Psychology and Socialism
I have read E.W.’s review of Professor Galbraith’s book in the Socialist Standard for December, 1959, with pleasure. But I want to take issue with the central argument underlying the review. E.W. writes: “What is wrong, according to Professor Galbraith, is not the social system but the system of ideas. . . . In that case, phrenology or psychology would appear to be more relevant to the studies of the problem of our times than economics." To lump together phrenology and psychology is tantamount to combining astrology with astronomy, and unworthy of a scientific Marxian. Moreover, such an argument may induce serious readers to reject the legitimate claims which can be made for a truly Socialist society.
I believe the contributions which psychology has to make in the fight for Socialism have not been sufficiently explored. If it is true that the main ills of the world spring from the economic system, this system has not developed independently of human minds. Nowhere outside the human mind can the decision be made that the system shall be changed. The ultimate justification for a Socialist society is not economic but rests on concepts which come within the province of psychology human dignity is the concept that springs to mind first. Scientific psychology has something to tell us about comfort, about equality, and about freedom; these are the three ends stressed at the end of the declaration of principles of the SPGB (These were also the ends upheld by the French revolution, before Marx, except that comfort has now been substituted for fraternity!)
Economists who work on behalf of capitalism have not been slow to utilize the fruits of psychology, usually to evil ends (“subliminal” advertising, “motivational" research into impulse-spending, etc.). Let Socialists also face the facts about the “sales resistance” they encounter when trying to educate people in their legitimate rights and interests, and let us study the problem scientifically.
M. G.
Edinburgh.
Reply
We agree that phrenology and psychology should not be confused: the former seems to contain a larger amount of quackery than the latter. E.W.'s review mentioned them in the same sentence only to show the absurdity of Professor Galbraith’s viewpoint that defects in our system of ideas, rather than in our economic system, are responsible for social problems.
It is true that man’s economic system has not developed independently of his ideas, or without men themselves working on it, through their ideas and actions. But these ideas and actions are themselves largely limited by the physical surroundings in which man finds himself and cannot operate outside those surroundings. Man's physical and economic conditions are, at any one time, developed from earlier conditions and his knowledge, built from earlier knowledge, is derived from those conditions. Thus, although the decision to change society into Socialism can only be made in human minds, that decision will not occur to the minds until the economic and social contradictions of capitalism have accumulated the evidence which makes that decision desirable. When that happens, men's conceptions of dignity, freedom and comfort will be different to those which are generally held today—and the material conditions of capitalism, not any brilliant, abstract ideas, will be responsible for the change.
The raw material with which Socialists must work is the social consciousness of men. But this consciousness can only be understood by reference to society’s economic organisation. The effects of this organisation also limit the success of the advertising men (psychological approach and all), for the most skilful advertising can do little to save an industry which becomes caught in a slump. Similarly, what M.G. calls “sales resistance” to Socialism is in fact working class acceptance of their material state under capitalism. To change this, Socialists employ all the persuasiveness they can muster. But our propaganda would fall without the supporting evidence which the material conditions of capitalism —its wars, poverty, insecurity — are constantly providing.
Editorial Committee.
We invite our readers to send letters of comment and criticism. Please keep your letters as short as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment