Letter: Environment and reforms (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Environment and reforms

I have an interest in environmental affairs. I am a little perplexed at the reluctance of the SPGB to endorse the rôle of active organizations such as Friends of the Earth or new villagers’ association who, though allegedly apolitically reformist, have the following impact:

1. To precipitate a situation whereby the structural changes in the material world are conducive to the smooth passage to Socialism;

2. To identify the nature of problems as being rooted in the unplanned, inherently wasteful and undemocratic framework of capitalism;

3. To inculcate in the public mind an attitude of educated and systematic scepticism founded on the abundance of evidence for the bureaucratic wastefulness of the capitalist mode of production.

I see the point that a reformist stance makes the capitalist system more palatable and tolerable. But would not piecemeal Socialist measures in this area assist in undermining capitalist credibility, especially if the nature of the solutions and the source of the problems were identifiably explicit?

I wholeheartedly agree that an enlightened working class is a prerequisite for a Socialist revolution (and the brunt of Socialist effort ought to be expended to that end). But it becomes onerously futile to attempt to enlighten the bigoted, especially where their interests are tied up in their minds with the interests and unilateral decisions of those in authority who shape and mould the social and material conditions of a seduced and emasculated working class. Ought one to attempt to effect a change in social structure, to a more egalitarian end, in order to deprive the ruling class of the stranglehold grip they have on the mechanism for the dissemination of ideas?

Robin Cox 

Haslemere

Reply:

You contradict yourself. If Socialism cannot be got over because of the capitalist grip on working-class minds, why commend organizations which aim “to inculcate in the public mind an attitude of educated scepticism” — would not that also be “onerously futile” if your belief is true?

Your argument for piecemeal measures is that ideas become institutionalized, or that enlightened legislation makes enlightened people. Again, we refer you to your own statement that we have “a seduced and emasculated working class”: this is after a hundred years of legislation, much of which had the claims made for it that you are making.

It is impossible to be “apolitically reformist”. Those who desire changes have to support the leaders and parties which promise them, and therefore also support general political programmes.

It is often difficult for reformers to comprehend that their work will turn out differently from what they intend; but see how the Welfare State and comprehensive education have gone sour on those who saw egalitarian ideals in them. It is not because of misapplication, but through the nature of capitalism, which eats good intentions and, we’re afraid, Friends of the Earth.

Your letter shows you are thinking about these things. Keep on doing so.