Letter: Terror and culture in Africa (1953)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Terror and culture in Africa

London,

S.W.1.

The Editor,

Sir,

One of your readers has sent me your paper. I am at a loss to understand why, but I am appalled at the ignorance displayed by your leading article: “Savagery, Black and White.” I am not a Socialist, but no doubt an intellectual case can be made for Socialism. Palliation of savage atrocity, however, is no part of Socialism—at least Socialism as I have always understood it. The Mau Mau you are presenting as a constitutional nationalist movement to your readers (who mostly have no first-hand knowledge of Africa), is a terrorist organisation directed as much against Africans, and indeed against their fellow tribesmen, as against Europeans. Do you really suggest that ripping a child from its mother’s womb and cutting off babies’ heads and drinking their blood is reminiscent of the ceremonies of Free Masonry?

I realise that this silliness is not due to any ill-will but simply from a lack of knowledge.

The statement that the Kenya African is far behind his brother on the West Coast is strictly accurate. The Africans on the East Coast fifty years’ ago when the Europeans first went there had no knowledge of the wheel or of the fulcrum. Their social organisation was extremely simple. Indeed they were primitive people in the true sense. On the contrary, the West Coast African can be described as barbarian in the technical sense, but not primitive. The Ashanti kingdom, for example, may have been bloodstained, but it was a complicated organisation approximating to the Lombard kingdom, which, savage though it may have been, has after all left us an imperishable legend. The Kikuyu have no art, whereas the West African sculptured heads (of which examples can be seen in the British Museum), are universally regarded as masterpieces. From whence arises these differences between the East and West African? Not, of course, from any inherent difference in ability, but from the fact that the West Coast has been in contact with Western civilization from at least the Sixteenth Century, and Portuguese influence is obvious in their art and techniques. It is, after all, the contact of cultures which makes civilization. What would have been the civilization of these islands if we had had no contact with the Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes or Normans, but had remained completely isolated and inhabited by the aborigines of these islands, whether they were Picts or Britons?

Before the war many good Socialists and honest men were seriously misled about the state of Europe by insisting on regarding every human being as a good trade unionist with a hundred years of industrial organisation and two hundred years of chapel-going behind him. Many present-day Socialists are made to look foolish when they insist on regarding savage and barbarian peoples in the same way as their predecessors did the Nazi and Communist movements. Hodgkin's “Italy and Her Invaders’’—incidentally a most fascinating book—is a much better preparation for the understanding of present-day Africa than are the publications of the Fabian Society.

I remain,

          Your obedient servant,

Diana Spearman.

Reply to Miss Spearman 

In her criticism of the article “Savagery, Black and White” which appeared in the Socialist Standard for last December, Miss Spearman reads into the article statements that are not there. The Mau Mau is not presented as a constitutional nationalist movement nor does the article palliate “savage atrocit". The key to the article is contained in the last sentence: “Thus imperialist chickens come home to roost!” The Africans in the past have been treated with ruthless savagery by the whites; is it surprising that some of them remember and try to repay in kind?

To explain the source of violence and cruelty is not to palliate it. We condemn all violence and cruelty, civilised and uncivilised, and we are advocating a world in which they will have no place. Miss Spearman, however, is prepared to condone some cruelty and violence because it leaves behind a legacy of culture!

Miss Spearman says “I am appalled at the ignorance displayed in your leading article.” But she does not give any examples of the alleged ignorance. The article takes conflicting statements from authoritative sources and points out the contradictions. Is that ignorance? Miss Spearman has allowed her emotions to obscure her critical faculties and reads into the article what was never even suggested. The writer of the article quoted from The Times a description of the Mau Mau oath-taking and then points out that this account is reminiscent of the secret oath-taking ceremonies of the Freemasons. There was nothing in this ceremony about ripping a child from its mother's womb. Are we to understand that Miss Spearman has “firsthand knowledge” of this? If so we would be interested to learn how she witnessed it! Since she is on this subject may we remind her of a hideous civilized ceremony of Holy Communion in which the body and blood of Christ is consumed in token form.

Then we are told by inference that we must not worry about the bloodstained Ashanti kingdom because, like the Lombard kingdom, it left an imperishable legend of culture behind. Under those circumstances, apparently, the cutting off of babies heads is palliated! But Miss Spearman does not go back far enough in her description of the West African culture. Genuine West African culture was destroyed by the slave traders who visited Nigeria and the adjacent districts in the 16th and 17th centuries. Over 80 per cent. of the negro slaves came from this area and what were they like? According to anthropologists they “came from the economically most advanced, artistic, and socially complex areas of Negroid Africa. The economic, organizational, and aesthetic levels of these districts were in general comparable to the slave empires of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome." (Page 72 “Outline of Anthropology," by Jacobs and Stein, 1948.)

The Portuguese and other civilized ruffians destroyed these cultured communities, branded their cultured members with irons and herded them into slave ships to undergo long voyages packed in stifling holds. So many died of their sufferings on the voyages that many of the ships had to jettison a large part of their human cargo on the way. The following extract from Sir Alan Burns' “History of Nigeria ” (1942) will give a little idea of what these negroes suffered:

“The cruelties practised by white men in this trade are almost unbelievable. The condition of the crowded hold of a slave-ship during the long 'middle passage’ in tropical weather across the Atlantic would explain the reason why scores of slaves died on every voyage, and why others would, when the opportunity offered, leap overboard to escape sufferings worse than death. Men and women were flogged to compel them to eat, and hot irons were occasionally used to force them to open their mouths and swallow the food which they were too sick at heart to eat willingly. They were flogged again to make them dance and sing in order that they should not brood over their misfortunes. Unbounded licence was given to the officers and crews of slavers as regards the women; the men slaves were fastened together in pairs by handcuffs and leg-irons, and frequently were stowed so close together as to admit of no other posture than lying on their sides. The height between decks was sometimes only 18 inches, so that the slaves could not turn round or even lie on their sides. In about the year 1785 one ship took on board 700 slaves, who were 'so crowded that they were obliged to lie one upon another. This occasioned such a mortality among them that, without meeting with unusual bad weather, or having a longer voyage than common, nearly one-half of them died before the ship arrived in the West Indies’ ” (pages 78-79).

Against this record of misery Miss Spearman sets the Portuguese influence upon the art of the Benin people! If she can shed civilized hypocrisy for a moment let her compare the thousands upon thousands of negroes from West Africa—men, women and children—who were torn apart and suffered the miseries of the slave ships and after, with the atrocities which are placed at the door of the Mau-Mau and she must admit that, bad as the latter are, they are puny in comparison with the atrocities of the civilized. But she need not even go back so far. Whatever the Mau-Mau may have done to babies and women is trifling in comparison to what was done to Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and at other places during the Great War and in Korea.

Since Miss Spearman is so worked up over Mau-Mau ferocity let us call her attention to another example of civilized ferocity from a different part of the world.

