Letter: 'With apologies to Alice' (1977)

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

G. W. Walford (London N. 1): “We have answered three questions and that is enough ... Do you think we can listen all day to such stuff?” (With apologies to Alice; except that it is not three questions but one familiar assertion, repeated ad infinitum.)

Blogger's Note:

I don't know about three questions but George Walford did have at least three letters in the Socialist Standard in 1977:

• May 1977: What is our IQ?
• Jul 1977: Class & Understanding
• Oct 1977: Class and Ideology

Letter: Class and Ideology (1977)

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

Class and Ideology

You accused Harold Walsby of holding that the working class is "mentally inferior”. Challenged to support this you produce statements that the working class does not understand or accept Socialism. But in order to show that Walsby held them to be mentally inferior you have to show him saying or implying that some other group is mentally superior to it. You have failed to support your accusation.

You describe as "absurd” my statement that “in acceptance or rejection of Socialism there is no significant difference between workers and capitalists”. My evidence is that although the majority of capitalists do not accept Socialism, a tiny majority do accept it. Similarly with the workers. Although the overwhelming majority of workers do not accept it, a tiny minority do, and show this by belonging to the SPGB.

It will be more fruitful to try and get to the root of the difference between Walsby and the SP. It is not the case that the working class accepts Socialism and the capitalist class opposes it. Class position does not correspond with acceptance or rejection of Socialism, and is not coming to do so. What does determine it? The ideology of the person concerned. All of us begin life with the same ideology. Some of us move on to a more sophisticated one, some of those to a more sophisticated one still, and so on. The result is the existence of a number of ideological groups forming, very roughly, a pyramid. The SPGB is the political expression of an ideology very close to the top of the pyramid, an ideology, therefore, with a very small group attached to it.

If a person possessing this ideology hears the Socialist case, he will probably accept it. A person possessing any other ideology will reject the case; it does not "fit” his ideology. This is why, whenever an SP branch is started in a "new” town it usually reaches a size comparable with that of established branches and then stops growing; all the people of the appropriate ideology in that area have been "collected”. Over seventy years the SP has proven that it is impossible to get a majority of Socialists. Walsby’s theory explains why this is, and opens the way, through recognition of the ideological structure of present society, to solution of our main social problems.

Geo. W. Walford

London N1.

Reply:

You acknowledge that Walsby held that the majority of workers would never understand Socialism, but object to our identifying this with the view that they are “mentally inferior”; we must show what other group he compared them with, you say. From Walsby’s writings, let us take the original quotation used in our January article: “an established fact—namely, that the average human intelligence is on the decline”, followed by a sentence accusing the SPGB of vacillating over "whether the workers have or have not the intelligence to establish Socialism”. "Decline” can only mean that the workers at a given time are inferior to a previous generation.

In your own statements, comparisons implying superiority and inferiority are made repeatedly. For example, the “more sophisticated ideology” and the "more sophisticated one still” which "some of us”—but not "the overwhelming majority of workers”—hold. You kindly place the SPGB “close to the top of the pyramid”, with the mass of the workers a long way down below. We do not think you are handicapped by language here: it would be possible to speak of a different ideology and a still more different one, and to use another geometrical shape if that was all you meant.

You misrepresent our answer to you on workers and capitalists. We pointed out (a) that most workers have not heard the Socialist case at all, and (b) that something more than minimal exposure to it is required as grounds for saying they have heard it and reject it. You accept that workers and capitalists are separate classes, but treat it statically; what is not mentioned in any of your three letters, although it was the starting-point of the article you criticized, is the class struggle.

None of us disputes "the existence in society of a number of ideological groups”. Where do they come from? The socialist case is that they arc produced by the class structure of society. A person raised in poverty has different assumptions and attitudes from those of a luxuriously-nurtured person. Of course further experience affects his attitudes; but that also is derived from a class-divided society. A capitalist may, as you suggest, accept Socialism as a system of ideas. That does not make him any less a capitalist, obliged to put his material interests before the “more sophisticated ideology” he may have acquired. (There are exceptional cases.)

The founders of the SPGB knew from earlier experience that the task they undertook was likely to be a slow one; other people, then and since, have understood Socialism but been unwilling to work for it for precisely that reason. Your thesis that a Party branch soaks up "all the people of the appropriate ideology” in its area is quite fantastic. Our branches, whether in suburbs or cities, would be pleased to have a situation in which this was tested—it would mean everyone had heard and considered the SPGB.

