Letter: Environment and reforms (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Environment and reforms

I have an interest in environmental affairs. I am a little perplexed at the reluctance of the SPGB to endorse the rôle of active organizations such as Friends of the Earth or new villagers’ association who, though allegedly apolitically reformist, have the following impact:

1. To precipitate a situation whereby the structural changes in the material world are conducive to the smooth passage to Socialism;

2. To identify the nature of problems as being rooted in the unplanned, inherently wasteful and undemocratic framework of capitalism;

3. To inculcate in the public mind an attitude of educated and systematic scepticism founded on the abundance of evidence for the bureaucratic wastefulness of the capitalist mode of production.

I see the point that a reformist stance makes the capitalist system more palatable and tolerable. But would not piecemeal Socialist measures in this area assist in undermining capitalist credibility, especially if the nature of the solutions and the source of the problems were identifiably explicit?

I wholeheartedly agree that an enlightened working class is a prerequisite for a Socialist revolution (and the brunt of Socialist effort ought to be expended to that end). But it becomes onerously futile to attempt to enlighten the bigoted, especially where their interests are tied up in their minds with the interests and unilateral decisions of those in authority who shape and mould the social and material conditions of a seduced and emasculated working class. Ought one to attempt to effect a change in social structure, to a more egalitarian end, in order to deprive the ruling class of the stranglehold grip they have on the mechanism for the dissemination of ideas?

Robin Cox 

Haslemere

Reply:

You contradict yourself. If Socialism cannot be got over because of the capitalist grip on working-class minds, why commend organizations which aim “to inculcate in the public mind an attitude of educated scepticism” — would not that also be “onerously futile” if your belief is true?

Your argument for piecemeal measures is that ideas become institutionalized, or that enlightened legislation makes enlightened people. Again, we refer you to your own statement that we have “a seduced and emasculated working class”: this is after a hundred years of legislation, much of which had the claims made for it that you are making.

It is impossible to be “apolitically reformist”. Those who desire changes have to support the leaders and parties which promise them, and therefore also support general political programmes.

It is often difficult for reformers to comprehend that their work will turn out differently from what they intend; but see how the Welfare State and comprehensive education have gone sour on those who saw egalitarian ideals in them. It is not because of misapplication, but through the nature of capitalism, which eats good intentions and, we’re afraid, Friends of the Earth.

Your letter shows you are thinking about these things. Keep on doing so.

Letter: Four questions (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Four questions

I enjoyed listening to your speakers in Hyde Park, in particular their synopsis of the “wage-slave” state we have today. Perhaps you could enlighten me on the following questions.

1. You stress the importance of the working man under Socialism, but do you believe that work alone is the reason for man’s existence? Surely self-fulfilment of the individual and the economic freedom necessary for this are more important. Surely the real challenge of the future is not full employment but the management of leisure?

2. Surely it is a basic desire and right of man to own his own piece of land for himself and his family.

3. You subscribe to the idea of “democratic representation”, presumably this means majority rule. Do you think the majority are ever right? Surely a better system would be for each individual to exercise his freedom with respect to the rights of others based on the inherent good of man and the acceptance that Utopia is impossible?

4. Would not elected Socialist representatives succumb to corruption, just as is evident today in the major political parties and has happened to every governing body since time immemorial?

S. D. Chapman

London W.11.

Reply:

You have obviously not yet fully grasped the Socialist position, but we appreciate your interest and will try to make matters a little clearer.

1. We stress the importance of the working class under capitalism because they are the great majority whose interests can only be expressed by establishing Socialism. In Socialism there will be no classes at all. Of course work should not be the be-all and end-all of existence and individual fulfilment is something all Socialists look forward to. However, bear in mind (a) that comfort and freedom must rest on a solid material foundation — man has got to produce, and (b) that many people can and do find personal fulfilment in creative, interesting work. Leisure and “management” of it is the corollary to dull, unrewarding work to which people are condemned. “Full employment” has to do with capitalism, not Socialism.