Sir Francis Head was Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada during the first half of last century. After his experiences there he wrote a “Memorandum on the Aborigines of North America" which he included in his book “A Narrative” published by John Murray—London, 1839. From this memorandum we take the following extracts:

"The fate of the red inhabitants of America, the real proprietors of its soil, is, without any exception, the most sinful story recorded in the history of the human race; and when one reflects upon the anguish they have suffered from our hands, and the cruelties and injustice they have endured, the mind, accustomed to its own vices, is lost in utter astonishment at finding that in the red man’s heart there exists no sentiment of animosity against us, no feeling of revenge;”

"So long as we were obtaining possession of their country by open violence, the fatal result of the unequal conquest was but too clearly understood; but now that we nave succeeded in exterminating their race from vast regions of land, where nothing in the present day remains of the poor Indian but the unnoticed bones of his ancestors, it seems inexplicable how it should happen that, even where their race barely lingers in existence, it should still continue to wither, droop, and vanish before us like grass on the progress of the forest in flames.”

Sir Francis Head’s memorandum was sent to the Government of the day but nothing happened, the interests involved were too powerful. He wrote his book when he returned to England to call attention to the plight of the red men but it was wasted effort, the red men continued to be harried until in despair they retaliated, as best they could, in the seventies and eighties, providing writers with material for “Westerns” but doing themselves no good in the end. They were up against the civilized lust for wealth and it was too much for them. Is Miss Spearman prepared to overlook the violent and cruel wiping out of the red men on account of American culture?

Miss Spearman tells us easily that the social organisation of the Kenya African was extremely simple. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, in his introduction to Peristiany’s “The Social Institutions of the Kipsigis” (published in 1929), by no means supports this view:

"Anthropology in Kenya has been left to the initiative of individuals. Our knowledge of the peoples is not a good advertisement for scientific laisser-faire. Although Europeans have been settled in Kenya for about half a century we know very little about the social structure of its peoples,” page xix.

Peristiany’s book, the record of first-hand observation, reveals that the social organisation was anything but “extremely simple.”

Before Miss Spearman goes out of her way to tell us we are silly she should delve more deeply into the subject herself.

We may add that “a much better preparation for the understanding of present-day Africa” is neither Hodgkin nor the publications of the Fabian society but a study of white imperialism in Africa and books by such investigators of native life as Junod, Hobley, Rattray, Peristiany, Schapora and the like

Finally, if Miss Spearman is genuinely concerned about atrocities today let her attack the father of them all—Capitalism with its insatiable lust for profit.

Gilmac.

Letter: In other words (1977)

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

In other words

I found the letter written by Jon Lieberman in the August edition of the Socialist Standard very interesting, for, like him, I consider Party members to be an aloof bunch of egg-heads, no doubt very sincere in their almost foolproof beliefs, but completely and utterly devoid of a sense of humour and suspicious of change.

Of course, the Declaration of Principles are precise and straightforward to anyone living during the period 1910 to 1940, but language and phrasing change, and it’s time the SP realized this. Nobody wishes to see Pentagonese used to describe your aims, such as: "That, at this moment in time, as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the working class keep a low profile, there is no way other than escalation of hostility, etc., etc.”; but I have endeavoured to rewrite the aims as near to present-day understanding as possible.

Incidentally, that Principle No. 8! Why read “SPGB’’ twice? And why not call yourselves World Socialist Party? Since when did Socialists consider Britain Great?

R. J. Otter

Shepperton

Reply:

Let’s put it like this: the verbal confusions in the first part of your letter make us suspicious of the verbal alterations you suggest in the second part. If our beliefs are "almost foolproof”, as you state, why criticize us for not being eager to change? Though sympathetic with us you stand outside the Socialist Party, but say we are "aloof”. You may have been somehow unfortunate in a limited contact with members, but do you really mean "completely and utterly devoid” of a sense of humour (and have you never seen evidence to the contrary in the Socialist Standard)?

As regards the name of the Party, Great Britain is the name of the political unit we operate in. Our opinion does not enter into it. We do not think Clapham High Street is High, either, but it is beyond our control and doesn’t matter anyway.

We have considered suggestions for re-wording our Declaration of Principles at various times, but no alternative has provided the same meaning. There is not space to reproduce yours in full, but the first one reads:

Society in today’s world is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e. land, factories, business groups etc.) by the capitalist class; and that consequently the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced, is powerless.

The opening phrase is a tautology: "today’s world” is society. "Business groups” are not part of the means of living. You have cut out any reference to the means of distributing wealth, leaving the impression that "means of living” is restricted to the means of production. “Powerless” has a political meaning, whereas the definition of the working class is economic. Similar criticisms apply to your other re-worded clauses. Not many marks out of ten, we’re afraid.

Blogger's Note:

R. J. Otter was an ex-member of the SPGB. He was a member of Islington Branch from August 1956 until April 1960. He reigned from the Party, stating that it was ". . . unrealistic and has a bad personal attitude." Ouch.

He returned to the letters pages of the Socialist Standard nearly ten years later, in October 1987, and he still wasn't happy with the Party.

Letter: Ideas and Struggle (1989)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ideas and Struggle

Dear Comrades,

I found an old copy of your magazine Socialist Standard at a friend's place. I was very interested to read it and there were several thought-provoking articles.

Have you got anything on Trotskyism? Several of my friends have very nearly joined such parties as the SWP. Militant and the RCP. A few years ago, I was on the periphery of the RCP, but their ruthless party building (and total rejection of real working class issues) turned me off . . . fortunately. I find that the Trotskyists have a very patronising attitude to the working class that I presume results from Lenin's theory that, on their own, workers can only reach a trade union consciousness and thus, hey presto, the need for the guiding light of a revolutionary party—it does not seem to have done that much guiding so far! And what do you think of anarchism? I have occasionally read anarchist papers—some of them are nothing more than liberal rubbish (such as Freedom), but others do have more sense (e.g. Direct Action) in that they emphasise the class rather than the culture!

I must say that I do have my differences with the SPGB analysis, particularly over how socialism will be achieved. I completely agree with you that a majority of the working class needs to be fighting for socialism, but. as Marx said, "ideas change in struggle". To me this means that at any time there is a possibility of real change because in mass struggle the ideas of the working class do change. For example, if the miners strike had spread to other sectors (as it had to in order to avoid defeat), then we might have seen a possible revolution. I think that it is very Leninist to underestimate the abilities and potential of the working class. You say "the democratic conquest of political power”— what about the real power in this society, the economic structure? Thatcher is merely a puppet of the bosses' interests. To talk of revolution in such mild terms makes me think of naivety such as what would you do if there was a military uprising against the new socialist government?

