Letter: Being sure (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Being sure

I think you say that Socialism is scientific, and I appreciate an argument which is presented factually and as a result of convincing research. Your arguments on, say, population and food and raw material resources are compelling but clash with other arguments presented by reputable scientists. On what solid fact or research do you come to your conclusions, and where are your references for checking? It is true that a lot can be deduced from common sense and first principles, but on questions such as “how much fossil fuel is left?” only scientific facts will do. I know that an organization of your size and limited financial resources and research facilities can’t hope to tackle this problem, but references to second-hand figures from other journals leave at least one of your readers wondering: how do they really know?

I think your arguments are at their best when they are couched in cool and temperate language. While agreeing with many of your criticisms, are all monarchs and their hangers-on, politicians and capitalists etc. wicked, malicious, deceitful villains? Or is it not possible that the Queen, say, is an honest, straightforward, well-meaning anachronism and in that sense as, much a victim of the system as you or I? Do you really think that every single member (or leader) of, say, the Labour Party is a cynical careerist or is it possible that most are genuinely misguided sincere men who believe by reformism that they are doing good work? Again, the capitalists themselves: what are they to do in the present system—should one sell all his goods and leave his family as destitute as the rest of the working class just for the sake of it? Such a person may, through his environment, education and upbringing, be a victim of the system. Are there not wicked workers? I’m saying you are right, but can the working class be won over only if there are “baddies and goodies”? Or should we be looking at the system and its effects, treating human nature as an “effect” of the system?

Please reflect on this and see whether there isn’t a bit of truth in it. And it wouldn’t be a bad idea for one or two of you to be bloody wrong for once, because as well as being a bit peevish I think you are a bit smug as well. Try to take a joke.

J.

Greater Manchester (name and address supplied)

Reply

We say that the two condtions for establishing Socialism are (a) when social production can produce a sufficiency of goods and (b) when the majority of the working class understand Socialism and are convinced of the necessity for it. We claim that the first of these conditions exists. Our support for this comes from all sorts of sources. A major one is United Nations statistics (e.g. the Study of the Problem of Raw Materials and Development, UN Gen. Assembly A 9544); and it is unlikely that they are biased in our favour. Others include scientific journals such as the Scientific American and The Ecologist, to which reputable scientists contribute.

It would be easier for us to reply properly if you had been a little more specific: which scientists disagree with us over what? One report which superficially contradicts one of our claims is the MIT Limits to Growth study, 1972, which argues that of the 19 mineral and energy resources vital to industrial society, 10 had such low known reserves that at current consumption rates they would run out in forty years. But this makes assumptions such as (1) that population is increasing exponentially, (2) that current consumption rates will continue, and (3) that it is not possible to develop alternative energy sources. In fact it is no longer true that population is increasing at the 1972 rate.

Maybe there are “wicked, malicious, deceitful villains” around; we don’t allege that the Queen is among them, and we certainly don’t blame individuals for the positions they occupy in society. Capitalism and its effects would still be here if every capitalist and every politician were scrupulously honest. No capitalist is responsible for the present order of things; capitalism was brought about not by individual decision but by the pressures of class interests leading to a change in the mode of production.

We don’t tell capitalists to act the part of philanthropists, but we advise any individual to start propagating Socialism. And we don’t think it is human nature to cheat, be competitive etc.; this is only socially-conditioned human behaviour. If you do know any capitalist who wants to give some away, the SPGB is short of money at the moment. (Most of us do have a sense of humour.)

Editors.