Letters: Progress and Socialism (1978)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Progress and Socialism

In reply to my letter, “Technology and Socialism" (March SS), you give some evidence to support your contention of scientific progress making men happier in regards to medical science making the many diseases which were once rife to be things of the past, but you forget that this is a very fleeting sort of happiness in form and content, as it very quickly vanishes due to a host of other serious diseases which arise in society to cancel this ephemeral happiness out of men’s minds, and by doing so add to men’s miseries.

And even though the human lifespan is about twice as long on average as it was in Marx’s day this prolongation of life has not in the main added to man’s happiness on earth, nor has it in any manner or form motivated the workers develop Socialist ideas.

And if man has doubled his life-span since Marx’s day he certainly has not doubled his drive to attain Socialist ideas since Marx’s day. For even in 1848 Marx tells us that a spectre of communism is haunting Europe, but even today with the worker’s life-span being doubled the spectre of communism is virtually non-existent in Europe. It would be interesting to know what the historical materialists have to say about that, for this seems to be regress rather than progress, that is, of course assuming Marx’s Communist Manifesto was correct about the spectre of communism haunting Europe.

My letter never mentioned anything about the expense of technological inventions in regard to the workers, so I do not know where you got that idea from. And you certainly did not try to explain what you meant by progress, in regards to a change from hand mills to steam mills, for it is only too obvious that the steam mills did not motivate the working class to attain Socialist ideas, but rather on the contrary, dehumanised the workers by soul destroying work which turned them into robots, so where is the progress here? You disagree with this view of course, but 130 years of capitalistic technological dehumanisation is against you, plus the fact in our age of 1978 Socialism is a non-existent drive in working class politics. And also historical materialism which is supposed to operate independent of man’s will and consciousness has done virtually nothing from the steam mill in Marx’s day to the present atomic technological age to bring about any great progress towards Socialism, which, of course, you say is the only real progress, although no real evidence exists in society, to make this real progress a reality.

I would like so much to hear your comments on all that.

Ian Campbell

Dundee, Scotland

Reply:

There are two conditions necessary for the establishment of Socialism; the development of the productive forces to the point where they can provide an abundance, and acceptance by the world’s working class of the case for Socialism. Technological and scientific progress has for some decades now ensured the attainment of the first condition. Under capitalism these developments and inventions are not utilised for the good of mankind. However, in a Socialist society the fruits of human ingenuity will be able to benefit everybody. Technological progress will mean social and individual advancement. The 'soul-destroying work’ you mention has not turned the workers into robots— that is, unthinking machines which simply respond to instructions. As we said in our reply to your first letter, “Society is too complex to be operated by robots; instead it is living, feeling and thinking workers who run society.’’ The very existence of the Socialist Party shows that Socialism is by no means “ a non-existent drive in working class politics". It is no good looking to historical materialism to bring about progress towards Socialism; it is people, not history, who will carry out the revolution. The second condition for the establishment of Socialism means a world-wide majority of convinced Socialists, and this is what Socialist propaganda aims at achieving. Rather than worrying about the meaning and nature of progress, you should take a step forward yourself and join the Socialist movement.

Editors.

Facets of Trade Unionism

I recently attended the Civil and Public Services Association annual conference as a delegate for our local Branch. All facets of Trade Unionism were covered; pay, hours and leave. Conditions cf service (including superannuation), welfare, safety, "industrial democracy", racism, relations with other unions, etc., etc.

It became evident to me that what we were doing, basically was trying to get the best possible deal for our union members under capitalism.

I am familiar with the ideas of the SPGB. I read the Socialist Standard each month and I have on rare occasions attended meetings.

The ideology of the SPGB is difficult to oppose and I found myself thinking: there are no solutions under capitalism, Socialism is the answer. It is a pity, I thought, that the energy devoted by delegates in trying to improve the conditions of their members under capitalism is not harnessed to establishing Socialism. And there’s the rub! The majority of the wage-earning class either do not understand Socialism or clearly they do not want it. The SPGB has, I understand, been campaigning for over seventy years! I accept that the SPGB have been hindered by the Labour Party and various left-wing groups, all purporting to be fighting for Socialism, clouding the issues, disillusioning people and making it hard for the SPGB to spread the work and create the majority understanding necessary for the establishment of Socialism.

You may ask why, if I sympathise with your views, I do not apply for membership and help the cause? Well, we all consider our time important and I am no exception. When I occasionally state the Socialist case they think I’m living in a dream world. What about human nature? Greed? or ‘look what’s happened in Russia!’ are the usual responses. It seems that people generally do not believe in the possibility of changing society, or they do not want to.

The SPGB undoubtedly have experienced all this before and, hopefully, have the appropriate answers. Can you give me any heart to become more involved, and suggest ways of dealing with the prevailing attitudes of people?

K. Parkin

London, S.E.1