I also think that you emphasise educational activities far too much. I would never deny the importance of propaganda, but getting back to that original quote from Marx: “ideas change in struggle” . . . not through passive book reading. So I would argue that socialists should be fighting back against this rotten system in their own lives in the here and now (for example, agitating for a strike in their workplace, leafletting their community about the Poll Tax and helping to set up Anti-Poll Tax Unions) and supporting all other working class people in their struggles against class society. I think that it is only through such a movement as this that society will be changed—but I am very interested to hear what you have to say

Norman Davis

London, N16

REPLY
1. Yes, as Marx said, ideas change in struggle. But this does not mean to say that ideas change suddenly. In fact, the process of overcoming the overwhelming conditioning of capitalism is itself a long hard struggle. We do not underestimate the potential of the working class, as the Leninists do, when we say that the majority of workers are at present imbued with support for capitalism. There is a great potential for workers to make the transition to understand and want socialism instead, but we would be kidding ourselves and others if we accepted, for example, that if the miners' strike had spread "then we might have seen a possible revolution". The key precondition for a socialist revolution is that a majority should be socialists, fully conscious of their class position and their interests as workers in ending capitalism. If the miners' strike had benefited from greater solidarity amongst other workers, it would have improved the miners' position, and would have been a sign that class consciousness was growing. But that simple condition, of a majority of genuine socialists, still stands as an indispensable precondition for the revolutionary change we seek, and we continue to work with great determination to build up such a majority.

2. Yes, Thatcher is a puppet of the bosses' interests. But political power within capitalism cannot be overestimated—the bosses spend millions through their parties securing and organising political power. In Britain today, the state forces including the military are, as a matter of concrete fact, under the control of a parliamentary government which is given electoral support by the very workers whose interests it opposes. Many on the Left find it hard to face up to the harsh fact that capitalism, in all of its forms, does depend on the acquiescence and/or apathy of a majority of workers themselves. With the growth of a socialist majority, determined to end capitalism, the notion of a military uprising to prevent this is nonsensical. How would such a military force even exist or survive against the solid and hostile opposition of a socialist majority throughout society? The greater degree of class consciousness which that would entail on the part of the majority would make it more than likely that such a military sect would be starved of food, of power and electricity supplies, of uniforms, of weapons and of credibility.

3. You say that "passive book reading” and educational work are not enough on their own, but must be combined with active campaigning, e.g. against the poll tax, or for strikes at work, as, going back once again to Marx, "ideas change in struggle”. It is false to make such a rigid division between passive reading and active action. Reading and learning is itself an activity. Furthermore, the substance and subject matter of what socialists write and read about is, of course, the subject matter of the class struggle itself. And, on the other hand, a lot of so-called radical actions are actually nothing more than feeble attempts to reform and modify capitalism, to dress up oppression in a new guise. But, as far as trade union and strike action are concerned, or democratic efforts by workers to combine and improve (or just maintain) their wages and conditions of work, the Socialist Party fully supports such action. As active members of a whole range of trade unions, many of our members have worked very long and hard at such active struggle. But as a political party standing unequivocally for socialist revolution our role, which we carry out to the best of our abilities, is to put to our fellow workers the most urgent choice facing the entire human race now in 1989: are we. the deprived majority, going to allow the world's resources to remain harmfully in the hands of about 1-5 per cent of the population, or are we at last going to act on our true interests. and organise politically, consciously and democratically for the overthrow of capitalism, and the establishment of world socialism?

Editors.

Letter: Democracy and Votes (1992)

The offending cartoon.

Letter to the Editors from the November 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Democracy and Votes

Dear Editors.

Your cartoon in the July issue of Socialist Standard really did reach the depths of Stalinist-style amalgam tactics, in its attempt to link anarchism to Stalinism and Nazism. Not only was the cartoon scurrilous, it was also inaccurate as well. Stalin through the Comintern advised the Communist Parties worldwide to use parliamentary tactics, as was so miserably illustrated with the career of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Hitler for his part used parliamentary methods, as did, and still do. other fascist parties, including Mussolini.

You say that anarchists ignore the State. On the contrary, those revolutionary anarchists who have learnt the lessons of history believe that a social revolution must involve the active destruction of the State. There is a big difference between electing MPs and mandating delegates to, for example, a workplace or neighbourhood council. The delegates to these would be decided upon by mass assemblies. and would be mandated and subject to instant recall. Parliamentarians would be under no such control of the masses. What is more alienating under capitalism than to file singly into an election booth once in every five years?

You pay lip service to self organisation and mass action. In reality, in your advocacy of parliament, including the defence of institutions like the Russian Constituent Assembly, you show yourselves as staunch defenders of bourgeois democracy.

Ron Allen, 

Anarchist Communist Federation 

London E1

Reply:
Thanks for the compliment! Yes, we do say that the vote is an important gain and we do say that “bourgeois” democracy, for all its many limitations, provides the best framework for workers to organise themselves without leaders—both to defend their interests under capitalism and to struggle to replace it by the fully democratic society that socialism will be. What are you saying? That it makes no difference whether or not we have the vote? We don’t think you will get very far with that one— Editors.

Letter: Population breeds pollution? (1991)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Population breeds pollution?

Dear Editors,

Thank you for publishing my letter on population and for your reply (July Socialist Standard). I do not understand why you so vehemently dismiss population growth as a contributor to serious environmental problems, and indulge in a compulsive denigration of Malthus: “Parson Malthus spouting his own brand of naturalistic determinism”, "apocalyptic vision had not an iota of scientific validity”, "completely arbitrary” (Socialist Standard, April 1991). Perhaps you are loyally echoing Marx’s similar invective when Malthus’s theory seemed to threaten his system?

In fact, Malthus regarded rapid population growth as highly desirable, provided adequate resources were available to support it. Nor was he a misanthrope, but a person of great charm and an advocate of progressive social measures, including much more equitable distribution of wealth. It is clear that he would have preferred his theory, arrived at in the pursuit of truth, not to have been valid, but could not escape from its conclusions. Which of these conclusions have stood the test of time?

The best known is that human fertility has the capacity to increase population exponentially ("geometrically") and, if unchecked, can overwhelm any conceivable supply of resources. (This is true; for example. if this country’s population of about 9 million in 1800 had grown at Kenya’s present rate of 4 percent per annum, we should now have more than three times the present world population of 5,500 million). What Malthus could not have known was that the revolution in agriculture was about to lead to a rapid increase in production, sufficient temporarily to relax the linkage between population and food supply that had, as Malthus realised, held in Europe for many centuries. The health of the people, and their numbers, now increased together, as Malthus. with characteristic honesty, acknowledged in the fifth edition of his Essay in 1817. Even so. the "misery" (Malthus's word) of anxiety about supporting a large family still operated strongly, and the average annual population growth of about 1.5 percent per annum during the 19th century fell a good deal short of the theoretical maximum, and indeed of present growth rates in Africa and South America.

Birth control

In the developed countries the anxiety about supporting a large family has now been much reduced by a deliberate choice of small family size, facilitated by contraception, something which Malthus ruled out on moral grounds, recommending instead “moral restraint” and voluntary choice of late marriage. (Practising what he preached, he married at 38 and only had three children). Your reply to my letter says that I “undermine the case for birth control by associating it with the ideas of Malthus”. Whatever this means, it does seem to be an association that Malthus himself would have rejected.

I said in my earlier letter that we should look at the actual world situation as it is now to see if some common ground for agreement can be found. In the developed world, rates of population growth are low and in some countries may become negative for a time. As some reduction in population size would have many beneficial effects. it is hard to sympathise with the near-hysterical reaction this prospect seems to produce in some quarters.