2. “Ownership” and “rights” arc not basic human desires but ideas implanted by property societies: they imply a person’s or a class’s having something to the exclusion of others. Socialism means that all the means of living will be owned by everyone in common, and all people will have free access to them — including pieces of land for cultivation — and their products.

3. What else can democracy mean except majority rule? To speak of majorities being right or wrong implies some superior standard of judgement; however, the informed and argued collective view of a dozen or a hundred people is more likely to be sound than an individual’s by himself.

The individual’s freedom is always bounded by his existence among other people. What you term “the inherent good of man” is simply his social nature and consequent tendency always to co-operation and order. Given that, there is no conflict between individuality and democracy.

4. To refer back to no. 3, we do not advocate “democratic representation”, where — as now — a person is elected without being answerable; if we did, we might be in a way to “succumb to corruption”, as you say. In the Socialist Party we appoint delegates who are instructed by those who elect them and have no other powers. Our organization is framed to vest control in all matters in the entire membership; we have no leaders or positions of authority, and all our transactions down to the most trivial ones are open to the public as well as the membership. That is how the administration of Socialism will be carried out.

Letter: A new view of woman's place (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new view of woman's place

I would like to comment and enquire on the following factors and the SPGB’s attitude on them.

First, that women under capitalism are voluntarily ideal economic slaves, not by what they do but what they don't do. For example one never hears of women doing smash-and-grab raids and bank robberies under present conditions.

Second, at one time the SPGB made great emphasis on the economic threads of religious ideas. Religions are based upon conserving private property interests, that’s why we hear bible-bashers saying “Thou shalt not steal” — just what the capitalist class want — not to steal their property! But the recent Socialist Party presentation is that industrial and scientific developments alone have discarded religious hokum and a recent article in the Socialist Standard makes no reference to the economic and political significance of religion.

R. Phillips 

London W.9.

Reply:

Some hardened married cynics claim that bourgeois marriage is a smash-and-grab raid: smashes up your life and grabs your money.

If you have not heard of women bank-robbers you cannot have been paying attention. What about Patti Hearst? “Bonnie and Clyde?” The chief partner in the Bader-Meinhof terrorist gang is a girl.

There is no such thing as a voluntary slave. The reason why women have been enslaved throughout the ages is because private property (until recently) was almost entirely vested in rich men.

The Socialist Party has not altered its viewpoint regarding religion and its real (economic) explanation. You are quite right about “Thou shalt not steal”, “Work for the night is coming”, “Blessed are the meek”, etc. The situation is simply that we have not had an article on it for some time, and will endeavour to produce one before long.

APOLOGIES TO CORRESPONDENTS still waiting. We hope to reply to them in the next issue.

Fifty Years Ago: No quick road (1975)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is evidence that capitalism has yet a considerable future before it; a future of extensive exploitation of the yet untouched areas of the earth; a future of economic centralisation crushing out the last effective remnants of individualism; a future of imperialism and war, of industrial and political anarchy without parallel; a future in which the workers will be hammered and battered into a recognition of social realities.

But alongside the education of experience and practice will go also the education in theoretical principles and tactics born of the conception of history we owe so greatly to Marx. The first form will provide the necessary groundwork of class-consciousness; the second, the essential guidance to a policy avoiding the pitfalls and errors that beset a revolutionary class groping its way amid endless problems along the path towards emancipation.

[From an article “Economics and Ideas” by R. W. Housley, in the Socialist Standard, October 1925.]

SPGB Meetings (1975)

Party News from the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The advertised mass meeting for November listed above had the following speakers: Dom Zucconi, Robert Barltrop and Cyril May.

Where to buy the Socialist Standard (1975)

From the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I occasionally post 'Where to buy the Socialist Standard' ads on the blog because I'm always fascinated with the history of the Socialist Standard, and where it was available. The 1970s and early 1980s were definitely the heyday for independent left-wing bookshops and, looking at this list, I actually visited six or seven of these bookshops in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Of those six or seven - I can't remember the exact number - I think only Housmans still exists.

A bygone age.