in physical relations, but to tryto make a transcendental principle of thisopposition is, when it is not obscurantist,definitely mystical. Even Hegel viewed thedialectical categories, along with oppositionand conflict, as the outcome of a logicateleology. He would never have dreamed oattributing them to the behaviour of matteritself. Indeed, one can only say that if matterdoes behave in this way then it is no longermatter in the sense we understand it. Thetrouble with Engels was that he himself usedthe term "dialectic" in many and oftenincompatible ways. He did certainly use iat times as if the dialectic were a universallaw which regulated and governed the cosmic

process.To be more specific on this question o

opposition and conflict constituting thedriving force of all development-the dia-lecticians following Engels assert that matteris in conflict with motion and it is thisconflict which produces a unity of opposites.Such language does not tell us anythingabout matter and motion or matter andenergy, and where it is not misleading it iharmful. Physicists will agree that mattercan be turned into energy and energy intomatter; in short, they are interchangeable.But to call them a unity of opposites addsnothing to our knowledge. Indeed, the

dialecticians' attempt to construct matter andenergy into a unity of opposites not onlyraises some awkward implications for thembut places them in something of a dilemma.In the first place, if the law of the unity

of opposites is a valid law, we would want toknow in what way the conflict of matter andmotion brings about unity of opposites.According to this law, matter possesses theproperty of motion, and it is the conflictbetween matter and motion which bringsthis about. Apart from the argy-bargy, althis is very confusing and leads to a dualisticinterpretation. Thus if, as the dialecticianstell us, the activity of the unity of oppositesmust be an intrinsic activity, then there mustbe some fundamental activity common tothem both. What this is, the dialecticianshave never indicated in the slightest; or arewe forced to the conception that each poleof the opposites has its own dynamic modeof activity and the two in some way or othercoalesce?Not only are the dialecticians unable to

account for the presence of a fundamentalactivity common to both matter and motion-at least, not in any scientific sense: theyhave not provided any means of accountingfor some autonomous activity generated athe poles of this unity of opposites. We must

(Continued on page 208)

205



CAPITALISM •10 1956

Cuttings from the "Financial Times" Survey of

British Industry

deed, low price no longer has theerful marketing value it used to have. The simple fact is that people buyjactions, not just things, and the sub-ve elements form an intrinsic part ofsatisfaction of buying, having or usingoduct. Once purchasing power is moreenough to satisfy the basic objective

nts . . . the surplus will often go intong more satisfying forms of things.

Advertising in a Changing World.

* * *

early 60 per cent. of all the furniturein this country is bought under hire-

rchaseagreements. The furniture industrythe brunt of the very first restriction

osed last year by Mr. Butler and salesbeen doing badly ever since. Produc-in the first three month of this year12 per cent. down on the same periodyear, while unemployment in thetry is, according to the latest estimates,t 9,000 and short time over 13,000 outtotal labour force of about 100,000.

e 30 or 40 firms have closed downgether, while others maintain only aeton staff.

The New Look in Furniture.

* * *

. . The consumer did not in fact benefitgreatly from the 20 per cent. rise in thes domestic product between 1948 and4, although the last three years wereh better than the previous five. Totalumers' expenditure in real termsalued at 1948 factor cost) rose by onlyper cent. while exports rose by 39 per

Government expenditure by 31 per, and capital investment by 26 per cent.

The Rise in Expenditure on Food.

* *

is not only important just to have aision set or a washing-machine or aor-car any longer. It is also imperativeit should be the latest model. There isple reason for this; the latest model isitely superior to the old. Nine-inchIsion screens are as outdated as Tmodels. . . The slogan is "something newdifferent." ... We in Britain are in

eprocess of developing a "gimmick"omy, a liking for gadgets-much on thee lines as the Americans did a decade

ago. And in this phase of industrial progress,the British electrical industry will be ableto supply better and more highly developedproducts, produced economically becauseits market is an ever-increasing masspotential.

Prospective Demands for Durable

Household Goods.

* '* *

great as it is to-day. It is worth noting thatthese are books which appeal most to thenight school student.

The Changing Market tor Books ..

* * *

Despite the introduction of atomic energy,it has been authoritatively estimated thatwe shall still need, by the year 2000, more

coal than we are producing now.The Efforts to Solve theCoal Output Problem.

* *

Although some two million houses havebeen built since 1945 there is still a housingshortage which is clearly apparent to anyonewho wishes to rent a house or a flat. Justhow big a housing shortage remains no oneseems to know. And, indeed, in terms ofeffective demand in relation to the supply

or stock of houses, the shortage is a variablefigure. If rents of controlled houses wereraised to-day to an economic level thegreater use made of the dearer space wouldmaterially diminish the demand for accom-modation. Again, two or three deflationaryyears could reduce the marriage rate anddiminish the demand springing from newfamilies.

Meeting the Housing Shortage.

* *

Middle East markets are some ofthe most political in the world-in thesense that the future of the exporter to thisarea may often be as much dictated bypolitical or diplomatic action as by economicdevelopments and his own efforts. The lastfew years, for example, have seen Persiaremoved from the scene as a major importerfor a considerable period, they have seenexports to Egypt temporarily decline through

political causes, and the pattern of tradewithin the area distorted by the continuingmutual hostility of Israel and the ArabStates .

Britain's Markets in the

Middle East.

* * *

Television has been a primary factor inthe changing social habits=so much so that

it has tended to make a large proportion ofthe population anti-social. Especially is thisthe case during the winter evenings whenfamilies settle themselves around the tele-vision set, with the result that visitors arenot welcomed with open arms if they arriveduring the family's favourite programme.Consequently, calling on friends for a chator a game of cards is not now the order ofthe day. The reduction in the number ofsocial evenings means less "dressing up"so that consequently wardrobes are less filledthan they used to be.

Expenditure on Clothing.

* *

At the moment, then, it looks very muchas if most of the extra money received byconsumers is being fully withdrawn fromthem by higher purchase tax, higher rents,higher fuel and transport charges, higherprices for unsubsidised bread, and higher

Customs and Excise duties on tobacco. Inshort, for 1956 as a whole, the total value ofretail sales will probably increase by at leastanother £400 millions, but the volume ofgoods handled may well decline by 3 to 4per cent.

New Ideas and Methods in

Retail Distribution.

* * *

The risk capital crisis that has been con-tinually forecast ... has still not come to>pass. In the early post-war years, this waspartly due to the fact that the nationalisationActs removed a large block of risk sharesinto the category of gilt-edged; it is anenormous change in the post-war capitalmarket that the huge annual borrowings ofthe transport, electrical and gas industriesare no longer financed by issued of risksecurities.

The Future of the British

Capital Market.

There has been a switch away from novelsand towards serious instructional works.The popularity of books which tell one howto make money out of fretwork, or how tocater for a restaurant, has never been so



SOVIET POST-MORTEM ON STALIN

(From" Soviet News," July 3rd, 1956).

By taking a determined stand against thecult of the individual and its consequences,and by openly criticising the errors it caused,the party has once more demonstrated itsloyalty to the immortal principles ofMarxism-Leninism, its loyalty to the interests of thepeople, its concern for providing the bestpossible conditions for the development ofparty and Soviet democracy in the interestof the successful building of communism inthis country. The central committee of theCP.S.D. places on record the fact that thediscussions on the cult of the individual andits consequences by party organisations andat general meetings of working people havebeen marked by a great measure of activity,shown both by the party membership andby non-party people, and that the C.P.S.D.central committee's line has been welcomedand supported wholly and entirely both by

the party and by the people.

* * *

While the Soviet Union has been doing,and is still doing, very much to bring abouta relaxation in international tension-and thisis now recognised everywhere-Americanmonopoly capital continues to assign largesums of money for strengthening the sub-versive activities in the socialist countries.

We must soberly appraise this fact anddraw the necessary conclusions from it. It isdear, for instance, that the anti-popular riotsin Poznan have been paid for from thissource. But the agents-provocateur and sub,"

versive elements who were paid out of theoverseas funds had enough "go" in themonl» for a few hours. The working peopleof Poznan resisted the hostile actions andprovocations. The plans of the dark knights,of the "cloak and dagger" have fallenthrough, their dastardly provocation againstthe people's power in Poland has failed. Allfuture attempts at subversive actions in thepeople's democracies are similarly doomedto failure, even though such actions aregenerously paid for out of funds assignedby the American monopolies. This moneymay be said to be spent in vain.

* *

J. V. Stalin, who held the post of generalsecretary of the party's central committee fora long period, worked actively in commonwith other leading officials of the party toput into effect Lenin's behests. He wasfaithful to Marxism-Leninism, and as atheorist and an organiser of high calibre heled the party's fight against the Trotskyites,right-wing opportunists, and bourgeoisnationalists, against the intrigues of capitalistsfrom without. It was in this political andideological fight that Stalin earned greatauthority and popularity. But there was amistaken practice to associate all our greatvictories with his name. The achievements

gained by the Communist Party and by theSoviet Union, the eulogies of Stalin madehim dizzy. That being the situation, the cultof the person of Stalin was being graduallybuilt up.

* * *

It is precisely in these conditions that,among other things, a special status wascreated for the state security organs, whichenjoyed tremendous trust because they hadrendered undoubted services to the peopleand the country in defending the gains of

the revolution. For a long time the statesecurity organs justified this trust and theirspecial status evoked no danger. The situa-tion changed after Stalin's personal controlover them had been gradually substitutedfor control by the party and the government,and the usual exercise of the standards otjustice was not infrequently replaced by hisindividual decisions. The situation becamestill more aggravated when the criminalgang of the agent of international imperialism,Beria, got to the head of the state securityorgans. Serious violations of Soviet law andmass repressions were committed. As aresult of the machinations of our enemies,

many honest communists and non-partypeople had been slandered and suffered,although completely innocent.

* *

Some of 1 . V. Stalin's individual qualities,which were regarded as negative yet byV. l.Lenin, contributed in great measure tobuilding up the cult of the individual.Towards the end of 1922 Lenin said in aletter to the coming p.arty congress:"Comrade Stalin, after taking over the

post of general secretary, accumulated inhis hands immeasurable power, and I amno! certain tohether he will be always ableto use this power with the required care."In addition to this letter, written early inJanuary, 1923, V. I. Lenin reverted to someof Stalin's individual qualities, intolerablein a leader. "Stalin is excessively rude,"Lenin wrote, " and this defect, which can befreely tolerated in our midst and in contactsamong us, communists, becomes a defectwhich cannot be tolerated in one holdingthe post of general secretary. I thereforepropose to the comrades to consider themethod by which to remove Stalin from hispost, and to select another man for it who,above ail, would differ from Stalin in onlyone quality, namely, greater to'erance,greater loyalty, greater politeness and a moreconsiderate attitude towards the comrades,a less capricious temper, etc."

* * *

*

It should also be borne in mind thatmany facts about and wrong actions ofStalin, particularly in the sphere of violatingSoviet law, became known only lately,already after Stalin's death, chiefly in con-nection with the exposure of Bena's gangand the establishment of party control overthe security organs. cc The party of therevolutionary proletariat" V. I. Leninpointed out cc is sufficiently strong to openly

criticise itself, to a call a mistake a mistake,and a weakness a weakness" (Works, Vol. 21,Page ISO) . Guided by this Leninist principle,our party will continue, in future too, boldlyto disclose.openly to criticise,and resolutelyto eliminate mistakes and blunders in itswork.

* *

These letters of Lenin's were brought tothe knowledge of the delegations to the 13thParty Congress which met soon after Lenindid. After discussing these documents itwas recognised as desirable to leave Stalinin the position of general secretary on theunderstanding, however, that he would heedthe critical remarks of V. r. Lenin and drawall the proper conclusions from them.

* * *

*

The question may arise: Why then hadthese people not come out openly againstStalin and removed him from leadership?In the prevailing conditions this could notbe done. The facts unquestionably showthat Stalin was guilty of many unlawful acts

that were committed particularly in the lastperiod of his life.

Any question to him under these circum-stances would not have been understood bythe people and it was not at all a matter oflack of personal courage. It is clear thateveryone who in these circumstances wouldhave come out against Stalin would havegot no support from the people. Whatis more, such opposition would have beenevaluated, in those circumstances, as beingagainst the cause of building Socialism, asan extremely dangerous threat to the unityof the party and the whole state in condi-tions of capitalist encirclement.

207

Having retained the post of generalsecretary of the central committee, Stalindid take into account the critical remarksof Vladimar Ilyich during the period immedi-ately following his death. Later on, however,

Stalin, having overestimated his own meritsbeyond all measure, came to believe in hisown infallibility. He began transferringsome of the limitations o f party and Sovietdemocracy, unavoidable in conditions of abitter struggle against the class enemy andits agents, and subsequently during the waragainst the Nazi invaders, into the standardsof party and governmental life, grosslyflouting the Leninist principles of leader-ship. Plenary meetings of the centralcommittee and congresses of the party wereheld irregularly and later were not held atall for many years. Stalin, in fact; was abovecriticism.



tudy Class Notes

CHATTEL SLAVE SOCIETY

very a very old institution.

~I) Its probable origin. (2) Its advantages

at the dawn of civilization, (3) Its evileffects later.

tors enabling Civilization to develop.

(I) Prolific soil and water supply. (2)Presence of natural resources in minerals,etc. (3) Easy channels for communicationand commerce-(a) Sea, rivers, caravanroutes. (b) System of writing for record-ing and conveying information, (4) Animalsapable of domestication.

necessary before Civilizationpossible.

(I) Knowledge ofAgriculture. (2) Develop-

ment of means of storage. (3) Progress inthe arts of architecture, etc. (4) All earlycivilizations were city states.

Some outstanding Ancient Civilizations.

(I) Babylonial, approx. 3,000-6,000

(2) years ago.Egypt,

"3,000-6,000

(3) Crete,"

3,300-3,900

(4) Greece"

2,000-3,000

(5) Rome"

1,500-2,500

Geographical conditions we~e a factor inmoulding them.

(I) Influence of mountains on Babyloniaand Greece. (2) Of rivers on Babyloniaand Egypt. (3) Of the sea on Crete,Greece and Rome. (4) Of the climate onthe people and their products.

The Social Systems.(1) Agriculture the basis. (2) Privateproperty safeguarded. (3) Division into

classes. Position of the chattel slaves.

(5) Political organisation. (6) commercial

activities (prominence of usury).Economic Objects of Wars.

(I) Plunder and tribute.

(3) Securing of sources(4) Clearing of trade routes.tion of trade competitors.

(2) Slaves.of supply.(5) Destruc-

Wealth and Achievements.

(I) Hanging Gardens of Babylon. (2)Pyra-mids of Egypt. (3) Palaces of Crete.

(4) Philosophy and Art of Greece. (5) Legaland Government Institutions of Rome.

Influence of Chattel Slavery on Decay o fAncient Civilization. Modernity of some of

the ideas and ways of the ancient peoples.Continuity of social development and thelegacies of the past.

FEUDALISMFACTUAL.

1. Antecedents.

(a ) East (Egypt, Asia, Mediterranean)Peasant despotisms and peasantdemocracies, with chattel slaveryand some serfdom.

(b ) West-Patriarchal Communism.

The Mark Commune in Agri-. culture.

2. Technical Basis.

Agriculture supplemented by cattle-rearing. Bronze and iron used forploughshares and weapons.

3. Ethnical Period.

Upper Stage of Barbarism andbeginning of civilization-familypatriarchal to monogamic.

4. Organisation.

(a) Roman origins, Existence ofdebtor and creditor led to Patro-cmrum tenure. Bribery and

corruption of declining Romanslave economy leads to welcom-ing of barbarian invaders byRoman peasants.

(b ) Frankish developments. CharlesMartel commandeered Churchlands to subsidise mounted forcesto meet Saracen invasion. Thisled to Precarium tenure in Franc.

(c ) Classes--( I) Agricultural+ King,Barons (tenants-in-chief ortenants-in-mense), Freemen-

not tied to land. Villeins-owned about 30 acres. Bordars(or cottars )--cultivated 3 to 10acres, and also hired them-selves for wages.(2) Co m me.rc il-c-Gu id-Masters; journeymen; appren-

tices.(d) IOS6-Domesday Book. 1215Magna Carta. The Jews' firstappearance in England. I265-Simon de Montfort and ModelParliament.

5. Decline in England.(a ) Germs of Capitalism. Wool

Trade with Flanders. Sheep-rearing led to enclosures. Growthof Commerce and moneyeconomy. Expanding markets.

(b ) I34S-Black Death. Peasantunrest. One-third of populationperish in Black Death. Labourshortage. Attempt to reimpose

Labour Dues. 13SI - WatTyler's Rebellion. 1450-JackCade's Rebellion.

B. IDEOLOGICAL.

I.Religion. Social hierarchy reflectedin clerical and heavenly hierarchy.Philosophy and speculation subord-inated to theology. Church enor-mouslywealthy and powerful. SerfdomGod-ordained.(Concluded on page 203)

(Continued from page 205)

conclude, then, that this basic law of thedialectic cannot offer any adequate account ofnatural phenomena-still less can it claim toeu:body the methodological principles ofSCIence.

The fundamental error of Engels was totake the contradictions involved in thethinking process and transfer them to

physical processes. Had he, like Hegel,

made them part of the development of God,he would at least have been consistent, if no'less mystical. To offer them as a universallaw governing all phenomena is sheermythology.

Engels has been taken over by theCommunists, and Anti-Duhring and TheDialectics of Nature are their text books.To what extent this is so, one discovers onlyby reading Haldane's blurb in the prefaceto Dialectics of Nature, where he claims thatEngels anticipated many important scientificdevelopments. My own view is that Engels'smaterialism, embroidered as it was withdialectical fripperies, was metaphysical. It

was Lenin and those who followed him whoclosely associated themselves with Engels'sviews in the mistaken belief that they wereinterpreting Marxist materialism.

In the next issue it may be possible to,deal with Engels's views on motion and hisconcept of absolute and relative truth.Finally, I do not consider that Marxismrequires a philosophy of dialectical material,whether it come from Engels, Dietzgen or'Lenin-but of this, more anon.

E.W.

Published by the Socialist 'Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4 and printed by Gillett Bros. Ltd. (T.V. all depts.).

Jewel Road, Walthamstow, London, E.17.

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wirral-socialists
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Spgb Forum 1956 41 Aug Sep

Documents