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.