The remedy offered by Walsby and his followers for social problems consists of domination over the masses by intellectuals. We give three quotations.

Thus, in basing his ideas of achieving a scientifically controlled society upon an unconsciously motivated assumption—the mass-rationality assumption—the scientific intellectual is wasting much of his political time and energy. It is this assumption (with its associated repressed material) which today largely befogs the minds of those scientists—and others—who are striving for a society in which sub-atomic energy is no longer used for the destruction of man, but for his benefit and well-being.

("Atoms and Ideology” by Harold Walsby, in The New Age of Atomics)

Is the great mass of mankind through its inherent incapacity for scientific thought and understanding, doomed to eternal suffering?. . Concomitant with the rational superiority of these politically more enlightened people goes their inevitable numerical inferiority. Yet, year in and year out, with admirable though blind optimism and appalling ignorance as to the nature and structure of political development, they go on, fighting among themselves and vainly appealing to the masses with the same arguments and upon the same subject-matter which was instrumental in their own 'conversion.

(Understanding the Mass Mind, by Richard Tatham)

No longer are we confined to announcements as to how people ought to think, or as to the attitude they must adopt if civilisation is to be saved . . . not until this relationship between the intellectual and the mass is understood and accepted—and who is to do this if not the intellectuals? — will it become possible to control the development of society.

(The Intellectual and the People)

That takes us back to Plato, and men cast in higher moulds.

Editors.

Letter: Importance of understanding (1977)

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

Importance of understanding

I can only presume that the correspondents G. Walford and Ian Campbell (July Socialist Standard) have failed to hear the saying “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know”. The human mind always fears something it may not understand fully, hence the fear of the religious supernatural, and the state capitalism of the so-called Communist countries. Due to the false propaganda spread under the banner of Socialism the working class are naturally enough in a confused state of mind.

A Socialist society is an unknown quantity to some extent. In that a Socialist understands what it will mean to mankind, but he cannot predict the future—how will it work and function? The working class can only be convinced of its possibility by gaining Socialist understanding. For example, by explaining what a change in the mode of production would mean to society, whether it is accepted by the individual or not, this by its very nature leads to further questions on the subject of Socialism. Therefore one less barrier breaks down. The SPGB have constantly propagated the case for Socialist understanding, knowing that ignorance only breeds further ignorance.

Both correspondents should ask themselves: have they acquired a Socialist understanding? If so, have they rejected or refused it, or do they fear what they understand?

Brian Johnson

Pontypridd

Letter: Class & Understanding (1977)

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

Class & Understanding

I must concentrate on defending the reputation of the late Harold Walsby against your mud-slinging. Your article “Question of Intelligence” mentioned the view “that a large proportion of the population were constitutionally incapable of learning much or running their own lives”. Challenged to give even one of these examples which, you said, “appeared in the work of Harold Walsby” you quote F. A. Ridley and the Sunday Chronicle. You do not give one example from Walsby.

You say. “If . . . the statements in SPGB—Utopian or Scientific? do not say the working class is mentally inferior, what the devil are they supposed to mean?” If the statements you mean are those quoted in “Question of Intelligence”, then the only reference they make to the working class is to say the SPGB “mushily vacillates . . .  about whether the workers have or have not the intelligence to establish Socialism”. This gives no ground for the charge that Walsby held the workers to be mentally inferior. If you want to understand SPGB—Utopian or Scientific? (and Walsby’s other ideological work) read it again with the idea that although there is a minority accepting Socialism and a majority rejecting it, the division between them does not correspond with the division between workers and capitalists. A small minority of workers accept Socialism, the great majority of workers reject it. A small minority of capitalists accept Socialism, the great majority of capitalists reject it. In acceptance or rejection of Socialism there is no significant difference between workers and capitalists.

My letter said the overwhelming majority of those who have heard the Socialist case have rejected it. You seem to think you have dealt with this by saying “the overwhelming majority of the working class have not heard it”. This is not an answer. And by attempting but failing to answer the point you acknowledge its validity. The overwhelming majority of those who have heard the Socialist case have rejected it. What grounds have you for believing the response will be different in future?

G. W. Walford

London N1

Reply:

The substance of your defence of Walsby appears to be that his remarks quoted in “Question of Intelligence” referred not to the working class but to workers and capitalists alike.