The Third World of poor countries is another matter. In Africa, food supply is now falling behind population, and the latter is expected to double in the next 25 years, unless serious attempts are made to reduce growth, or the checks of famine and disease detailed by Malthus are allowed to operate. Attempts to increase food production in Africa or (as you imply) in Western countries that might export food to stricken areas will involve soil erosion, deforestation, increased pollution by pesticides and fertilisers, and greater demand for energy. Clearly these measures can only provide temporary relief while population growth is dealt with. Any delay will only lead to further increases in the numbers at which population levels off.

Turning to environmental damage by human activities, your pamphlet Ecology and Socialism recognises the dangers of the “present mode of production” to the biosphere and acknowledges the "urgent need for humans to take action to change the way they relate to the rest of nature". So far so good, but the next sentence offers an explanation which is altogether too facile: "We in the Socialist Party agree that capitalism has devastating consequences for the environment”. Much more careful analysis is needed here than you offer in your reply to my earlier letter, in which you simply assert that the only cause of the ecological crisis is the capitalist system: "its cause is not the pressure of population nor industrialisation".

Several issues need to be disentangled: is it true that an industrial system can be run under any political regime without causing significant environmental damage, that damage being approximately proportional to the size of population? Will a socialist system at least minimise the damage? How long is it likely to be before a socialist system can be put into operation on a world scale? What are the implications of population growth in relation to these questions?

Ecological damage

It is certainly true that the capitalist system encourages economic growth as a consequence of its internal dynamics, and that this leads to rapid obsolescence, increased production rather than more efficient conservation, thoughtless depletion of resources dictated by market forces, short term planning through discounting the future. and so on. Additionally, the present state of international relations leads to wasted spending on armaments at a rate of £1,000,000 a minute (though this represents less than 5 percent of world GNP).

One can only make informed guesses as to how far the benefits of industrialism (which you welcome—see Socialist Standard, April 1991) can be provided with little or no environmental damage, but the measures you suggest in One Green World, although beneficial, would be very far from reducing the damage to zero. Recycling of materials requires energy and is inevitably incomplete in each cycle; “prudent" use of fossil fuels would still mean heavy use; control of pollution is only partial in most industrial processes; and so on. Transition to more economical practices takes time, and further population growth and the expansion of industry in the Third World are more than likely to outpace the improvements in technology.

In Ecology and Socialism (page 27) there is a complete misunderstanding of the effects of a “steady-state economy", which, although less menacing than an exponentially expanding one, is not sustainable if its consumption and production rates are high. For example, stabilising fossil fuel consumption at today’s levels would still lead to a progressive and rapid increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. (However, you do at least acknowledge that as part of a steady-state economy, population levels must also be stable—i.e., growth must cease! I low do you reconcile that with your dismissal of population growth as a cause of the ecological crisis?)

Even if the socialist system you envisage comes about by achievement of the necessary popular majorities in its support, this is bound to be well into the future. Would it not be wise in the meantime to reduce population growth as far as possible while the existing, more wasteful, economic system is in being? And can you be sure that, in practice, your system will be as effective as you claim in reducing ecological damage? I can think of few things more conducive to waste than being able to pick up as much as one likes of basic commodities for nothing.

I spent over 20 years in the late Conservation Society, most of the time as its chairman or director, and the relationship between politics and the environment was one of my main interests. I find many of your goals attractive, but reading your dogmatic assertions about how to achieve them prompts me to conclude with a paragraph from Malthus:

The speculative philosopher [i.e.. the advocate for the perfectibility of man. and of society] equally offends against the cause of truth. With eyes fixed on a happier state of society, the blessings of which he paints in the most captivating colours, he allows himself to indulge in the most bitter invectives against every present establishment, without applying his talents to consider the best and safest means of removing abuses and without seeming to be aware of the tremendous obstacles that threaten, even in theory, to oppose the progress of man towards perfection.

John Davoll

Shepperton, Middx

Reply: No, it doesn't—capitalism does

Socialists argue that the lot of the majority of world society can be vastly improved by replacing the present dominant world economic system—capitalism—with a system of common ownership and democratic control of the means of life. This system would allow the Earth's resources to be used to abolish world poverty and misery through the institution of production directly for use instead of for sale at a profit as now happens. Malthus and his followers deny that such an improvement can come about. According to them, increasing population will wipe out any gains, so it is better to do nothing. Not only is this wrong; it is heartless and deeply anti-human. It leads to a situation where a fall in the death rate (because, for instance, improved living conditions lead to babies and children living longer) is seen as a “catastrophe"

Thus Garrett Hardin, a Professor of Ecology at the University of California, can say:

I don't think anything can be done in the short term that won't make things worse in the long term. If there are too many people . . . saving lives ensures that more people will die in the end. . . . If a population is so malnourished that its physical ability to produce children is reduced, the first effect of improving a peoples nutrition is to increase that fertility. (The Christian theologian) Tcrtullian regarded famine as a blessing, to cut out excess population. It sounds hard . . . but it is so. (Science Digest, May 1986).

Apart from the fact that in the long run we are all dead, the thing to notice here is that the “excess" population are never well-off university professors but those unfortunate enough to have been born poor and without access to the means to overcome their poverty.

Is it really surprising that socialists attack these notions? Marx did so with a vigour which may have on occasion bordered on the intemperate but that is understandable in view of what was being said. He certainly did not do so because he feared “Malthus's theory seemed to threaten his system". Like us, he attacked the ideas and theories of Malthus because they were wrong and because they were used to defend the status quo.

Family size

Large families are not the cause of poverty. Many small families and people without dependants suffer the ill effects of poverty while the wealthy and privileged whatever the size of their families have always been able to escape from the misery and privations suffered by the poor. Nor would the attainment of “zero population growth" automatically lead to an improvement in the lot of the propertyless majority. The history of Ireland is proof of this. The population at the end of the 19th century was about half what it had been earlier in the century, yet the majority remained poor and the Irish economy relatively underdeveloped.

Socialists are all in favour of the widest possible dissemination of information about birth control and methods of limiting the size of families or the numbers of one's children. But one important point to notice (and it seems to have been missed by John Davoll) is that family size is not simply a question of biological drives. It also has a social aspect. Historical, economic and cultural factors play a very large (possibly major) part in determining family size:

reproduction, whether at high or low levels, is so important to the family and to society everywhere that its level is more or less controlled by cultural norms about family size . . . In each society the cultural norms about these vital matters arc consistent with the social institutions in which they are deeply embedded. Changes in fertility are unlikely without prior or, at least, simultaneous changes in those institutions. (R. Freedman quoted in David M. Heer, Readings on Population, 1968).

A study of the failure of a large-scale multi-million dollar birth control campaign in India (the Khanna Study) pointed directly to the fact that a large family was a necessity for the overwhelming majority of the agricultural population studied. For them the practice of birth control was seen as economically ruinous and a threat to their well-being, particularly in later life in a society lacking state-provided welfare services. (Mahmood Manvidani, The Myth of Population Control, 1973).

It is obvious that the numbers of human beings cannot go on rising for ever. But to think that population control can be successful without the introduction of the economic security that socialism would bring is mistaken. Engels put the matter well in a letter he wrote to Karl Kautsky in February 1881:

There is of course the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage Communist society finds itself obliged to regulate the production of human beings . . . it will be precisely this society, and this society alone, which can carry this out without difficulty. (Marx and Engels on Malthus, 1953. p. 97).

Contrast this with the contradictory forces operating within capitalist society. Fears about the "dangers" of overpopulation alternate with concerns regarding population decline seen as a loss both of potential markets and of recruits for the armed forces to fight for the interests of the ruling class in the wars capitalism causes.

Thus present-day child benefit payments to parents in Britain have their roots in a 1944 White Paper advocating family allowances as a means of arresting the decline in the birth rate. A recent report by the Family Policy Studies Centre into a similar situation in the Common Market over the past few years suggests that pressure will be put on the European Commission in Brussels to support "pro-natalist" policies (Independent, 29 July 1991).

John Davoll expresses an understandable concern about conditions in some parts of Africa. The situation there is, again, the outcome of the workings of the world capitalist economy. Investment of capital in profit-making enterprises such as logging lays waste vast areas of forest at a far greater rate than local subsistence farming. Investment in large-scale agriculture drives the peasant who cannot afford to compete on to fragile marginal land which rapidly degenerates into desert:

Drained, fertile floodplains and complex irrigation systems favour the most "economically profitable" land use systems which invariably amounts to the large-scale cultivation of cash crops destined for the export market. As a result of the small farmer's weak financial position he cannot compete for the fertile lands, and is relegated therefore to lands of marginal fertility for food production. (Saidou S. Jallow of Gambia College in S. H. Arnold and A. Nitecki Culture and Development in Africa. 1990. p. 72).

Africa cannot be seen in isolation from the rest of the W'orld. A world-wide socialist system would give all access to food and the means of producing it. Local shortages could easily be made good from the common world pool of resources.

Capitalism and pollution

Because under capitalism profit-seeking firms are producing commodities to be sold on the market in competition with other profit-seekers, they are under pressure to produce as cheaply as possible so as to undercut competitors. Anything which adds to their costs of production (as pollution control measures do) hampers this profit-seeking and is resisted on the grounds that some competitors may not have to bear the same cost.

When pollution control first became a big political issue in the 1960s the then President of the Chemical Industry Society, Professor G. H. Beeley, pointed out that chemical wastes were not re-used because "it is cheaper to throw them away" than to concentrate them for re-use:

Neither the chemical industry nor the users of its products lightly accept. . . the cost of disposing their waste. The cost can mean the difference between profit and loss".(Soil Association press release. 28 July 1969.)

This is why under present conditions the elimination of 98 percent of emissions from smoke stacks takes place only where the value of precious metals recovered is greater than the cost of filtration. Socialism, because it will produce for use only and not for profit, will have no such constraints on the implementation of know n measures to eliminate pollution.

We are a little surprised that John Davoll appears to chide us for advocating re-cycling as a means to a sustainable “steady-state economy”. He himself has gone on record as stating that “industrialism" does not have to cause the environmental damage it does today "if goods were made more durable . . . and were also designed to be capable of being re-cycled, re-used and repaired" (John Davoll. "A Sustainable Society", Conservation Times No 86. July-October 1983).

Humankind has now developed the technology to provide everyone on Earth with a decent existence while at the same time minimising environmental depletion and destruction. How soon? As soon as a majority understand the need for the change and take the necessary democratic political action to gain control of the state and use it as a means to free us from the danger we are now in. Many hands will speed the plough.

Gwynn Thomas

Blogger's Note:

John Davoll's mention of  'One Green World' may be in reference to this special issue of the Socialist Standard that dates from August 1987.

Letter: Voting for socialism (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Voting for socialism

Dear Editors.

After reading July's Socialist Standard I feel I must raise a few points. The "strategy" of the SPGB has always been to argue the case for socialism through propaganda and public meetings and debates, and win the "battle of ideas" so that the new society of socialism can be democratically voted in. This is exactly how you approached the General Election. In Islington, where the only socialist candidate stood, the battle was fought on the streets where literature was sold on stalls and at tube stations; in your manifesto and leaflets which were delivered to all households; in posters and stickers which clearly stated the socialist message; and at your election rally "ours was a battle of ideas". And you lost! The people of Islington were presented with the case for socialism and it was rejected, with your candidate polling fewer votes than the average loony candidate or fascist.

All this should lead socialists to ask the following questions:

1. Do people want socialism?
2. How do people develop a socialist consciousness?
3. Can socialism be simply voted in?

First of all. as you know, the word socialism is often incorrectly used to describe anything from the programme of the Labour Party to the dictatorship of a Leninist state. So initially people tend to have a rather negative attitude towards socialism, but when the ideas of genuine socialism are explained, the reaction is different. Usually people can be persuaded that socialism is a good thing, but they feel that “it will never happen" or "it's a good idea but it won’t work because of human nature”. This is the problem. People who have lived under capitalism and are used to being told what to do by people "in charge" find the ideas a bit of a quantum leap from reality. They see socialism as a kind of impossible Utopia and that "in the real world” the only practical choice at election time is between the parties that have a good chance of getting in.

It is not that people are necessarily against socialism. It is just that they don’t see the socialist case as being relevant to their lives; they see it as being "pie in the sky". You can’t expect people to vote for an ideology, a set of ideas; they will only vote for something concrete and attainable.

This brings me to my second question. Where does a socialist consciousness come from? Although you may argue that most of your members attained a socialist consciousness through coming into contact with socialist argument, it must be understood that most people are not "won over" to socialism by argument alone, as you discovered in your election campaign.

The cornerstone of socialism is the principle of solidarity and mutual aid — these are natural tendencies which don’t need to be taught. Without them socialism would be impossible. However capitalism (and preceding social systems) have made people relate to each other in a different kind of co-operative way. using authority/obedience and hierarchical systems. This is sometimes referred to as “the very fabric of our society" by the traditional right wing.

When workers actively participate in strikes or various community activities they break with the normal way of behaving — they are thinking for themselves and organising themselves rather than being organised by people "in charge ”. They have taken matters into their own hands. Many strikers, despite the material hardship, say they enjoyed being on strike. In a sense they got a taste of socialism by collectively organising and distributing food and helping each other out. Also, strikers soon realise whose side the police, the legal system and the media are on.

Of course I am not saying that experience of struggle alone is going to bring workers to socialism. Workers must also understand the nature of the present system and know and understand what to put in its place and how to establish it. However I don’t think that socialism can be established by a political party — it can only come about through the mass activity of the working class. Socialism can only be established by a mass working-class movement that is politically conscious of its aims and methods and democratically organised without leadership. It must be organised throughout the workplaces and communities across the land and be linked up with similar organisations across the world. This movement must educate its members, defend workers against capitalism and ultimately organise the expropriation of wealth production and distribution.

But can’t we just simply vote for socialism and avoid a struggle? Well, first of all. if we have a world view of capitalism, how can workers in dictatorships like Chile, South Africa and Russia change society? Just because their ruling class don’t allow them to vote does it mean they can’t have socialism or that first they must fight for "democratic" capitalism?

For those of us who live under political democracies. at election time we are asked to choose which party is to become the political component of the capitalist state. The party which is elected does not really run the country, although it does have an influence within certain limits. Major decisions taken by the government are largely based on the professional advice of the civil service, which is carefully selected, permanent and not subject to democratic control.

Behind parliament and the cabinet are the other state institutions. There is the monarchy to whom state power legally belongs; there is the House of Lords which retains the right to delay Acts of Parliament. There are the armed forces — an instrument of imperialism abroad and of repression at home. There is the police and the secret police who open mail, tap phones and exercise violence in pursuit of their aims. Then, of course, we have the judiciary which hands out punishment to whom the state defines as offenders. All this is backed up by the means of persuasion — the educational system and the media.

Behind the institutions of the state are the real masters — the big capitalists and their ruling-class buddies — the top brass of the civil service, military and police chiefs. They ensure that the country is run just how the capitalist system likes it.

Do you really believe that the ruling class and their State would allow a socialist party to mess things up?

Whether we vote for socialism or not, the fact remains that only the working class can build it from a grass roots level. There will also be a struggle between the socialist majority and the minority ruling class and their supporters. This, unfortunately. will be unavoidable.

Paul

Manchester

Reply:

Our correspondent raises a number of interesting points; we shall reply in turn to the three questions he asks;

1. At present the vast majority of people indeed do not want socialism. Even those who have heard and been impressed by the socialist case too often comment that "it's a good idea but. . ." We would agree that it is important to make socialism seem relevant and attainable; we try to do this by explaining how its establishment will solve the various problems of people's lives — how it will cope with destitution, housing shortages, boring work and so on. Our recent pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative contains a great deal of material on the organisation of socialism, and shows that it is not just a nice set of ideas.

2. Socialist consciousness develops in two ways. First, as a result of workers' everyday experience under capitalism, including not only their exploitation and oppression but also their cooperation and experience in trade unions, tenants' organisations and so on. Second, as a result of socialist propaganda meetings, publications, election campaigns and radio phone-ins. We entirely agree that "Socialism can only be established by a mass working-class movement that is politically conscious of its aims and methods and democratically organised without leadership": the Socialist Party is a democratic, leaderless movement.

3. Socialism can be "voted in", though it should be remembered that this will not be a simple matter of workers voting for socialism and then sitting back and waiting for it. Socialist-minded workers will need to be prepared to take over the running of factories. farms and so on. Gaining control of Parliament will give the socialist majority control over the armed forces and police and prevent their being used against us. The top civil servants and phone tappers will be in no position to "mess things up" deprived of mass support and official sanction they could do nothing to frustrate the will of the immense majority.

The Editors.

Letter: Laying down the law to the unions (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Laying down the law to the unions

Dear Sirs.

In the Socialist Standard. July 1987, in an article on trade unions, the following paragraph appeared:

Those who predict the permanent decline of the trade unions also have a lot to say about the anti-union legislation of the Thatcher government. They overlook the fact that, with one exception, the same and worse has happened before and the unions have known how to survive. The one exception is the Act which requires unions to have ballots for the election of officers and ballots for taking strike action. Along with the need for ballots before any strike settlement is agreed to. these are measures which the unions, ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway.

In your September issue, in another article on trade unions, the following appears:

Since the Conservatives were returned to office in 1979 they have introduced legislation to restrict the ability of trade unionists to take action to defend and improve their living standards.

The article goes on to cite restrictive legislation in the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts and continues in the same vein: "The 1984 Trade Union Act made it compulsory to hold secret ballots for union elections, strike decisions and political funds. The new Conservative Administration is committed to further repressive legislation". The article points to Green Paper proposals for legislation enabling "members . . . to be able to prevent unions calling for industrial action unless they have won majority support in a ballot. Union ballots will have to be fully postal, independently supervised and to apply to the election of union presidents and general secretaries".

As you claim in a reply to a letter in the same issue, the Socialist Standard provides a forum for discussion of ideas about life in capitalist society, I look forward to reading the discussion you will no doubt wish to publish on whether this proposed legislation is "repressive", or "something which the unions ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway".

(Name and address supplied)

Reply:

In considering the trade union legislation enacted by the Thatcher government it is important to distinguish between the government's intentions and the consequences of the new laws. Looked at in this way it becomes quite clear that what the government has consistently tried to achieve is restrictions on the power of trade unions. This is quite obvious in relation to some of the new laws (ie restrictions on secondary picketing, powers to sequestrate union funds) but perhaps less obvious in relation to the laws regarding the holding of ballots. Despite all the rhetoric about democracy, the government's intention in compelling unions to ballot their members was. once again, to reduce union power by making it less likely that strikes would take place. It is the government's belief that trade union members are less militant than their leaders and that this more conservative view would prevail if there was greater internal union democracy. The same kind of thinking is evident in the latest proposals contained in the government's Green Paper which, if enacted, will strengthen the position of individual strike breakers against their union thus undermining the most important source of trade union strength solidarity.

The Socialist Party's position is that there should be maximum democracy within trade unions but that the government has no place in imposing it on trade unions. The moves towards greater union democracy would be far more welcome if they had been demanded by union members themselves rather than being legislated for by a government committed to reducing the power of trade unions. Finally it is perhaps worth mentioning the hollowness of Tory rhetoric about democracy by pointing out that trade unions are, in fact, fairly democratic organisations. Indeed they are models of democracy when compared to the companies. corporations and public institutions they oppose in their battle to maintain workers’ pay and conditions.

The Editors.

Letter: Marx and the Political Machinery (1934)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent writes querying our interpretation of the view held by Marx about obtaining control of the political machinery.

To the Editorial Committee,

Socialist Standard,

42, Great Dover Street, S.E.1.

Dear Sirs,

In the Socialist Library, No. 11, ” The S.P.G.B. and Questions of the Day,” on page 52, occurs.: —

“The significance …. is the one Marx so constantly stressed, viz., the need to gain control of the political machinery.”

Query: In what work or works of Marx does he stress anything of the sort? Is there even one instance ? Let alone ”constant” stressing!

Yours, etc.,

John Hawkins.

Reply:

Readers who are not familiar with the issue raised by this letter may find some explanation useful.

The S.P.G.B. holds that in order to achieve Socialism the Socialist majority will have to gain control of the political machinery. Our Declaration of Principles covers this point in the clause which follows: —

“That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.”

We know that this is the road to Socialism, and the only road to Socialism, because our every-day experience of the workings of capitalism shows us this beyond the possibility of doubt. Given the other requisite for the building up of Socialism, a majority of Socialists politically organised, conquest of the powers of Government will be the deciding factor. Without it the working class will still be unable to impose the form of social organisation they desire. Every movement which has ignored this truth, and has acted on the assumption, whether explicit or implied, that the State power can be disregarded, has come to disaster. This is true, whether the movement had Socialism as its objective or any other.

In the pamphlet to which our correspondent refers we were illustrating the truth of our case from the experience of the Bolsheviks in Russia. We show (“The S.P.G.B. and Questions of the Day,” Chapter XI) that the Bolsheviks were helpless until they came into control of the political machinery of the Russian State. Until they did that they were not able to carry out the wishes of the discontented non-Socialist masses of workers and peasants who stood behind them.

It must be emphasised that the S.P.G.B. bases its case on the facts of the situation in which we find ourselves. That is the final test of this and every other part of the Socialist case. We are vastly indebted to Marx and Engels for their work in helping us to a proper appreciation of the facts, but it is not our contention in this or any other question that a certain view is the correct one simply because Marx or Engels, or anyone else, held that view. Nevertheless, we do claim that this clause of our Declaration of Principles is in line with the general views of Marx and Engels as to the need to gain control of the political machinery, and we consider that the fact that they did hold this view entitles it to very serious consideration, quite apart from the lessons of experience gained since they died.

The following passages from the writings of Marx and Engels show clearly that this was their view.

Marx and Engels—1847.

”We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.”—(Marx and Engels, “Communist Manifesto,” 1847, Whitehead Library Edition, p. 39.)

Engels—1850.

“The working classes will have learned by experience that no lasting benefit whatever can be obtained for them by others, but that they must obtain it themselves by conquering, first of all, political power. They must see now that under no circumstances have they any guarantee for bettering their social position unless by Universal Suffrage, which would enable them to send a Majority of Working Men in the House of Commons.”

”The Ten Hours Question,” by F. Engels (page 376, The Democratic Review, March, 1850).

Marx—1852.

“But universal suffrage is the equivalent for political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat form the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground, civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but landlords, industrial Capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more Socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.

“Its inevitable result here, is the political supremacy of the working class.”

(From an article on the Chartists, by Marx, New York Tribune, August 25th, 1852, quoted in Labour Monthly, August, 1929.)

Marx— 1871

In the “Civil War in France” (Chapter III, p. 70, New York Labor News Co., 1920) Marx quoted with approval the following declaration of the Central Committee of the Paris workers in the Commune of 1871 : —

“They have understood that it is their imperious duty and their absolute right to render themselves masters of their own destinies by seizing upon the governmental power.”

Engels—1883.

Engels, on April 18th, 1883, one month after the death of Marx, wrote a letter to Van Patten, Secretary of the American Section of the International. It was published last winter by the Marx-Lenin Institute, and was reproduced in the Adelphi (London, June, 1934).

“But it has always been our view that in order to achieve this aim [the withering away of the State] and other far more important objectives of the social revolution, the working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the State, and with its aid stamp out the opposition of the capitalist class and organise society anew…..

“The Anarchists turn things upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by abolishing the political organisation of the State. But the only organisation which the proletariat, after its victory, finds ready at its disposal is just the State. This State may need considerable changes before it is fitted for its new functions. But to destroy it at that moment were to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat could use its newly-acquired power to suppress its capitalist opponents and to carry through that economic revolution of society without which victory must end in renewed defeat and mass-slaughter of the workers, like those after the Paris Commune. Need you my expressed assurance that Marx opposed this anarchist idiocy from the first day it was hatched by Bakunin ?”

(Engels to Van Patten, April 18th, 1883. “Marx-Engels’ Briefe an Dritte,” p. 295.)

Lenin and Tom Mann.

The above passages show what were the views of Marx and Engels. It is also interesting to notice that the teachings of these men and the lessons of experience were not wholly without effect on some of the leaders of the Communist Parties in the present day, although the two individuals referred to below were by no means consistent in their attitude.

Lenin, in his “State and Revolution” (which bears the sub-title, “Marxist Teaching on the State and the task of the Proletariat in the Revolution”) wrote : —

“The proletariat needs the State, the centralised organisation of force and violence, both for the purpose of crushing the resistance of the exploiters and for the purpose of guiding the great mass of the population—the peasantry, the lower middle-class, the semi-proletariat—in the work of economic Socialist reconstruction.” (Published by the B.S.P., October, 1919, p. 30.)

Mr. Tom Mann, who used to hold strong views about the uselessness of controlling the political machinery, wrote as follows in 1922: —

” . . . the experience of the war and after the war has shown conclusively that we can no longer think simply of an industrial struggle, and industrial organisation is not enough. Whatever is done by industrial organisation, the organised State machine will continue to function, and will beyond question be used by the plutocracy in any and every available form against the workers. The dominant ruling class, the plutocracy, have complete control of that highly efficient machine for class purposes ; the interests of the community are ever secondary to the maintenance of power by the master class, and that machine will continue to be theirs until it is wrested from them by the workers.” (Labour Monthly, October, l922. Italics ours.)

Ed. Comm.

Pricking our bubble. (1917)

From the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our September issue we took up a little matter with the S.L.P. In the “Socialist” of September the editor of that paper promised to prick the S.P. “bubble” in his next issue—if he has room ! Mark the “barrage” !

Blogger's Notes:

This snippet was untitled in the original Standard.

In the December 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard, there was a follow up article to this snippet entitled 'Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: SLP's cry from "outer darkness.' " 

It's not on the blog . . . yet.

The Russian Embassy attacks the Socialist Standard (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader sent a copy of the July Socialist Standard containing the article "USSR, Land of Privilege” to the Russian Embassy. The letter he received from them is is reproduced below, in shortened form, with our comments.

Dear Mr. Brinton,

I am certainly glad to answer your letter in which you say that you were disturbed, and understandably so, by the enclosed article in the Socialist Standard.

As regards the subject matter in question, the following should be said. Material wealth is distributed in the socialist society according to the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work”. Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR. As a worker gains skill and experience his wages grow accordingly. An experienced teacher gets more than his younger colleague, fresh from a teacher’s training college. A captain of a ship gets more than the crew. Eminent scientists, writers and other creative workers are better paid than ordinary working people.

The principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” will be applied under communism, which is the highest stage of the development of socialism. But to achieve this an abundance of resources must first be secured, and this is what the Soviet people and their government are working at.

Objective laws governing the development of the society in the USSR prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil. First, there is no exploitation of man by man in our society which means that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them. Second, all citizens have access to public consumption funds: free education, free health service, pensions, etc. These funds grow from year to year alongside the development of the national economy. Third, the policy of reducing gaps in the wage levels of various groups of working people is being carried out consistently. The minimum wage has been steadily rising, pensions have also been increased.

As to shortcomings, their criticism is regarded in our society as an indispensable means of progress and is in fact, encouraged in every way. There is a difference, of course, between constructive criticism and slanderous distortion. Articles like the one in question only misinform the British public about the Soviet reality and thus stand in the way of better understanding and stronger confidence between the people of the Soviet Union and Great Britain.

(signed) Secretary

Our answer:

The thinness of the above reply is somewhat surprising. Our article maintained “that there is no essential difference in the class system in the Soviet Union from that elsewhere.” We went on to say: “The common features of western capitalism, exploitation of wage labour and production for profit are present — with the resulting social inequality.” These statements formed the basis of our article and it is these points which our opponent must answer. We note the glossy phrases such as “slanderous fabrications”, “gross distortion” and, to round off the vocabulary roundabout, “slanderous distortion”, but the attempt to refute our statements in fact does the opposite. We are told that in Russia there are laws to prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil; that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them; citizens have access to free education, health services and pensions; there is a policy to reduce gaps in wage levels and that the minimum wage is rising together with pensions. It hardly needs pointing out that this could be Mr. Callaghan or the President of the United States talking about their avowedly capitalist systems. The description certainly has nothing to do with Socialism where there will be no gaps in wage levels, minimum wages or pensions for the fundamental reason that the wage-labour and capital relation will not exist.

It is significant to note that the Russian Communist Party has moved away from its original position when Socialism was described as a society “in which there will not be the market, buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.” [1] The secretary chooses to call Russian capitalism “socialism” — he is not the first, but mere repetition of a contradiction does not allow it to make any more sense.

To give, as our article gave (with sources), further instances of inequality in Russia would be superfluous as our opponent is prepared to dismiss them airily on the one hand as “slanderous fabrications”, while prepared to argue on the other that “Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR.” He makes our point for us. This piece of timid justification is advanced in all capitalist countries in defence of inequality. If our opponent did not mean to be evasive, no doubt he would be prepared to produce official statistics outlining the extent of inequality of income and wealth in Russia, as do all other industrialized capitalist countries. Then we may go into the matter in detail. We are, however, not unduly optimistic that such information will be forthcoming — our opponent does not appear to have much time for details.

On the question of "reducing gaps in wage levels” it is again worth noting the move in policy. Almost 60 years ago Lenin had declared that the introduction of “equal wages” was “a concrete task immediately practicable” although he had to retreat from this position in 1918 and acknowledge that the Russians had “to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed to a very high remuneration for the service of the bourgeois specialists.” To Lenin this was a temporary measure however. He considered it “a step backward.” [2] Now, we learn from our opponent that this state of affairs is considered “just.”

He refers to “public consumption funds”. These appear to finance education, the health service and “pensions etc.” It is the “etc” which attracted our attention. For instance, is spending on armaments considered “public consumption”? If it is not, clearly the government must finance it from some other fund. The point being that any funds which the Russian government may control can only be the monetary expression of the surplus-value (unpaid labour) of the Russian workers. No amount of twisting and turning can remove that fact. This then puts a true light on his statement that “there is no exploitation of man by man”, which we take to refer to private capitalists exploiting workers in a private concern. Although this statement in itself can be refuted, its purpose is calculated to evade the crucial point that the Russian system is predominantly one of exploitation by the State.

In short, a system of state capitalism. It will be remembered that it was Lenin who said “Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us”. That step has been taken, but the Russian workers are no nearer Socialism, or Communism — the terms mean the same — than are the workers in the Post Office and other state-capitalist institutions in Britain or elsewhere. The ruling class, in this case the State, retains control and ownership of the means of production and distribution. To claim that the State is the people completely flies in the face of all the facts. Our opponent does not make this claim directly but refers to “what the Soviet people and their government are aiming at.” The distinction between the two is appropriate, they are opposing classes, but the statement also belies a fundamental misconception over the nature of Socialism. The implication is made that, given the right internal conditions, the Russians could establish a Socialist (or Communist) society within their national borders. To anyone who understands the concept of a system of society based upon common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution, it is evident that such a society can only be established on a world-wide basis. The writer clearly has no- such concept in mind.

In conclusion we draw attention to- one point made in our original article. We said: “At other times when there are differences of policy with western powers, anti-Russian propaganda will expose and exaggerate these shortcomings”. In short, we are aware that the Press in Britain (as elsewhere) has an axe to grind more or less severely, according to circumstances. This, of course, is not limited exclusively to Russian affairs, it is true of their dealings in all aspects of international capitalism. Our purpose is not to grind axes, or to single out the Russian system of capitalism for special treatment: indeed the point we have made is that from the view of the working class, the form of society in Russia is little different from that of other countries. Our opponent has ably confirmed this conclusion. Our purpose is to work for the democratic removal of private property society. In doing so we must necessarily reject the arguments, or more accurately the assertions, of those who claim that Socialism exists in certain countries today. The interests of the Russian people, and the interests of the working class outside Russia, are the same. The abolition of capitalism, state or private, and the establishment of Socialism.

[1] Bogdanov: Short Course of Economic Science.

[2] Lenin: The Soviets at Work.

Blogger's Note:

"Mr. Brinton" wasn't Maurice Brinton. Of course not. There was a Colin Brinton from Harwich who was writing to the Socialist Standard at this time. Maybe it was him.

Letter: Science and Ideas (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Science and Ideas

Your recent reply to my letter (“A double bind or two”) involved a total misinterpretation of the argument I presented.

I did not say that the SPGB was wrong because it was small. What I did say, quite simply, was that the SPGB was small — and, as such, virtually unrecognized by the working class.

The misinterpretation continues. I did not say that because working-class interests are known only to the SPGB this “somehow invalidates working-class interests and Socialism”. What I now would say however is that Socialism as an “ideal” should be differentiated from Socialism as a “scientific truth”. The one is undeniable, the other is a lie.

It is possible to prove by experiment that Newton’s First Law of Gravity is a scientific truth. Lift up the apple and it will invariably fall to the ground. Can you prove in the same way the certain formation of a socialist society or the certain collapse of capitalism? The apple falls to the ground by virtue of the force of gravity. A scientific truth. You assert that the workers will fall into socialism by virtue of the force of your ideas. Idealism, pure and simple.

Come back Hegel — at least the SPGB forgive you.

Tim Caulfield

Bury

Reply:

Much of your letter in the June Socialist Standard was given to sarcastic parody of the SPGB’s position — “the working classes [sic] must pay heed to their mentors” — and drawing attention, in similar terms, to “the working classes’ refusal to walk the road Marx laid out for them”. Your conclusion from this was that the SPGB is “doctrinaire” and its case “idealistic utopianism”. We do not think you were misrepresented at all.

You now shift your ground to a different rendering of the Socialist case. Previously you asserted it to be that the working class would become revolutionary through the collapse of capitalism. This was dealt with in our reply: it is a view the SPGB has never held and actively opposes. Your new version is that the workers “will fall into socialism by virtue of the force of [our] ideas”. Again, this is not our position. We contend that ideas are products of the social environment, which is the superstructure on the property basis of society. Many workers “discover” the SPGB because it corresponds to their own conclusions. Our function is to give precision to class-consciousness and to organize for the attainment of Socialism.

Your remarks about the law of gravity do not contribute to the argument; they might be used to invalidate any branch of science which cannot show an equivalent of an apple falling to the ground. We spoke of scientific theory—general conclusions from observation and practice—and opposing interests. This was the case with the theory of evolution, which is still rejected by many religionists. The term “scientific socialism” was used by Marx and Engels to mark a Socialism based on economic and historical analysis, i.e. from observable facts about society past and present. In this analysis, the foundation of society is production; and the dynamic of change from one social form to another is the class structure and the conflicts of economic interests between classes. From it, we assert that the next stage in society can only be Socialism brought about by the conscious action of the working class.

Editors.