The Socialist Standard welcomes letters for
publication, putting questions about the Socialist case
or commenting on articles.
Pendulums & Dynamos
For many years now I’ve heard the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s case, but it is still hard to determine whether the Socialist pendulum swings on the importance of the economic factor or on the political factor in society.
To hear one Socialist speaker, one begins to think that the dynamo of the socialist case is the understanding of the wage-labour, value, price and profit relation, while one can think the dynamo of the Socialist case is its object—namely Socialism (common ownership, production for use etc.) (idealism).
One minute we are told that capitalism exists because people vote for some respective party, i.e. Labour. Liberal or Conservative while the next minute we are told capitalism exists because the majority of people support the institutions of capitalism—money, buying, selling, wages and profit-making, by actively taking part in actions associated with such institutions on the domestic and industrial front.
I await your reply.
R. Ramshaw
Manchester.
Reply:
Without the development of a potential for adequately meeting the needs of a world community Socialism could not be possible. This might be called the economic factor, and is, in our opinion, already here.
What has not yet developed is the Socialist majority, understanding their class position under capitalism, and ready and willing to undertake the transformation of society from capitalism to Socialism. This is the political factor. In its absence capitalism will continue to exist because workers, lacking the necessary Socialist knowledge, will continue to support political parties dedicated to the continuance of present day society.
Both factors are equally important for in the absence of either Socialism is not possible.
Editors.
Progress and Leadership
I admire and support the beliefs and objectives of the SPGB to a great extent, but I remain unconvinced about certain points.
Firstly the practicality of achieving Socialism. The Party has existed for 70 years but has made little progress in that time, and it is rare to meet anyone who has even heard of you. The capitalist media will always be unwilling to give airing to your views, and I cannot believe that a handful of members will be able to spread the Socialist word to any significant extent in a society dominated by capitalist education and culture. How can you break this situation and persuade a majority to vote for you?
Secondly, you seem to spend a great deal of time criticising the so-called Communist countries of the world, but surely you must admit that the standard of life for the vast majority of people in Russia, Eastern Europe, and China has been made infinitely better since the respective Revolutions, compared with their conditions previously. Despite the shortcomings of Communist regimes, their planned economies have enabled the basic needs of the working class to be rationally met, their material standard of life successfully improved, and social services provided on a large scale. How many generations more would these people have had to live in misery if these revolutions had not occurred?
All this leads to the question: is it not better in practice that an enlightened minority take action on behalf of the majority of oppressed people, rather than face the almost insuperable, and extremely lengthy, task of persuading the majority to vote for Socialism?
F. Ansell,
Leeds.
Reply:
We are only too well aware that progress towards the establishment of Socialism is slow. Nevertheless progress is being made. We know of no short-cut around the necessary task of agitation and education for Socialism.
Capitalist propaganda cannot remove the problems suffered by the working class; neither can it solve the basic contradictions within society. In their efforts to solve the problems and contradictions the workers must eventually turn to Socialism as the only solution. Since the SPGB was formed we have seen a seemingly endless array of attempts at alleviating the problems thrown up by capitalism, and we have seen them fail as they must. If all those who in the past said, as you do, that they “admire and support” our objectives had joined with us in our task of making Socialists that task would have been made easier. Unfortunately such workers still persist in futile reformism, or in advocating minority action by “enlightened” leaders.
We are opposed to this. The outcome of minority-led revolutions, even if ostensibly to establish Socialism, must inevitably lead to some form of capitalism. In the absence of a Socialist majority consciously understanding the implications involved in the establishment of Socialism there is nothing the leadership (no matter how enlightened) can do other than administer capitalism.
The Russian and other state-capitalist revolutions (e.g. China, Cuba etc.) have set back the Socialist movement by at least fifty years, by side-tracking workers. Only now is the realization that they have nothing to do with Socialism—something we said at the time.
The fact that living standards have improved in these countries is no reason whatsoever for advocating that system of government. Indeed the same claim could be made for avowedly capitalist governments—is this a reason for workers continuing to support them? Of course not.
Your contention that they “have enabled the basic needs of the working class to be rationally met” is unfounded. Workers in state-capitalist countries suffer from the same problems as workers here. Poverty, inadequate housing, inflation and a constant struggle to make ends meet while a privileged minority live in luxury and comfort are features of Russia and East Europe as much as Britain. The waste of armaments, the rape of the world’s resources and pollution of the environment exist in “rationally planned” Russia. Look at the facts!