The quotation was taken from Chapter 2 of Walsby’s pamphlet SPGB—Utopian or Scientific? which is headed, specifically, “Why don’t the workers accept the socialist case?” The opening of the chapter is a sufficient rebuttal of the assertion that we “vacillate” about the workers’ intelligence. Walsby says: “If we ask the SPGBer ‘Can the workers understand Socialism?’ his almost invariable answer is a very confident and emphatic ‘Yes!’”

Throughout the chapter Walsby makes clear that he is talking about the working class and no-one else.

What is the real answer, then, to the question, ‘Why don’t the workers accept the Socialist case?’ Could it possibly be that ‘working class intelligence’ is not equal to the task, and cannot ‘rise to the height’ required for understanding Socialism?

Among other examples, he says: "So far, then, working-class intelligence has not risen to that elevated level”. The quotation used in our article—"the actual statistical-psychological investigations by Prof. Burt, Thompson, Cattel and many others”—goes on to state that “the average human intelligence is on the decline”. Since the working class is nine-tenths of the population, it must dominate any “average”.

There is no mention whatever of the capitalist class in Walsby’s pamphlet, or of the argument you attribute to it in this connection. Indeed, your remarks generally are difficult to take seriously. You call SPGB—Utopian or Scientific? an "ideological work”, implying a high level of theoretical debate. In fact it consists to a considerable extent of personal abuse of SPGB members.

The principal task of the SPGB lies in the fact that the great majority of the working class have never heard of it. You do not dispute this, but say it "is not an answer”. On the contrary, while that is so, your assertion that "in acceptance or rejection of Socialism there is no significant difference between workers and capitalists” is absurd; and your insistence that the majority who have never heard the Socialist case will reject it when they do is, presumably, blind hope.

Our previous reply pointed out that when workers do hear the Socialist case it is usually under disadvantageous conditions. If, for example, we are allowed to give one broadcast in several years, it is preposterous to say its outcome is that thousands have heard the Socialist case and rejected it. In everyday experience, persuasion and the resolving of differences may and do require several excursions into the subject. We note you share this view yourself. Following our previous reply, you did not settle for having had your arguments rejected, but had another go. To quote your own ending, what grounds have you for believing the response will be different in future?

Editors.

Letters: What is our IQ? (1977)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is our IQ? 

The article “Question of Intelligence” (December 1976) has been brought to my attention. It arises from the announcement in the Sunday Times that Professor Cyril Burt had “published false data and invented crucial facts to support his controversial theory that intelligence is largely inherited”. It quotes a reference to Burt in a pamphlet by Harold Walsby, SPGB—Utopian or Scientific, published by the Social Science Association in 1949, and says: “The ‘evidence’ Walsby thought conclusive was emotion wrapped up as science, and whoever used it to illuminate ‘the psychology of the workers’ would now be in the dark.”

The evidence to which Walsby refers is “the actual statistical-psychological investigations by Prof Burt, Thompson, Cattel and many others . . .” This evidence, as a whole, has not been invalidated, and the work of the other investigators stands as firmly as before.

I must draw attention to something else in the article likely to mislead people not familiar with Walsby’s work. It mentions the view “that a large proportion of the population were constitutionally incapable of learning much or running their own lives”, and says “Typical examples of this appeared in writings by Harold Walsby”. I challenge you to provide even one example of Walsby saying this. The implication is that Walsby regarded the working class as being mentally inferior. He did not.

Walsby held that the majority of people, workers and capitalists alike, would reject the Socialist case. The SPGB holds that the majority of the workers will accept it— if not, what is the point of presenting it to them? Since 1904 the evidence has been consistently in Walsby’s favour. According to the SPGB the material conditions are ripe for Socialism and the workers are capable of understanding Socialism. But we don’t get Socialism. Harold Walsby’s theory explains how it comes about that the overwhelming majority of those who have heard the Socialist case have rejected it in the past, persist in rejecting it, and will continue to reject it in the future. Also—and this is a harder task—Walsby’s theory explains how it is that a tiny minority comes to accept the Socialist case.

Geo. W. Walford 

London N1

Reply:

Your letter presents not arguments but heads-I-win-tails-you-lose propositions. You say (a) that the evidence used by Walsby from Burt and others "has not been invalidated”, and (b) Walsby never held that view anyway.

It is quite incorrect that “the work of the other investigators stands as firmly as before”. If this were so, Professor H. J. Eysenck (one of Burt’s supporters) would not have said in The Times of 8th Nov. 1976 :

  Perhaps it is time that society devoted more money to this important area . . . The issue is an important one, and should be taken beyond the range of simple argument and assertion.

L. J. Kamin, Professor of Psychology at Princeton University, called this plea “grotesque”.

The relationship between Burt’s work and that of other investigators seems to be a matter of widely differing opinion. According to the Sunday Times of 28th Nov., 1976, in 1973 Eysenck spoke of the “outstanding quality” of Burt’s work, but after the discrediting of Burt said his data were “useless”. Sir P. B. Medawar (The Times, 3rd Nov. 1976) contended that “the expression ‘innate intelligence’ should now be dropped from the language”. This was supported by Professor C. B. Hindley; and Professor J. Tizard said (The Times 25th Oct.) that the Burt case “would have the same effect on that branch of science as the finding that the Piltdown Skull was a forgery had on palaeontology”.

Regarding Walsby’s own views, a review of the Social Science Association pamphlet Science, Politics and the Masses by Richard Tatham appeared in the New Leader on 14th April 1945. The reviewer was F. A. Ridley. The pamphlet set forth the conclusions of Harold Walsby. Under the heading “Can the Masses Think?” the article said it was “clearly against the democratic assumption on the question of a rational approach to the masses”, and “the masses have usually only been used as pawns on title political chess-board by ruling — or would-be ruling — classes”.

Elsewhere Harold Walsby was quoted as saying "Anyone who understands the public knows that they like trash.” (Sunday Chronicle, 11th April 1954). If Ridley’s statements misrepresented Walsby’s views, did he repudiate them? If these and the statements in SPGB—Utopian or Scientific do not say the working class is mentally inferior, what the devil are they supposed to mean?

Finally, we are unaware what basis can exist for a prediction that the majority of workers will always reject the Socialist case. You say it has been rejected by “the overwhelming majority” of those who have heard it. But the overwhelming majority of the working class have not heard it, and more often than not it is heard under disadvantageous conditions. Walsby’s theory consists of trying to persuade us that these obstacles are of no consequence. You should try it. 

Editors.

Things to come

I would be grateful if you could clarify two points arising from one of your meetings which I recently attended.

1. What are the grounds of your conviction that when the capitalist system collapses a Marxist society is bound to take its place?
2. I cannot see why it would be presumptuous to produce a blueprint of the new society. Surely an examination of the practical problems involved must be undertaken firstly in order to prove that the system could be successful, and secondly to demonstrate to a sceptical electorate that there is a viable alternative to the present system.

S. Bettaney

Edgware

Reply:

Your first point is based on a misconception. Contrary to the vapid wafflings of other parties, both long ago and now, we have always held that capitalism will not collapse. The working class cannot sit back and wait for that to happen: they must organize consciously to get rid of capitalism and put Socialism in its place.

On your second point, we are unable to give you a blue-print for several reasons. You will appreciate that Socialism was feasible in 1904 when the SPGB was founded. Had the working class been ready then, the new society would have been established in an era of horse traffic when the burning question was “who will sweep the crossings?” Clearly the blue-print will look different in the age of jet engines and atomic power. Unless you can tell us when the workers—this means you!—will join us, how can we know what marvels will have emerged? As you say, there are practical problems.

Suppose that a would-be manufacturer tried to convince others in, say, the year 1600 that capitalism would be a good idea. Can you imagine the mind-boggling notions of banking, insurance, capital gains and all the multitudinous problems suggested by a society aiming to produce goods for sale instead of for use? The practical problems of Socialism would seem simple by comparison. If you have particular problems in mind, please let us know.

Editors.

More impact please

Socialism as the SPGB defines it has never been a motivating force in British working-class politics. From the formulation of the party in 1904 to the present day, it has made no movement in British politics worth talking about, because the working-class of Britain have never taken the SPGB’s case against capitalism as being the best way to get rid of capitalism, and the establishment of Socialism. The workers today still vote Labour, Liberal, and Scottish Nationalist. And in the economic field all the worker’s main drives are centred on work, full employment and the right to work.

If according to the doctrine of historical materialism capitalism produces the material and economic condition which turns the workers into Socialists there has been no real evidence for holding this point of view since Marx’s publication of The Communist Manifesto of 1848. Whether Socialism is inevitable or not is not a major question for Socialists. The major question for Socialists is: Why has not Socialism ever had even the slightest impact on the working class of Great Britain? Can the SPGB answer that one?

Ian Campbell 

Dundee

Reply:

It would be a wonderful thing if the material and economic conditions of capitalism did indeed “turn the workers into socialists”, for Socialism would then have been established long ago. Men turn themselves into Socialists, however, by developing their concept of what society should be, while material conditions supply the background and stimulus for this change.

History shows us that before there can be a fundamental change in society there is a long period during which the ideas and attitudes necessary for the change are fully developed. The establishment of Socialism will also require this maturity of ideas, although with the means of communication available today we can expect the development period to be much shorter. You say Socialist ideas have had no impact: but labour and social-democratic parties adopted (and so perverted) the word Socialism because it is attractive to large numbers of workers. Many of these parties have access to far greater resources to be used for propaganda purposes than does the SPGB.

In the meantime the workers still vote, as you say, for the Labour, Liberal and Scottish Nationalist parties. However, their propaganda often wears thin; the “anti” vote (“I’ll vote for this lot because the other lot are even worse”) is a recurrent common feature. The parties supporting capitalism, whether they label themselves Socialist or not, lose their credibility because at the end of the day they cannot produce results. When the working class sees the futility of capitalism, the SPGB will be there to be used by them for the establishment of Socialism.

Incidentally, we are pleased to see that the Socialist case has had sufficient impact on your own thinking to prompt you to write to us.

Editors.

Parties and profits

I subscribe to the Socialist Standard and, in the main, I find your articles to be both lucid and irrefragable. However, there are several points which in my opinion require elucidation.

Firstly, on more than one occasion you have asseverated that the Labour Party represents one section of the capitalist class whilst the Conservative Party represents another. Please identify these two sections of the capitalist class.

Secondly, in your answer to Robin Cox’s letter (March 1977) you pointed out that although consumer expenditure increased by 80 per cent between 1970 and 1975, the Index of Production rose by 0.6 in the same period. Could it not be that a part, at least, of the extra consumer expenditure was on imported goods not included in the Index of Production statistics, and that had British goods been more competitive there would have been an increase in the Index of Production?

Thirdly, as you adhere to Marx’s version of the Labour Theory of Value, can you explain how it is that retail organizations make profits if goods are sold at their value? Is it by exploiting their own employees?

P. S. Maloney

London N13

Reply:

1. In the first half of the 19th century there was a clear-cut division of representation—the landed interests by the Tories and the industrial capitalists by the Liberals. Now that 85 per cent of the electors are working-class and British capitalism’s problems have become more complex, the lines are blurred and shifting capitalist interests are being served by Tory and Labour.

In the first place, the parties have to win elections by making the kinds of promises on social reforms, prices, wages, unemployment, housing etc. that will appeal to a mass electorate; so that in this field there is little to choose between the programmes of the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties. But as governments they have to deal with capitalism’s problems as they arise. Each party, having received representations from the CBI, TUC, farmers, retailers, self-employed etc., and after consulting its economic advisers, formulates its taxation and other policies. These are bound to help some sections of the capitalist class and damage others, and sections of the capitalist class give their support to one or other party accordingly: as when the Labour Party (like the Liberals) was standing for free trade and the Tories protectionist.

The same sort of division arose over entry into the European Economic Community because at the beginning of consideration of the question, majority Labour Party opinion was against it. At one time the Labour Party backed the small firms against the big ones; a Labour Party spokesman said that they “preferred a large number of small capitalists to a small number of large ones". But when the Labour government came to office in 1964, they adopted the policy of encouraging company mergers through the Industrial Reorganization Corporation.

In 1945 the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties were agreed on adopting inflation as a policy (to prevent unemployment as they supposed). In the 1970s increasing numbers of capitalists were turning against it, leading to a swing against inflation in the Tory Party but with, so far, the Labour Party and its TUC backers basically unchanged in their attitudes. Those capitalists who still favour inflation will look to the Labour Party.

The parties have traditional commitments and “images”. For example the Labour Party’s fervent commitment to nationalization while the Tories and Liberals have adopted it only when circumstances required it in the interest of the dominant section of the capitalist class; and the Labour Party’s commitment to the trade unions who supply its funds. But in practice the urgent need to try to solve capitalism’s problems forces governments to act, if necessary, in opposition to the views of their own members. At the 1970 general election the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties were all pledged to legislation to control trade unions; though, as it turned out, opposition was so great that the Labour “In Place of Strife” was dropped and the Tory Industrial Relations Act repealed. And it was a Tory minister in a coalition government, in 1915, who first introduced rent restriction.

Also, policies change with circumstances, and from time to time the capitalist class find their interests being served by the Labour Party — as for example, when it appears that unpopular policies can be put over more easily by Labour than by the Tories. (Several Tory newspapers favour keeping the Callaghan government in office until the third stage of the Social Contract has been negotiated with the TUC).

Government intervention in industry and nationalization present striking examples. The Tory government, against its declared policy on “lame ducks”, was forced to nationalize Rolls Royce. And with much of industry in financial difficulties, many shipbuilding and other companies welcomed nationalization or government aid accompanied by the government becoming a shareholder. (But it is a Labour government which is selling part of its holding in British Petroleum.) In a similar situation in Italy a year or two back it was reported that companies “were queueing up to be taken over”.

An article published in Management Today (December 1976) dealt with the Labour governments Industrial Reorganization Corporation. It was set up for the purpose of encouraging companies to combine and thus increase efficiency, the government providing advice and finance. The writers, who worked on IRC, say:

What surprised us most while at the IRC, however, was the willingness of private sector individual companies to discuss their problems with a government organization and to seek its help and assistance. It appears to be quite wrong to take the view that in the UK private sector capitalists are opposed to government help. Whatever they may say, in practice their opposition does not exist.

(The IRC was scrapped by the Tories, its work having been largely completed.)

When the present depression passes and it again becomes easy to make profits, the Labour Party’s leaning towards nationalization and government intervention in industry will lose the attraction it has at present for “lame duck” companies. The Tory traditional attitude may find favour again with that section of the capitalist class.

(To be continued) 

R. W. Clayton (London SW7): Part of your letter was dealt with some months ago under another name. As regards the remainder, if you care to offer an argument in support of your statements we will consider it.

Editors.

Would you believe it? (2015)

Book Review from the June 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Towards A Science of Belief Systems', by Edmund Griffiths. Palgrave Macmillan. 2014

Edmund Griffiths has recently been a Research Fellow at Wolfson College, Oxford and this philosophical work was written as a product of his research there. His aim is a laudable one:

‘How other people think and feel, both generally and individually, seems to me to be one of the things in life that are most urgent and most compellingly worth knowing’ (p.154).

As such, this is a study about sets of ideas, their component elements and how these elements interlock and lead on from one another. Griffiths contends that the most effective way to understand belief systems – irrespective of their content or nature – is through a method he calls ‘descriptive logic’.  This is an objective method that can be used regardless of whether one agrees with the belief systems being analysed or not.

He uses it to discuss belief systems as varied as Fabianism, Gnosticism, and flying saucers. Here, below, is an illustration of it with regard to alternative historiography, where the proposition A could range, for instance, from the view that Giza is really modelled on Orion’s Belt, to ‘9/11 Truth theories’, to the view that the moon is really an artificial construction:

‘1. Official knowledge is drab, conformist, monolithic, and an obstacle to the free exercise of the imagination and of the sense of wonder.

2. Therefore, official knowledge should be refuted.

3. Official knowledge is incompatible with the proposition that A,

4. and yet some evidence can be assembled which does tend to show thatA.

5. Therefore, A.

6. Therefore, official knowledge is wrong.

7. Therefore, we are once again free to imagine for ourselves and to feel wonder’ (pp.123-4).

Griffiths has developed his descriptive logical method in a way that is underpinned by the Marxist materialist conception of history though he argues that his method is in its early stages and much more work has now to be done (including logical annotations of key representative texts to illustrate how the ideas presented develop, interlock, and link with similar types of argument presented elsewhere).

In style, the book verges from the wry and whimsical at times to the difficult – it is, after all, a theoretical work and one which is academically rigorous. Griffiths is also exceptionally well read and the text is illustrated by references that range from the pronouncements of the North Korean state to quotations from ancient poetry.

The general method and standpoint of Griffiths is not incompatible with our own. In terms of its objective (if not method) it also has some similarity with the theory of systematic ideology developed by Harold Walsby, George Walford and others. This was a group who left the SPGB in the 1940s and who became motivated by a need to understand the ideologies of the modern world – their defining features, how they interlock and particularly the limitations on their spread and development.

We have sparred with the advocates of this theory many times in the past, though ironically this is one book that might have benefited from a consideration of their ideas. This is because – whatever the flaws in their arguments – theirs was one of the very few other attempts to traverse this type of terrain. In essence, they attempted to use a dialectical method to account for why people think as they do, why types of ideas recur persistently in society, and why some seem to attract more adherents than others.

Nevertheless, it is clear Edmund Griffiths has produced a very useful and informative book that represents a significant contribution to the study of belief systems, both ancient and modern.

DAP