State plans come unstuck with the same monotonous regularity as do private enterprise ones. The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1961) promised Russian workers that government plans would increase agricultural production by 150 per cent in ten years. This would mean that “In the first decade the Soviet Union will outstrip the United States in output of the key agricultural products per head of population.” The intervening period has seen Russians entering the world markets in order to purchase massive amounts of grain (mainly American) to feed her people. Eastern Europe has been no more successful in this respect. Food shortages are common and what is available is costing more. Indeed many East European countries are relying more and more on what is left of the private sector in agriculture by giving cash grants to stimulate production.
State capitalism retains class divisions and solves no working class problems. The only escape from exploitation and subjugation remains Socialism.
Editors.
Art & the Ruling Class
The article “Art and Civilization” claims that only the social and economic environment explain how man acquires certain aesthetic tastes and conceptions. I certainly cannot agree with this view all the way. Some people have very little taste for art at all. The vast majority of workers would be bored stiff if they were made to go into an art gallery. You just cannot explain all art through economics.
Economic phenomena and intellectual phenomena are just not one and the same thing. The ruling ideas of any age may be the ideas of the ruling class of the time, but the ruling class did not paint the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo did. Certainly he had to have the material to work with, but it was his creation. A poet must have something to work with as well, but to say Schiller would never have written Laura am Klavier if no piano and no Laura existed would be nonsense.
A windmill cannot make meal unless it is fed with grain, but it is not the grain that runs the mill, but the wind. Some people could study aesthetics from now to doomsday and never produce a work of art. Beethovens and Wagners do not grow on trees; and did they get their ideas on how to compose their music from the ruling class? Burns’ “Tam O’Shanter” could be enjoyed and appreciated in a Socialist society as well as a capitalist society.
Ron Smith,
Dundee
Reply:
You are confused as to what is meant by "the social and economic environment”. Of course large numbers of workers do not care for classical arts: the ruling class does not pay to have them educated for that.
“Aesthetic tastes” generally require some leisure and comfort, both to be formed and to be pursued. That is why they are traditionally upper-class enjoyments and are held to be the “higher” ones. On the other hand, nearly all workers use taste and discrimination in their gardens, in appreciating sports, and when possible in their work. It is also true that working-class products and enjoyments are often despised but later appropriated by “the higher culture”; for example, folk art and the silent film.
Your historical examples do not support your argument. Michelangelo, like the other artists of his time, did religious paintings because a section of the ruling class — the church — paid him to. When patronage shifted from the church to the new commercial class, artists painted them instead. The impetus to musical composition has come most strongly from technical innovation, and in that respect composers are obviously dependent on social and economic change. Your windmill analogy in fact illustrates our point; the wind is still there, but windmills are no longer required.
If the ideas embodied in Beethoven’s music — or Shakespeare’s plays or Burns’s poems — did not come from society, where did they come from? The belief that the capacity to create and appreciate art is a thing apart from social development fails to explain why Beethoven is a row to Indians and Chinese, and their music to us. Only historical materialism gives an adequate explanation of these phenomena; without it people can, as you say, “study aesthetics from now to doomsday”.
Editors.
Getting round the world
I have been an advocate of Socialism for many years now, in pre-war days I enjoyed listening to Harry Martin on Tower Hill. There is one point on which I would like some information. How is Socialism going to be established throughout the world at the same time? Seeing that one of the fundamental aims is the abolition of money. I cannot see that it is possible to establish it in one country at a time. I should be very grateful if you could put me right on this.
R. Phillips
Reply:
We agree with your view that Socialism cannot be established in one country at a time. As capitalism is the dominant form of society today, the problem created by it are also apparent throughout the world. Members of the working class internationally are therefore having similar problems to one another. However they are constantly misled by non-revolutionary political organisations that capitalism will, at some time, begin to work in their interests.
We can see no fundamental differences in the problems facing the working class in, say, the United States, Russia or Australia, but assuming that large numbers of workers in one part of the globe began to reject the false arguments of the capitalist parties and recognised the need for Socialism ahead of other workers, there is every reason to believe that interest in their ideas would be generated in a very short space of time among members of the working class in different parts of the globe.
One of the techniques which capitalism has developed to a tremendous degree is the facility of high-speed global communications. Socialist-conscious workers would use such facilities to the full in order to propagate their ideas to workers in other countries. They will do so recognising that Socialism can only be introduced by a united international working class. They will also do so in the knowledge that the solution to capitalism’s problems is the same for themselves as for fellow workers throughout the world.
Editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment