Letter: Seamen and Socialism (1960)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Seamen and Socialism

It is long since I troubled you with any screed of mine, but 1 feel impelled to break a restraint of several years by making some comment upon your bewildering illogicality, as it seems to me, in certain directions.

Under the heading “Seamen on Strike” you write “One simple method of safeguarding the community’s welfare, keeping the ships sailing and making everybody happy, is to grant the seamen’s wage demands.” Indeed! But is this recipe for everybody’s happiness not a little naive, encouraging “demands” on the parlour-game principle “Think of a number (or demand) and then double it." Since when has it been good Socialism to accept the view that any good, let alone universal happiness, can come out of a wages system?

On the very same page you say that “ not so long ago " a farthing would buy a pocket-full of sweets. So it would, if not a pocket-full, a fist-full. Sweets— and food—was incredibly cheap before the first great war, and so was labour. You make the point that a worker’s wage today in command of real wealth remains much about the same. This, in spite of the precarious outcome of “full employment” in so-called key industries, overtime, and married women’s labour. Plainly, “demand” for anything less than Socialism is “not enough.” Then why confuse the issue merely to satisfy that class-war feeling? It’s phoney! As for the £40 a month and all found, I can only speak of the stewards you mention, but I have just come off a liner (an exploiting passenger, of course) considerably lighter in pocket. Why should you expect me to fall for that fudge? The workers, like everyone else (and who are they?) want all they can get and I don't blame them—or us—but don't ask me to idealise the ”gi-me" game. I gave all to a cause once, with no personal expectations. So did many pioneers of the SPGB. We didn't moan.

Now, isn't it about time the SPGB told the world what it means by Socialism? Yes, I know all about the statement of Principles, I had it in draft in my own hands some 50 years ago. But what does it mean? I ask modern artist friends of mine what their apparently crude abstract designs mean and they fob me off with jargon and more jargon. I ask you for details of how each takes from the common store without money and without price. Must the answer be the same? Just how, is all I want to know, but don’t misunderstand me. I, too, believe it possible to really socialise the main things of life gradually and I do not rely on any “ dawn ’’ appearing or the “ setting up'' of specialised and centralised bureaucracies for the purpose. I could develop the theme with plenty of early Socialist literature to my aid. Believe me, I do not propose to present every worker with a Jaguar on “ demand ’’—the problem disturbs me, for why not a helicopter apiece? 1 can “ visualise ” some “ store." Treat this as a little pleasantry if you like, but what do you really mean? No jargon, mind!

Lord Amwell.

Belsize Park, N.W.3.

Reply:

In the first chapter of our pamphlet “ Questions of the Day " we have told in some detail what Socialism is. Lord Amwell asks “for details of how each takes from the common store without money and without price.” We are puzzled at his difficulty. In a family, for example, each takes what he needs of what is there without either money or price. Likewise, from what is produced today each could take what he needs of what is available for each without having to pay for anything, providing it was all commonly owned.

As the question comes from Lord Amweli there are certain things we can take for granted. For instance, that we are concerned with a society in which everything that is in and on the earth is the common possession of all mankind. and each stands on an equal footing with regard to what is produced and distributed.

Before such a society can come into being the vast mass of the people must understand what Socialism signifies the kind of society that they are bringing into being. Hence they will know that the greater the quantity and variety they can produce the more in quantity and variety will be available to each.

The same kind of hands and brains that are concerned with production and distribution today will be available in the new society—but with greater freedom and opportunities. Consequently the provision of the necessary productive and storage facilities to meet society's needs in the requisite places will present less difficulties than they do today, where the profit consideration enters into the problem. Thus people will go to the appropriate stores and take what they need of what is there, in accordance with assessments of needs and the means to fulfil them—problems which are within the capacity of human brains that have been able to devise gigantic buildings, faster than sound planes, radar and space rockets. For instance, people go to super stores today, take what they need and pay for what they have taken. Tomorrow they will go similar places, take what they need and walk out.

Those who bring the new society into being will be reasonable enough not to expect more than society is capable of producing. Likewise, they will only want what they need, not what will be the envy of their neighbours. A person can only eat one meal at a time, sleep in one bed, sit in one car. The multiplicity of these things would only be a nuisance and a sign that the accumulator needed the attention of a doctor. Helicopters have been mentioned. It is surely obvious that everyone would not want a helicopter, a motor car, a racing stud, a yacht, a TV set, a private radar, a trip to the moon, a private salmon river, or a house papered with gold leaf and diamonds. People yearn for these things today because they signify security and importance, in the eyes of their fellows. In the new society such an outlook would be meaningless. The members of it would want comfort, happiness, the pursuit of occupations that gave them pleasure, and the harmonious co-operation of their fellows. A helicopter would not be needed as a possession, but as a means to get from place to place in a hurry. Today a man calls a taxi if he wants to get to a friend or the station in comfort and quickly. Would it not be possible to arrange to call a helicopter tomorrow? Members of the new society would not be unreasonable in their demands, harmonious co-operation would assure this, and unlimited human ingenuity would be used to solve any problems that arise.

In the beginning, before society has settled down in the new form, there may be those who, unable to throw off the heritage of the past, may want to satiate themselves with possessions. But what of it? They will gain nothing by it except satiation and will soon get tired of useless accumulation, like the child gets tired of a surfeit of toys.

With reference to the remarks about the seamen's dispute, the sentences quoted have been taken too literally—in a sense that the context shows was not intended. They were just flippant digs at the arguments put forward by the employers and their supporters.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Mitres and Miracles (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a further letter from Lord Amwell. The letter and our contributor’s reply are set out below. The original article was published in February, and Lord Amwell’s first criticism in June.— Ed. Comm.

The Editor, Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,—I must thank you for the generous amount of space you were good enough to allow me. If I am entitled to a short come-back I would make the following one or two comments on F.F.’s reply.

F.F. says that the only statement in his original article which corresponded to the postulate that matter is force was in quotes and was made by Dr. Blunt. On the contrary. The sentence “Matter and force are merely two names for one and the same thing” was two paragraphs away from the quotation from Dr. Blunt and was not in quotes. In any event, it is modern physics, and if it doesn’t fit in with the stern and unbending prejudices of the S.P.G.B., that’s just too bad.

Again, F.F. says that it was I and not he who gave the details about atoms and electrons. Wrong again; I took them word for word from the Socialist Standard. Why this anxiety to hedge in face of printed evidence?

Next; “It is an elementary principle of correct thinking that ‘all knowledge begins with the senses’.” Quite so. That’s what the senses are for. Presumably in order to show how incapable Christians are of thinking correctly, F.F. calls to the witness-box if you please the greatest Catholic theologian of all time, Thomas Aquinas, to prove just that! As I have said, F.F. doesn’t know what educated Christians believe. He really doesn’t!

The picture of scientists deliriously seeking to abstract force from matter so as to leave a residue, or to “draw oft energy and bottle it,” is hardly up to Heath Robinson’s level, but is of that category. It exposes the limitation of F.F.’s mind on scientific matters or else his idee fixe on the subject of what Engels said in 1848.

Finally, ” . . . if we know the qualities of a thing, we know the thing in itself,” so Kant (dear me !) is ignored by serious thinkers. That verbal quibble was disposed of by serious thinkers in the 90’s. If by the word “of” is meant “belong to” it is palpably incorrect, since nothing can “belong to” nothing. If what is meant is that when we know all about a thing we know all about it, the formula is a piece of redundant verbiage. “Take away all the qualities and you’ve nothing left” goes without saying if by “qualities” we define all that can be said about anything. But, “who’s a denying of it, Betsy?” Not an Atheneum full of Bishops, believe me. The trouble is that only the cheapest public forum atheist knows all about anything.

If I had more space than I could have the face to ask for I could convict F.F. of contradictions enough to hang him—intellectually, of course. My main contention stands. It is bad enough to clutter up Socialism with metaphysical logic-chopping on either side; it is worse to attempt to do so without the requisite philosophical and scientific training. I apply that to myself too; but I am not the original culprit.

On the other band, if Socialists have all got to think alike on all matters, exchange some of those dog-eared pamphlets of a past age for up-to-date stuff, if only to know what, the present state of affairs looks like.

Yours sincerely,

Amwell.

Reply:

In his previous letter Lord Amwell asserted that I defined matter as force. I pointed out to him that it was Dr. Blunt who raised the question of the non-existence of matter. He now quotes my actual words, “matter and force are merely two names for one and the same thing,” but in fact this was intended as a paraphrase of what Dr. Blunt said.

Regarding Amwell’s charge of hedging. He could hardly have thought I was referring to him as the scientist responsible for all the information on atoms and electrons that I used in my original article. In using his name I was addressing him personally. He is hereby absolved from any imputation on my part that be is the source of any scientific knowledge I may possess.

His reference to Aquinas is rather unfortunate for him. He jeeringly suggested in his first reply that “Tommy Aquinas and Karl Marx would make an interesting combination.” I countered with one thing on which they might be in agreement. Though Aquinas was an idealist and Marx a materialist, Amwell failed to see the connection because it was not specifically pointed out to him. Aquinas’ dictum on the senses seems a small matter to-day; until we remember that the trustworthiness of the senses had been disputed by philosophers and theologians since 300 years B.C. During an age of metaphysical speculation this constituted a decided step towards clear thinking, in spite of the dualistic beliefs of its originator.

But why the “educated” Christians? Are their beliefs different from those of their congregations? There is no evidence to induce anyone to think so. On the contrary, the constant repetition throughout a long life of the crude dogmas they learned in their Bible classes become firmly embedded in the grey matter of their brains, and what is good enough for the sheep is good enough for the shepherd. The feeble efforts of Dr. Blunt to put up a case for miracles is not only evidence that there is no case, but also of the stultifying effects that religious dogma has on the mind. Dr. Barnes, on the other hand, realising the growing indifference and decreasing credulity of the masses, does his best to preserve Church and jobs by discarding the miracles while retaining God. Well, it’s for Christians, educated and uneducated, to decide. Gods only exist in the mind, and the individual is free to believe, but he does so with no single shred of evidence. He pays the parson and takes his choice.

Lord Amwell seems incapable of dealing with any argument in a straightforward manner. He suggests that I pictured scientists deliriously trying to separate matter and force. There was no suggestion on my part that scientists, deliriously or otherwise, were trying to do so; I am tempted to suggest he must have seen that picture in one of those mediumistic trances of which he boasted in the House of Lords on the 17th of June of this year. The plain fact is that matter and force have never been separated. And that goes for the living organism, with all its organs and functions. Thinking is not the brain, it is a function of that organ; just as digestion is a function of the abdominal organs. The mind consists of thoughts, the result of impressions received through the senses. Does Lord Amwell deny that mind is a function? No, he simply expresses his intense dislike of the thought. Anyway, why eternal life for mind and not for digestion? Sheep’s brains and tripe are equally messy things when exposed for sale on a butcher’s slab.

Still more misrepresentation. It was not Kant, but one of his ideas that had been ignored. Lord Amwell has become so muddled over this question that he is uncertain whether he is on the side of the bishops or the materialists. Kant’s assertion was: “When we know all the qualities of a thing we still don’t know the thing in itself.” My statement that we do not know is a direct negative. Further if we eliminate all the qualities there is nothing left does make sense. Which is more than can he said for his meaningless transformation. Pity he is unable to tell us how it was disposed of in the 90’s.

What are the implications of Kant’s doctrine? Our senses and reason fail to give us a true picture of the world. Underlying all phenomena—like the modern theologian’s idea of God, present in every smallest particle, is the thing in. itself—”noumenon.” The idea is a fantastic speculation on what is called the ultimate nature of existence. Of course serious thinkers ignored it. They were too busy with observation, theory and experiment, adding to the fund of general knowledge that deals with realities. They were slowly but surely adding to the sciences that explain how the universe works. How all living things have evolved, and, what is perhaps the most important discovery of all: the fact that human society itself is subject to evolution. Its laws can be ascertained and man himself can take a hand in that evolution for his own well-being.

The S.P.G.B. is always willing to accord space or platform time to opponents. It is a pity, however, that Amwell did not frame his objections in a straightforward manner that could have been easily understood, instead of cloaking them under literary attempts to be facetious.

“Mitres and Miracles” was an effort, subject to limitations of space to present the Socialist attitude towards both religion and science. With every opportunity afforded him, Amwell has failed to show a single contradiction or unsound reasoning.

His objection to cluttering up Socialism with metaphysical logic-chopping, and his plea that he was not the original culprit, shows, on his side, a failing memory or ignorance of metaphysics. When he wrote that ”attraction and response were the questions begged,” he was postulating a mystical something beyond experience. If he did not realise it he is ignorant of metaphysics. If he did he is the first culprit, and further is self-convicted of a deliberate attempt to throw a spanner into the works.

Regarding philosophical and scientific training before voicing opinions on those subjects, a general knowledge of science can be acquired without special training—which is only needed by specialists making a career such as chemists, etc. Reliable works are available on all the sciences. There is a constant flow of articles in magazines and press, together with radio talks that are highly informative. Any man of average intelligence having once acquired this general knowledge, and most socialists have done so, is qualified to speak on any subject of general interest.

About “those dog-eared pamphlets of a past age.” They at any rate accurately forecast what the present state of affairs would be like. They told of increasing-competition for a limited world market, world crises, unemployment and war, and much else that is rotten. S.P.G.B. pamphlets to-day deal with phases of political and economic conditions as they affect the working-class of the world. If the old ones were dog-eared these have a thousand tongues and speak earnestly of the urgent need for all workers to learn the cause of their wretchedness and fear of the future.

Finally we only expect socialists to think alike on the principles governing their organisation. Socialist principles and action are based on the facts of social life. There is no mystery about the relationship of capitalist and wage-worker.

“Society as at present constituted is based on the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master-class, and the consequent enslavement of the working-class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.”

There is only one solution to this enslavement: The establishment of Socialism by the working-class, consciously organized for that purpose alone.

F. F.

Letter: Mitres and miracles (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We publish below a letter from Lord Amwell criticising the article published in the February issue. A reply by the writer of the article follows the letter.

“Mitres and Miracles” in the February number of The Socialist Standard presents itself to me as a contradictory hotch-potch of old and new in quasi-scientific jargon. I hold no brief on behalf of either mitres or miracles but I am interested in the desirability of keeping socialist education free of meta-physical entanglements. Your correspondent, F.F., seems to think that scientific “explanation” consists in giving commonplace happenings ponderous names. He reminds me of famous humourist’s account of why cooks love policemen and of Pavlov’s cutting a dog’s throat, for the insertion of an instrument to prove the canine equivalent of our dressing for dinner (if we do) when we hear the first gong.

Thus: kissing is not a spiritual impulse causing physical effects, but physical attraction evoking emotional response. The writer issues a form of words which entirely begs the question with an air (I beg pardon, a response!) of devastating finality. Spiritualists do the same kind of thing I know, but F.F. is not thereby excused. Attraction and response are, of course, the questions begged.

Call kissing an emotional response and licking one’s chops a conditioned reflex and there you are ! It follows then that material nature “makes” a man wear a hat to keep his head warm even if he isn’t a miller and the hat isn’t white. This, despite the fact that a few paragraphs ahead “material nature” becomes only a “supposed reality” which no philosopher or scientist has yet discovered. We are told in the language of the black-cat-in-a-dark-room merchants, and as if it were a new proletarian truth, that reality is “behind” phenomena, for all the world as if if were a bishop telling us that God is “behind ” material nature. How a “supposed” reality “makes” or “evokes” anything at all is a puzzle, but perhaps F.F. means that phenomena is sufficient to do the trick and reality isn’t really behind nature at all and wouldn’t be wanted if it were.

When bishops talk stuff of this feeble order they are supposed to be after four-figure salaries for their doping the proletariat and I should have thought that rotundity of words to hide a bellyful of ignorance would be no appropriate recourse of a class-conscious prophet even though so desperately anxious to show that man makes his own history by allowing material nature to make it for him, the said man not appearing to belong to material nature after all!

Matter and Force, says F.F., are one and the same thing. Hardness is no longer due to solidity. Electrons are points of force moving at incredible speeds. All of which, if said a hundred years ago, would have given Engels a perfectly Victorian fit, The “older materialistic theory,” just as dogmatically acclaimed, has been given the new look, but although according to F.F. we know nothing about reality we do know that mind is “merely” the function of a physical organ just as digestion is a function of the stomach, though the famous liver and its bile is given the go-by. Bishops are “driven back” on the mind because they cannot establish that spirit is anything but matter. Yet matter is nothing but force (meaning, I suppose, energy) and bishops are therefore supposed to believe, that force, qua spirit, is a separate entity waiting round the corner to give force, qua matter, one in the eye.

Doesn’t F.F. know that it is a cardinal principle of episcopal mythology that God is a spirit that exists in totality at every point in space including that occupied by the “force” which is “matter.” What it means I don’t know, but I also don’t know what F.F. means. I know only that F.F. is quite at sea about what educated Christians believe. They don’t believe, for instance, that mind is necessarily independent of matter, though they believe with Freud that mind is not necessarily dependent upon brain. F.F. has defined matter as force; it is he alone who segregates physical force in a completely unscientific way, having to invent “thinking” matter by making the assumption that molecules of carbon and phosphorous, take on a special nature for psychic purposes. It is the materialist who “separates” matter and mind into cause and product, not the opposite metaphysician. And if this is too abstract it isn’t my fault.

As an example of the lamest of limping logic take F.F.’s dictum that before the clergy talk of mind influencing matter they must establish it as a fact that mind is different from matter and independent of it. Turn this the other way round. Is a bishop entitled to argue that before a materialist talks about matter not merely influencing but creating mind he must first establish it as a fact that matter is different from mind and independent of it? If not, why not? The fact is that F.F. is quite unfamiliar with the ontological issues involved or he would not have fallen into such an inept pit.

In calling J. B. S. Haldane to his aid F.F. is on dangerous ground, for Haldane is a “new” materialist sans bustle or side-whiskers. He no more believes that mind is comparable to colly-wobbles or that thinking is a kind of cranial atomic jitterbugging than I do. Haldane even advances the theory that a future life, or “something hardly to be distinguished from it,” is a logical necessity of modern materialism.

The fact is, as F.F. hints, that the whole question has been, as they say, reorientated. It is useless to ignore this. It is deplorable to admit it, as F.F. does, and then drag in all the old clichés as it nothing had happened. Of course materialism stands—backside foremost—but who’s afraid? The one-time big black wolf frightens no bishop. Once identify matter with force, and the old-fashioned logic-chopping about “interaction” and what not is well and truly snookered. There cannot be varieties of “force.” F.F. should brush up his physics. If matter is force, so is mind, and no bishop could say more.

When F.F. tells me as a revolutionary and emancipating truth that I am something like my viscera, I can only remark that if this is true even the most scientific individual of us must think as his belly guides him. What exact reliance can be placed on the ratiocination of livers and lights or even cortex and thalomus I don’t know and hate to think of for the sake of my respect for scientists if not for the sake of my respect for bishops. And don’t give me the guff that brotherly love flowers exclusively on the secular fig tree. Brotherly love, my hat !

F.F. should also brush up his theology before venturing again in furrin parts. Tommy Aquinas and Karl Marx would make an interesting combination.

Reply:

Lord Amwell professes to be concerned about a question begged. Has he ever done anything else but beg that particular question? He wants to keep socialist education free of metaphysical entanglements, then sets a metaphysical conundrum that everybody bye-passes, including himself. It is set in many forms: what is attraction? What is life? To push it farther back, what, is universal existence? What are these things in reality?

Some of the greatest thinkers of the past have wasted many of the best years of their lives puzzling over that question, with no result except idle speculations on imaginary things, or happenings beyond experience. The socialist accepts the world as he finds it, including the knowledge that comes to him through the senses. Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, laid it down that all knowledge begins with the senses, an elementary principle for correct thinking.

It was in the eighteenth century that Emanuel Kant contended that we only know the appearances, or phenomena, of a thing; never the thing in itself. Lord Amwell pours ridicule on the notion in the mistaken belief that he is crushing an opponent of his friends, the bishops. Kant’s famous speculation has got no farther. It is ignored by serious thinkers because it suggests something beyond experience, and because in everyday life, if we know the qualities of a thing, we know the thing in itself.

“Man makes his own history by allowing material nature to make it for him.” This statement gives a wrong conception of the position. Man acquaints himself with natural laws and their operation and then uses those natural laws to suit his purposes. The atom bomb is an example of this. As a part of universal existence man is compelled to observe natural laws. This also applies to the social forms that develop and has a particular significance for the socialist. At certain epochs the social arrangements develop to a point where they cause internal disruption. Today the means of production and distribution are socially operated by the working class but they are capitalist owned, and there is a conflict of interest set up between owners and dispossessed. The working out of social laws based upon private property has brought about this disharmony. Class antagonism within society operates against the well-being of mankind. The longer it continues the worse become the penalties for ignoring the law.

It is the scientist, Lord Amwell, who tells us all those details about atoms and electrons, not F.F. The information was passed on to the readers with the comment that the alleged discovery had made no difference to our previous conception of matter. Scientists and chemists still carried on with the table of elements and their relative weights just as they did before the discovery.

Again, Lord Amwell attributes to me the ridiculous statement that matter is force, not once but several times; whereas the only passage that justifies it is in quotes and was by Dr. Blunt. The fact remains we can only separate matter and force in the understanding, never in the laboratory or anywhere else. No scientist has ever abstracted the force, or if he prefers it the energy, from any substance, solid, liquid or gaseous, and left a residue of matter only. Nor could the reverse be accomplished, that is draw off the energy and bottle it.

Lord Amwell admits his inability to understand what educated Christians believe, or the cardinal principle of episcopal mythology, that God is a spirit existing in totality at every point in space. It means that the history of religion, in its essence, is traversing its final chapter. It has not yet discarded its spiritual God, but in the esoteric circles of educated Christians God is identical with the physical universe.

All the bishops, together with Lord Amwell, use the words mind and spirit alternatively as meaning the same thing. The word spirit, with its implications of a future life, independent of matter, must be merged into mind clothed with so-called spiritual qualities.

If spirit is only another name for mind the bishops have nothing to prove, but if they insist on the generally accepted meaning, a spiritual power independent of flesh and blood, the onus for proof is on them ; because it is their assertion.

Up-to-date physics will not answer his lordship’s question. But the knowledge as to how men do their thinking may. For instance, in the understanding they visualise a purpose in nature, and deduce a power controlling its fulfilment; after the same manner as man designs and carries through a work of art. But what purpose can there be other than infinite change? The world is in constant process of becoming something else. Its only purpose is existence. To say that the purpose of existence is existence may seem tautology, but not so in conjunction with infinite change.

If we know all the qualities of a thing we know the thing in itself. If we know how the universe works, we know the universe.

Amwell says next that “educated Christians don’t believe that mind is necessarily independent of matter. Though they believe that mind is not necessarily dependent on brain.” It’s a bit of a mix-up. Let us try and straighten it out, using the socialist method of approach. How does the brain work? Impressions are received and classified in the memory according to their association with previous conceptions. Throughout life the number of these impressions multiply enormously, and constitute a collection of memories on which we can. draw at will, though concentration is sometimes rendered difficult because much of this association goes on without conscious effort. Now, all our ideas come to us through the senses, therefore our apparent freedom of choice can only be exercised within the realms of experience. So we draw the conclusion that mind is dependent on brain, plus all the other parts of nature of which we have experience, for the materials on which it functions. If that is what educated Christians mean when they say “mind is not necessarily dependent on brain,” we can only ask: what has happened to the spirit? Their only answer is that it, “exists in totality at every point in space.” In other words; it is just universal existence.

One other point for our critic. We are only secularists in the sense that the materialist, explanation of the history of religion is part of the materialist conception of history as a whole. The greater includes the less. If the secularist accepts evolution in the physical world, he has failed to apply it to social science. He has not always recognised the conflicting interests and class antagonism in society. He only sees the confusion that is wrought in men’s minds by superstition. We are not blind to its stultifying effects. That is why we accept its challenge whenever it attempts to use science to bolster up its lies.

F. Foan

A personal statement (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arising out of the reply to his letter published in the September Socialist Standard, Lord Amwell asks us to publish the following statement: —

September 16th, ’48.

The Editor, 

Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

I must ask you to correct one misrepresentation in F.F.’s reply to me this month.

It is unwise to trust the capitalist press, even when it suits one in its facilitating a jibe. I did not say in the House of Lords that I went into trances or, as several newspapers put it, that I was a medium. Popular spiritualism is a thing I despise and I am not an obscurantist by any means.

What I did was to speak against a body of fellow citizens being persecuted under medieval statutes rather than common law. To illustrate my point I mentioned that many years ago I looked into certain phenomena and produced, as anyone can, some abnormal results. This without any assumption whatever about a future life or theory of spirit. As matters stood before Mr. Morrison’s order to police authorities, I could have been prosecuted for investigating psychic matters in my own home.

This had nothing to do with trances or spiritualistic claims. The press seeks sensation—don’t you follow suit. I am neither spiritualist nor medium.

I wish I had space to go into the other matters fully, especially F.F.’s complex about tripe and sheeps’ brains.

Yours sincerely,

Amwell.

Letter: Common-Ownership? (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Common-Ownership?

I thank you for the interesting reply you give to my letter. It is the more welcome because it does meet the principle points of difference between us. even if I am right in my submission that it promptly runs away from them again. For example.,"common-ownership" is accepted by both of us, but in whom is it to be vested, and how? The term covers a multitude of possibilities unless closely defined. President Nkrumah of Ghana lists four "sectors" of his country's proposed economy, “state-owned, joint state-private enterprise, co-operatives, and purely private." You would, of course, reject two of these, but what of the other alternatives, or have you one of your own? Again, you postulate "assessment of needs and the means to fulfil them," but who is to assess? I am not arguing, mark, that assessments cannot be made. They obviously can be made about many things. But I want to know about it and I feel that a means-test of any variety should be repugnant to both of us. Of course, you do not mention anything of the kind, but what do you mean?

These are not trivial points for they involve the tremendous issue of administrative tyranny against communal freedom, state-ism against decentralisation; indeed, syndicalism versus the commune. Where do you stand? Arc you for high-powered mass-production run by trades-unions on Fascist lines with Coventry and castor-oil complete for "deviationists," a vast factory system with "scientific" direction of labour in a monstrous mechanism under an ultimately totalitarian though differently labelled state, or for the comely life of production for use in free cooperative groups for the most part, and under only the most resilient form possible of overhead government? Arc you for mass-production of everything despite the fact that, as every good farmer knows, mass farming it bad farming, and the other fact that quality craftsmanship beats factory products in length of life four or five times over. Mass-production is for the masses; who but they would touch it? In food products and manufactures alike it is recognised (by the advertising world) that it costs six limes as much to sell an article at it does to make it. The difference is in transport costs, insurances, marketing charges, multifarious agency profits, wholesale and retail percentages—all arising from remote and competitive marketing, and all to be avoided, as Socialism would avoid them (or largely so), by leaving production and consumption to loosely articulated small units wherever possible.

There are hundred upon hundreds of successful co-operative groups in Britain today producing for use. sharing small machinery socially and employing expert advice. The point I wish to make here is that there is nothing to stop such development except the fact that the workers are in the main indifferent. There are the orthodox co-operative societies, of course, numbering in membership ten millions, a quarter of the population, owning the meant and instruments of production and distribution. They are run as capitalist concerns and the excuse of socially conscious members is that they have to meet capitalist competition! "We have to beat the band!". What rubbish! The business of any genuine co-operative group is not to beat anything or anybody, but to co-operate. Of course, big business can “beat" the workers on its own ground, but how shall it beat the co-operative will? Above all, how beat production for use?

As it stands, however, the co-operative societies, after a-century-and-a-half's dedicated (so it is alleged) membership rise to the giddy height of "save up for summer holidays" but fall lamentably short of any co-operative commonwealth whatever. Why? Not because there is anything at all in the way unless the competitive rat-race is still held sacred. It is because the workers neither understand Socialism nor want it.

The choice before us between freedom and slavery. The one is possible only where control of the means of production is direct and immediate, just as democracy is possible only where the people are in direct and effective touch with public affairs. The other cannot be more than an impersonal power process to be rendered quite ghastly by modern automation and atomic energy.

We who claim to be Socialists used to acclaim freedom. With the present drift towards a totalitarian economy, and in trades-union politics the one-party state, your own utopian belief in a miraculous “dawn ” upon the morrow of an equally miraculous release of pent-up proletarian virtue is as abstract and full of holes as a Henry Moore sculpture.

Amwell.

Belsize Park. N.W.3.

Reply:

Lord Amwell wants to know in whom common ownership is vested, and how?

The definition we gave was that everything that is in and on the earth would be the common possession of all mankind. In our property and privilege ridden society it is not easy to give a helpful illustration of what we mean, but we will try.

Air is the common possession of all mankind. you can breathe as much of it as you like without anyone raising an objection. Similarly you can drink as much water as you like at a public fountain. In both instances each person determines what he or she needs. The same process will operate in the future with food, clothing, shelter and everything else. The people with the intelligence to build up the new society will also have the intelligence not to expect the impossible.

In the Socialist Party of Great Britain different members, and groups of members, are appointed to perform the necessary work in the organisation and propaganda of the Party. For example, the Literature Committee finds out from branches what literature they require—the local branches do the assessing. They make an estimate from experience of what further supplies are required. They then obtain from the printer the total amount they have arrived at and proceed to fulfil the needs of branches and individuals. There is no administrative tyranny in this, it is purely a technical problem. While it is true that the Socialist Party is small, and therefore the problem is not a great one, yet in the future a similar procedure will be adopted in harmony with the size and complexity of society's needs.

Production in each area will be based on what individuals in that area need—they will make their own assessment of what they need. Experience will enable the production assessors to have available sufficient in quantity and variety to fulfil these needs. The articles will be available in suitable places in the area and all that people will have to do is to go there and take what they want. We used the example of a self-service store in the limited sense that people can go there and take what they want of what is available. In that instance, of course, they nave to pay for what they take—in the future they will just take.

While the new society is getting on its feet there may be people who, still affected with the possessive inclinations of the past, may want to load themselves up with more than they need. Well, whal of it? They will soon get tired of their stupid and unnecessary efforts.

In our view each community will Ik as self-supporting as possible Some things, however, will need extra community arrangements: like raw material, travel, correspondence, and so forth. These arrangements are just technical questions which can be dealt with by groups of people at given centres who are interested in this kind of work. In the future society there will be no isolated communities, split off from the rest of the world. They will all be part of a world Socialist system, decentralised but each working in harmony with the rest, without statism or tyranny, to enable everyone to live a useful, interesting and satisfactory life. If there are occupations that are necessary but uninteresting then some method of sharing will be devised.

This brings us to the question of mass production. Whether or how far there will be mass production we cannot say now. A great deal that is mass produced nowadays will be unnecessary in the future—armament production is one example. The mass produced article is as a rule the cheap, the short-lived and the lacking in variety. Whether mass production saves a really appreciable amount of labour in the long run is questionable. But what is not questionable is that it is soul-destroying work. Obviously the aim will be to limit that kind of work as much as possible. The accent will be on craftsmanship. and if mass production still operates it will only be in operation in instances where it is essential for the benefit of tho community. More than this we cannot say.

We agree with Lord Amwell’s description of orthodox co-operative societies as just capitalist concerns in which petty investors have neither control nor influence, though they can make a lot of noise at times.

Finally, we do not believe in any miraculous dawn. We believe in the development of understanding, which will be transferred into action by the mass of the population who suffer the present system. Socialism can only be established when the majority of society understand it, want it, and take action to bring it about. There is no other way, but there are plenty of roads into the morass of confusion and disillusion.

Editorial Committee.

Blogger's Note:

I'm not 100% sure which previous letter Lord Amwell (Fred Montague) was following up on but it may have been this one from the October 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Spiritualism. (1930)

From the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the September issue we published a letter from a reader, in which he related his experiences at a spiritist meeting, and the deep impression which they made upon him. Our reply in the same issue, while it has not elicited any further letter from the original inquirer, has led to several other readers writing to express their views. It is impossible, owing to their length, to print these letters in full, but we have tried below to deal with the points raised in them.

First, let us deal again with the experience of the reader whose letter we published. He went to a spiritualist meeting, and believes that he was “a perfect stranger” to those present. He was told certain facts about a dead relative of his, and was also told that he was suffering from a complaint which “is not visible to anyone except when nude.”

We replied that the facts related by our reader do not in any way help to establish the belief in the existence of so-called “spirit forces.” As our reply is unconvincing to some correspondents, and has been misunderstood by others, some amplification may be desirable.

Spiritualists claim firstly that certain phenomena cannot be explained by known natural laws. They claim secondly that the existence of “spirit forces” is the explanation.

It is important to observe that these are two quite distinct propositions ; if the first were proved true, it by no means follows that the second is likewise true. The phenomena, if such phenomena exist, might not be explicable by existing known natural laws, but, nevertheless, explicable by hitherto unknown but still natural laws.

Now let us return to our correspondent’s letter. Does he present us with convincing evidence of inexplicable phenomena? The answer is emphatically no ! He suffers from a disease which is “not visible to anyone except when nude”; but every doctor is taught by one or other of the systems of diagnosis to recognise symptoms of disease in the face, the hands, the eyes, etc. Does a doctor have to see a man’s kidneys before he can suspect the existence of a disease of that organ? Our reader does not mention this, and apparently did not even consider it, yet we are asked on the strength of it to believe in “spiritualism ” !

His second point was that he, “a perfect stranger,” was told certain things about his dead aunt. But how does he know that he was “a perfect stranger”? He may not have recognised any of those whom he saw present, but that is no indication that someone there did not know certain facts about him and his dead relative.

In short, this particular incident does not contain any phenomena which require us to inquire into the adequacy or inadequacy of existing natural laws.

Then there is the second point, that even if this incident did contain unquestionable evidence of phenomena which known laws would not explain, it does not follow that “spiritualism” is the explanation. One hypothesis—suggested but not proved—is that of telepathy. Telepathy, if it were proved, would explain what our correspondent (without sufficient evidence) believes took place, but would not prove the claims of the spiritualists.

So much for that incident. Now for the claims of spiritualists in general, and of our other correspondents.

To all of these we would first point out that even Sir Oliver Lodge, although himself a spiritualist, admits that scientific proof of spiritualism is lacking. In an address delivered at the David Thomas Memorial Church, Bristol, on September 7th of this year, he said :—(Times, 8th September) :—

“. . . they held, in fact, the doctrine of individual survival, and adduced plenty of evidence in support of it. Whether that evidence amounted to proof was still a matter of opinion. Scientific proof was a serious thing, not lightly to be testified to ; but the evidence was certainly very strong. ” (Italics ours.)

The fact that Sir Oliver Lodge believes in it without proof does not show that it deserves belief. It merely shows the fallibility of the scientist in matters where a strong emotion is at work.

One reader writes to tell us that “spiritualism is Socialism.” In reply, we cannot do more than emphasise our continued teaching that Socialism is not a visionary’s dream, but a system of society. Its basis will be in material conditions, the common ownership of the means of life. It will be brought about by men and women possessing knowledge of the world we live in, and able at least to glimpse at the boundless possibilites of human development in a world of which the economic structure is rationally ordered. Progress to Socialism will not be promoted by those who give up the substance for the illusory benefits of life on the “other side.” That is why the Socialist is compelled to touch upon questions of religion and spiritualism in order to drive home the lesson which is taught by past developments of man’s powers, the lesson that the only safe rule is to accept no hypothesis as proved until it has been verified in accordance with scientific methods.

Most of the letters we have received on the subject have been to the point. One, from Mr. F. Montague, M.P., Undersecretary for Air in the present Government, was mostly not to the point. In it we are charged with talking “ignorant rubbish,” told not to play with words like “superstitious and supernatural” (we did not mention them), and informed that “to put it all down to cheap and clumsy fraud” puts us out of count as serious critics. If Mr. Montague had not been so angry he would have noticed that these and many other things he says have no bearing on the reply which he writes to criticise.

When he writes that spiritualism “must be proved or disproved of itself,” we agree. But if he means to imply that it has been proved, we disagree. It certainly has not, and it is certainly true that an enormous amount of “cheap and clumsy fraud” has been associated with the activities of the spiritualists.

Mr. Montague says : “I know from my own mediumship of a number of years ago, that explanations of the conjuring and collusion order do not fill the bill.”

Even on this point, notwithstanding Mr. Montague’s personal experiences, we are not prepared to accept his statement, or any other such unsupported testimony as conclusive evidence. What Mr. Montague says he saw or thinks he knows is not proof. It is precisely because of the known credulousness or gullibility of the human mind that science demands proofs from which the possibility of human error is eliminated as far as possible. Such proofs have not been forthcoming from the spiritualists. If we may be permitted to illustrate this gullibility of the human mind by means of a reference to another field of activity, we would point out that Mr. Montague, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, persists in adhering to the view that it is in the interests of the working class to have the Labour Party in office carrying on the capitalist system. Unfortunately, large numbers of workers believe this also.

In conclusion, we would refer interested correspondents to a full discussion on spiritualism which took place in the Socialist Standard of the following months:—October and December, 1926; and March, May, June and August, 1927. These issues are obtainable from this office.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: The Transition Period. (1928)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Fred Montague, M.P., replies to our Criticism.

48, Lucerne Road, Highbury Park, N.5.

August 10, 1928.

To the Editorial Board, the Socialist Standard.

Dear Sirs,

As the next issue of The Social Democrat will be almost entirely a Conference number and it will be impossible for me to comment until later, perhaps you will be able to give me space for a few words upon your interesting statement.

(1) It is true that I hold a fundamentally different view, whether false or not. I do believe that Capitalism in its later stages represents a transition period. Slavery and Feudalism did in similar stages. I fail to see in what way this view conflicts with Marx.

The conception of society as an organism in process of modification does not seem to me to be unphilosophical or contrary to fact. To be Socialists, least of all to belong to the working-class, whether Socialist or not, is not to be outside existing society because Capitalism has not yet come to its natural demise. Workers are this society, and will not be able to make another until economic conditions are ready.

(2) How can it be said that the Capitalist class are in control of political machinery and the armed forces except by consent of the working-class? The workers have political power, and who but the workers compose the armed forces. Why use language reminiscent of “Bastille” psychology and characteristic of the slave complex ? It is unreal rubbish.

(3) I agree that when there is a Socialist majority of an effective kind (remembering that bare majorities can have only bare power) the transition will assume a different character. Of course. But I reject the notion that (apart from possible revolutionary upheaval which, in itself, would be merely political, could not create Socialism by magic, and would probably come, if at all, prematurely) there is some inevitable break of continuity, because the workers vote one way instead of another.

(4) Your reply to Mr. Phillips (par. 3) seems to me to give the S.P.G.B. case away. If Capitalists, for the sake of avoiding “industrial and administrative chaos,” will refrain from blocking the way to Socialism whilst the transition period is taking place after the workers elect a Socialist majority to Parliament, why assume that everything done now to avoid industrial and administrative chaos must necessarily block the way?

(5) A period of transformation means a period, short or long, where one form of society exists in diminishing area side by side with another form in ascending area. A Socialist Government would have to admit the dual fact and legislate for economic stability. The fault of your analogy about Krupps and about war administration is that in those cases there was no change of Capitalist economic machinery or control. You will agree.

The only (though important) difference that crosses on ballot papers will make to economic evolution is that, for the first time the workers will take charge of the evolutionary process and direct existing collectivist tendencies into definitely Socialist channels. Well, we all want that. The difference between us is that you regard the advent of a Socialist Government as an entirely new economic departure, whilst I consider that the conscious awakening of the workers will be, like birth, a stage of existence, not origin in vacuo. I do not believe in special creation.

(6) In answer to Mr. Phillips you say the Capitalists are not prepared to pay any price. That is as true now as it will be when Parliament has a majority of Socialists. They are beginning not to pay the price of competition. They will not pay the price of social services that are not “profitable.” They will let the nation “buy” industries that have ceased to “pay.” All very accurate.

But if a national railroad service is necessary and Capitalists cannot and will not deliver the goods, what is there unsocialistic about nationalising the railways? Is it that national taxation will be burdened with interest on the bonds? Since when has it been “Socialistic” to hold that taxation matters to the workers? I am not interested in Nationalisation on the ground that it will “pay,” but on the ground that, since “Rationalisation” is the only alternative I prefer to have economic machinery in the hands of the Parliament you and I want the workers to control.

Why should not Nationalisation benefit the workers under Capitalism? Unless you hold that the “Iron Law” is a cast-iron law, and wages don’t matter, whose is the fault if public servants of the working-class are not better paid and more secure? I know many cases in the municipal form of the principle where the workers are better off. On the other hand, if no workers can be better off they cannot be worse off, for a real iron law must be pretty rigid at both ends. In which case Nationalisation cannot injure the workers.

(7) Nationalisation, you say, will cause unemployment. More efficiency, less work. Three cheers for inefficiency ! Is that Socialist policy? Good God, does the absence of Nationalisation in the coal industry “find work”? If keeping the workers employed in non-efficient Capitalist concerns instead of setting unemployed men to work to produce new wealth for their own consumption and new demand-power in the nation is Socialist, I have been at sea all my life. Can you say that workers could not insist upon the latter being done and might it not be done before your financial secretary or ours gets buried in the subscriptions of the working class? If not, why not?

One point more. I was not a recruiting agent. I did not ask other people to do even what I thought it proper to do myself.

Yours sincerely,

F. Montague.

Our Reply

(1) Mr. Montague says that “Capitalism” in its later stages represents a transition period,” and he writes of Capitalism’s “natural demise.” This view conflicts both with fact and with the Marxian view of social development. Capitalism, administratively and socially, has always been adjusting itself to developments of new productive methods, and the rise of new sections of the Capitalist class, but this is not transition to Socialism. Capitalism, with ever new adjustments, will go on indefinitely unless and until the working-class decide to terminate it. Waiting for Capitalism to “come to its natural demise” and in the meantime assisting the Capitalists to reform Capitalism is not work for Socialists.

(2) Mr. Montague dismisses as “unreal rubbish” the notion “that the Capitalist class are in control …. except by consent of the working-class.”

This is interesting, but has nothing to do with our case.

Mr. Montague knows perfectly well that we have never denied that the workers consent to Capitalist control and vote for Capitalism at each election.

The point of importance (and this Mr. Montague conveniently ignores) is that the Capitalists are in control, and therefore the reforms they introduce are Capitalist remedies for Capitalist problems.

(3) The very definite break of continuity after the workers gain control for Socialism will be that, for the first time, an attack will be made on the private property basis of Capitalism.

Was there not a definite break of continuity in the Southern States of the U.S.A. when slavery was made illegal and replaced by wage-labour?

(4) We have not said that everything done by the Capitalist class “must necessarily block the way” to Socialism. What we have said is that while the Capitalist class are in control they will decide what shall and shall not be done. The pressure of their system, not the pleadings of “Labour” representatives, compels them to actions which sometimes work out to our benefit as well as theirs.

(5) It has already been pointed out that Socialism is international, and the conception of Socialism and Capitalism existing in “areas” “side by side,” is quite foreign to Socialism.

If the change over from the production of munitions to the production of machinery can be carried out by the workers under Capitalism, we still fail to see why similar transformations should present special difficulty after the workers are in control. Mr. Montague fails to enlighten us.

We quite agree that the awakening of the workers is a gradual process, but their conquest of power is equally obviously a definite new departure.

(6) We asked Mr. Montague to defend his support of Nationalisation, which he agreed is “only another form of Capitalism.” Our opposition was stated to be on the ground that “it will not benefit the workers under Capitalism.” Instead of showing that the workers would be better off under Nationalisation, Mr. Montague first says that he prefers to have “economic machinery in the hands of the Parliament you and I want the workers to control”—but the point is that the workers at present do not control Parliament, and the proposition Mr. Montague has to defend is the advocacy of State-ownership by a Parliament in control of Capitalist parties.

He then uses the flimsy argument that he knows some municipal employees who are “better off.” As he gives no particulars, nor any explanation of his basis of comparison, no answer is possible. I would, however, refer him to the explicit statement of the Civil Service Industrial Court which last year arbitrated on Post Office wages, that it accepted the principle of basing wage rates on those paid in outside industry.

Lastly, does Mr. Montague really think that we ought to support any reform the Capitalists choose to advocate, provided it is not positively harmful to the workers? If Nationalisation leaves the workers no better and no worse off than now, that is a sufficient reason not to waste efforts on it; efforts which might be devoted to the achievement of Socialism.

(7) Mr. Montague asks if “inefficiency” is Socialist policy. It is not. Have we ever said it was?

What he persistently fails to recognise is that the economic evils of the working-class are due to their wage-slave position in Capitalist society. Mr. Montague misleads the workers by persuading them to believe that Nationalisation will solve their problems. Our alternative to advocating either private or State Capitalism is to advocate Socialism. Mr. Montague’s alternative to advocating private Capitalism is advocating State Capitalism, coupled with such nonsense as “setting unemployed men to work to produce new wealth for their own consumption,” as if such a thing were possible with the Capitalist class still in control of the means of production.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Transition to Socialism: A Reply to Mr. Fred Montague, M.P. (1928)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Montague, Labour M.P. and editor of the “Social-Democrat,” asks us a number of questions in the June issue of that journal. By an oversight our reply was omitted from the July Socialist Standard. We give below in full the paragraphs which explain Mr. Montague’s point of view.

(1) Questions for "the Socialist Standard." 

Discussing the subject of Communist doctrine, “The Socialist Standard” describes the statement that “The workers must destroy the capitalist state and set up their own workers’ state” as dangerous romanticism, leading not to Socialism but to the shambles. We agree. And we agree also with “The Socialist Standard” that it is nonsense to say that Marx and Engels gave support to the advocacy of violence beyond what appears in a purple passage or two to “round off an occasional peroration.” But if the idea of the destroying of the capitalist state and setting up a workers’ state is dangerous romanticism, what is the idea of leaving transitional politics alone ? Of two things one, surely ! Either revolutionary overthrow, which seems to agree with the Communist position, or transformation of such a character that at no point is the stability of society threatened. As a matter of interest and not of mere debate we invite “The Socialist Standard” to examine this point.

(2) The Logic of It. 

Does any Socialist worthy of the appellation “scientific” imagine that capitalism will end one Saturday night and Socialism begin one Monday morning? Members of the S.P.G.B. are strong on logic. Will any responsible member answer the following points? Suppose it is agreed, as we agree, that nationalisation is only another form of capitalism, and that social reform, as we do not altogether agree, is not worth troubling about. Imagine that a satisfactory majority of class-conscious Socialists are one day returned to Parliament. Socialism is declared by the representatives of the working class. What then? Do the workers carry on and, if so, where and how? For instance, will goods be made for export and trade carried on in automatic continuation of the old machinery until Parliament creates an entirely new organisation? Is it seriously contended that no period of transition will be required, and if it is not so contended is it unreasonable to ask what is to guarantee the efficiency of that diminishing area of production still in the hands of none too sympathetic capitalists during that period?

(3) What the change means.

Nationalisation is only another form of capitalism, but transition means the same thing whoever may be in charge of Parliament. It is not a question of whether the change from one system to another is to be slow or rapid. If the machinery of production, distribution, and foreign exchange is to be taken over as a going concern with a view to socialisation an enormous amount of complicated administrative work will have to be done afterwards, involving, for one thing, tremendous displacement of labour in the closing down of parasitical trades. It may seem a small point, but are shopkeepers, small as well as large, to carry on as private capitalists until a Socialist system of co-operative distribution has been created? Or is it proposed to have the plans for socialisation ready beforehand ? Who will have these plans, and how can they be prepared beforehand without participation in and knowledge of pre-Socialist administration? It is not to the point that workers run the capitalist system now. That might be an argument for syndicalists, but it is not one for Socialists. Scientific Socialism means, besides economic and historical theory, Socialism scientifically applied, otherwise we might as well leave the workers to run the capitalist system. And as this tremendous piece of work is being done, are capitalists going to oblige by running things for our convenience whilst awaiting execution?

(4) Wealth of a kind.

One point that came out of the Maxton-Fitzgerald debate is also worth a little extra consideration. “Under Socialism” wealth will be so plentiful that monetary system will be unnecessary and would be absurd, therefore Socialism cannot mean equal remuneration or socialisation of the means of exchange. We have no quarrel with that, but go easy about the plentiful supply. Plentiful supply of what? Iron girders, aluminium pots, baby’s basinettes, or Brummagem idols for Ballabaloo? All these things come into the term “wealth,” and are included in potential production. Have we a likely plentiful supply of food? Do necessary raw materials materialise like the famous Katie King? Are cotton, wool, leather, wood and tobacco available “like water” ? With more countries in the world than ever producing what they want for themselves this repudiation of “exchange“ may acquire a sinister meaning. The fact is, the “plentiful supply” of means of enjoyment is child’s talk unless we are sure of exchanging our goods for the food and raw materials we want. There is plenty in the world, we know, but is non-transitional Socialism possible the world over at the same moment? If not, what allowances and modifications are admissible, and if capitalistic exceptions are to be made in any way, what logical objection is there to nationalisation? “

Our Reply.

What is the Transition Period?

(1) Although Mr. Montague asks a number of questions, most of the points of difference between him and us can be traced back to his use of the term “transition period.” What is the transition period? We live now in a capitalist economic system with the capitalist class in control of the political machinery and the armed forces of society. They make laws and enforce them, laws which are always framed within the limits imposed by the nature of capitalism and (so far as these limits permit) always directly in their interests as capitalists. When, and not before, the working-class, organised for Socialism, have gained control of the political machinery, the transition period will begin. The working-class cannot begin the work of abolishing the present private property basis of society until they have obtained political control from the capitalist class.

Mr. Montague holds a fundamentally different, and as we consider, a fundamentally false view. He asks (paragraph 1) : “What is the idea of leaving transitional politics alone?”

Our answer is plain. We shall not leave “transitional politics” alone, but what Mr. Montague has in mind as “transitional politics” are merely the politics of capitalist reform now carried on by him and his party. We are not in the “transition period,” the workers have not obtained political control, and the advocacy of nationalisation and other reforms is not work towards Socialism or towards the capture of political control for Socialism.

(2) Mr. Montague here agrees that “nationalisation is only another form of capitalism.” It is then for him to justify his support of nationalisation. He must be quite familiar with our opposition based on the contention that it will not benefit the working-class under capitalism.

Mr. Montague’s further questions about foreign trade are presumably based on the assumption that Socialism can be established in Great Britain alone. It certainly cannot. Socialism will be international, and cannot be other than international.

(3) Most of the points in this paragraph depend on Mr. Montague’s view of “transitional politics,“ and are answered above in my reply to his first paragraph. We deny his statement that “transition means the same thing whoever may be in charge of Parliament.” Socialists do not deny or underestimate the difficulties of the economic transformation to Socialism, but the difficulties of the period after the conquest of power have no relation to the policy of supporting capitalist reforms before the conquest of power.

(4) Here Mr. Montague deals further with the economic problems which will face the workers after they have obtained political control. They will, for instance, have to cease the production of articles no longer required, and produce instead larger quantities of certain goods the supply of which is at present too small. Similar problems were solved in 1914. Mr. Montague (who actively participated as private, as First Lieutenant and as recruiting agent) will know how the Government withdrew men from industrial production in order to build up a great machine for slaughtering their fellow-workers in other countries. They also solved the problem of turning out munitions and then, in 1919, they reversed the process when the weapons of destruction were no longer needed in such huge quantities.

Krupp did not personally conduct the similar change-over in Germany from howitzers to harvesters in the factories bearing his name; the change-over, like capitalist production and distribution in general, was carried through by workers. We cannot, therefore, see why Mr. Montague should doubt our ability to do for ourselves what we now do for the capitalists.

Mr. Montague’s other difficulties arise again out of his two misconceptions : first, that the transition to Socialism is already going on while the capitalists are still in power, and secondly, that Socialism can be introduced on a national basis, requiring capitalist trade to continue between the national groups. Under Socialism there will be no trade, home or foreign, individual or collective.

Edgar Hardcastle

Population and Social Progress (1942)

From the June 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Fashions in social theory are as changeable as fashions in clothes. During peace-time industrial depressions, when unemployment is rife, the advocates of birth control come into favour with their theory that unemployment is due to an excessive population; but when war is the order of the day the urgent demand for man-power and the fear that other nations are becoming numerically stronger and therefore more formidable as military powers gives a chance to those who preach the need for more children. And just as clothes are fashioned to suit the taste, occupation and purses of different groups of people so also with population theories, as witness the unmarried of both sexes who urge the poor to have large families, the wealthy parasites who brazenly support the argument that large families are the cause of poverty and the Eugenists who want the rich to be fruitful and multiply and the poor to curtail their devastating torrent of children. In 1913 Mr. Allan G. Roper, B.A., in his “Ancient Eugenics,” could write of the “reckless propagation” of the “lower classes,” but now the Government and numerous propaganda bodies are considering family allowances and other devices to encourage a more reckless spirit among working-class husbands and wives in order to stop the threatened decline of the population.

There has been much inquiry into the remedy for the problem and much into the cause of the decline, but most of it is marred by an inability to recognise fully the nature of the capitalist system of society in which we live. The inquiry starts with the fact that since 1870 the birth rate has declined from 34 per 1,000 to 15 per 1,000; only partly offset by a decline of the death-rate per 1,000 from 21 to 13. For many weeks all sorts of learned and other persons have written to the Times offering to explain why this has happened. Among the varied suggestions are the following : The spread of knowledge about birth-control methods, the increased employment of women in factories and offices, the growth of unemployment, the failure to provide adequate housing accommodation at low rents, the decline of religion, the fear of war, and lastly, the new milling processes which in the seventies popularised white bread and consequently robbed the population of the elements in wholemeal flour which made for greater fertility—we are told that this alleged deficiency will be counteracted by the new national loaf.

The reader can examine these claims in the light of his or her own experience and knowledge. One thing, however, that is undeniable, is that many working class men and women looking at their life and prospects under capitalism are reluctant to have as large families as their parents and grandparents. Economic insecurity and war play their part in this attitude and also the recognition that young children stand in the way of activities outside the home, whether recreations and amusements, or taking part in organised activities, including those of political parties. For women of the working class it is difficult if not impossible to have the care of young children and at the same time to take an intelligent interest and share in the work of a political party. Another factor of course is that the parents feel that if they are to give their children “a better chance in the world” than they had it is necessary to limit the number, and it is to this feeling that the advocates of family allowances make their strongest appeal. They argue that wages are inadequate for the maintenance of a family, therefore an additional 5s. a week given in respect of each child would raise the standard of living and encourage larger families. Let us examine a typical statement of the case, that contained in a leaflet, “Family Allowances and the Labour Movement,” issued by the Family Allowances Labour Group.

Their statement is “that wages are in many cases too low to support more than one or two children; that therefore the greatest source of poverty in this country is the possession of young children.” Put in that form it appears plausible enough. Ask a worker if he would be better off if he were relieved of the cost of supporting his children he would naturally reply yes ! Meaning, of course, that he would be better off provided that his wages remained unchanged and he received children’s allowances in addition. But the same argument could be used, and has been used, about other items of working class expenditure. There are those who have maintained for years that the greatest cause of working class poverty is high rents, so they advocated rent restriction or subsidised State housing. What has been the result ? Wages have adjusted themselves to changes in rents. In spite of the rent restriction acts during the past 28 years, working class poverty has not been materially lessened. In Vienna and other cities where rents were much reduced it was established by independent inquiry that wages followed suit. Agricultural labourers have very low rents, 3s. or 4s. a week, but their wages were also the lowest of any industry, and now that their wages have been raised to 60s. at once a movement is on foot to charge “economic” rents.

What about food ? Would not the worker be better off with free food? Mr. Fred Montague, M.P., opposes family allowances and states a case for an alternative proposal, that of spending a like sum of money in providing free milk and bread (Manchester Guardian, May 13th, 1942). Here again the workers’ problem would not be fundamentally different from what it is now. They would still have to struggle to maintain a given level of wages, with the certainty that such a cheapening of the cost of living would encourage a tendency for wages to fall. Are domestic servants, agricultural labourers and others who get board and lodging as part of wages better off than other workers who do not ?

We need not dispute that family allowances, or free food, or low rents, would probably be a gain to some sections of the workers on very small wages. And for a time to all workers with dependent children. But it would still leave the workers in the position of having to struggle unceasingly to maintain their standards, still faced with the permanent insecurity that is their lot under capitalism.

The basic argument of the above mentioned Family Allowance Group is false. The greatest source of poverty is not the possession of young children. Are there not hundreds of thousands of single men and women and childless families in dire poverty ? Are all our surtax payers celibate ? Were agricultural labourers on their pre-war average wage of 34s. only poor through having young children ? Will not the mass of the workers still be poor if they get family allowances and even if they were able to keep up the level of wages as well ? The source of poverty is the capitalist system which simultaneously prevents the maximum production of articles needed by the workers, entails enormous waste, and endows the propertied class with a large part of the wealth produced. The cure for this is Socialism, not family allowances or subsidised food or rents.

Socialism also offers the only cure for the problem of a declining population by removing poverty, economic insecurity, and the fear of war. It will also dispose of the problem which worries the eugenists. When Mr. Roper and others say that their problem is “the diminishing numbers of the upper classes and the rapid multiplication of the lower,” they overlook the fact that that problem too will disappear when there is no longer an upper and a lower class, a capitalist class and a working class. In their minds, of course, is an assumption that there is some innate, inherited, superior quality in the “upper classes,” but the truth is, as has been well said, that there is nothing wrong with the poor except their poverty. Indeed, if the eugenists take to heart one lesson of this war, the way in which things have been bungled by a considerable proportion of our ruling class civil and military notabilities, even they must now wonder whether the “upper class” are superior in anything but their wealth.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Socialism and Materialism. (1926)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labour M.P.’s rejoinder and our reply. 

The Editor, Socialist Standard.

Sir,—I am obliged for your interesting reply to my letter. Perhaps you are able to find room for the following further observations.

You state that the whole of the idealistic school attempts to explain society in terms of ideals. In the absolute sense this is true, and I am convicted of using a careless phrase. But the unconscious dualism of the materialist is revealed clearly in the sentence, “from Plato to Hegel man’s being is explained by his consciousness rather than his consciousness by his being” Except as a doctrine of super­natural implications, I do not understand what can be meant by “consciousness” and “being” considered as separate enti­ties. I certainly do not attempt to explain either by the other, for both are part of the same evolutionary fact.

You ask, “How can the qualities of human beings be more fundamental than the environment to which they are related and in which they are inextricably involved?” Agreed. But when you speak of environment you speak of something bigger than economics and something which is not exclusively external. Strictly speaking, embryological facts are as much environ­mental as any other. I am aware of the ambiguity of the word “fundamental,” and I use the word only in the sense that a larger category of events may include smaller ones. Heredity cannot be ruled out. And you cannot rule out the intel­lectual history of the race in accounting for the culture of a period.

“The only hope of improvement for a wage-slave is in Socialism.” That depends upon the wage-slave. He may have ability, courage and no conscience. He may then become a capitalist jackal, a scab, or a “labour leader,” and would do so in strict, conformity with a philosophy which makes man’s “being” his belly. And it would be, to say the least, foolish to call him names if there is no ethical standard by which to judge conduct and only the stom­ach to explain it. The unfortunate feature of the whole situation is that the process leaves you with the incompetents on your hands.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am putting a case and offering you an explanation of a fact to which you so frequently draw attention—the existence of a whole tribe of working-class misleaders. These, if they are as venal as you say they are, seem to have absorbed non-moralism ex­ceedingly well.

You have not answered my question, “What becomes of ‘class’ if you discount idealism?” Material interests are first of all personal interests; they only become class interests when combination offers a reasonable prospective of collective advantage. The prospect of Socialism is some­ what uncertain—not to put top fine a point on it. I don’t fancy the odds at present, and I am not prepared to invest in the apathy and folly of my class. Any one of us is a hopeless dud if he could not have made his personal circumstances more secure, to say the least, had he never touched Socialism. The Socialist movement as yet calls for considerable sacrifice, and to put it in order you offer a post-dated cheque — or rather, an undated one, on the bank of revolution !

No wonder you say you have no concern with my personal motives, which, in the main, are much like other people’s. If you had concern with motives you would understand the psychology of class better. All that comes out of purely material motives even our way (if it is in any sense your way or mine) is “never mind what, but get it quick—we can’t wait.” Which is perfectly natural, if you “discount idealism.” Why should anyone ignore any old fleshpots that might be knocking about for the sake of “this day, next day, some­ time, never,” in the light of the progress of the S.P.G.B. or even the S.D.F? Come, sir, you must all be high-souled philanthro­pists without knowing it.

In practical fact, “class-consciousness” is only “brotherhood of man,” minus the exploiting classes. There is as much cant about one as the other. As for capitalists exploiting “war-cries,” they would prostitute anything and do nearly everything. All the more reason why we should insist upon the validity of certain “abstractions.”

I am asked to explain the origin and development of monogamy and prostitution if love does not play a part essentially sub­-ordinate to private property. Monogamy is a social custom hardly collateral with capi­talist society or of capitalist origin, and it can be only very doubtfully described as a property reflex. It has nothing to do, in any case, with the subordination or other­wise of love, which is an impulse that ante­ dates primitive communism and is shared by man with all sentient life and perhaps with the mineral kingdom. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and a social phenomenon that runs through epochs of economic variations cannot, without gross misuse of language, be said to be “subordinate” to anything but its own passion. Strange you should have placed the two things together. Doesn’t prosti­tution cancel out monogamy, any way ?

In conclusion, if my “friends” had to be exclusively those who think exactly as I think, I should have few “friends.” Why should I object to Sir Henry Slesser airing views that are not mine in the paper I edit? And why the unction of “these be your friends”? Do you not share the “eco­nomic man” theory with all the Liberal gradgrinds and Tory buccaneers whatever?

Yours faithfully,

F. Montague.

Our Reply.

It is a trifle difficult to take Mr. Monta­gue seriously. He appears to be bent on the time-honoured pastime of setting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down again. The original article which he attemp­ted to criticise commenced with a reference to a plea by one of his political colleagues for “a new society based upon Christi­anity.” We sought to show that society is based upon economic development and not upon religious beliefs. Unable to show us wrong in this respect, Mr. Montague accuses us of all manner of philosophical errors which he equally fails to prove.

This time it is “unconscious dualism” of which we are alleged to be guilty because, forsooth, we distinguish, in the abstract, between man’s “consciousness” and his “being.” Does not man’s being include his consciousness, as the greater includes the less, or is his consciousness all-embracing and exhaustive? Do we judge an individual simply by what he thinks of himself? Must we accept every ruling class at its own valuation ? These questions only need to be asked to illustrate the absurdity of the idealist position. But is Mr. Montague an idealist? In his first letter (June issue) he asserted “that certain human qualities are more fundamental than any shaping process, economic or otherwise.” Now he “agrees” that they are not ! No wonder he does “not attempt to explain either by the other !”

This does not prevent him, however, from persisting in regarding the individual and his “personal motives” as the all-important factor in social development. He may pay lip-service to what he calls “economic de­terminism” but he evidently does not under­stand it. For instance, he refers to a whole tribe of working-class misleaders and appears to attribute their position to their “ability,” “courage,” and lack of “con­science,” instead of to the economic pres­sure arising from the conditions of capitalist society.

According to Mr. Montague, the bulk of the working-class are “hopeless duds,” see­ing that, although they have not “touched Socialism,” their “personal circumstances” become increasingly less secure ! “The Socialist movement as yet calls for consider­ able sacrifice !” Capitalism, of course, doesn’t, eh! Mr. Montague?

Our critic imagines that any unscrupulous scoundrel can get the best of modern soci­ety. He appears to be blind to the opera­tion of the economic factors which care as little for personal motives as do the winds and tides.

“Material interests are first of all personal interests,” he says, but fails to ex­plain how any person can exist apart from some class in a class-society.

“Class-consciousness” he regards as a moral term akin to the “brotherhood of man.” He ignores the fact that “minus the exploiting classes,” the term would be meaningless. Class-consciousness implies the conception, not merely of identity, but of antagonism in the economic realm. This antagonism cannot be explained by ethical abstractions, which only serve to confuse the workers’ minds and thus delay the hour of their triumph.

Mr. Montague’s handling of monogamy and prostitution indicates a very shallow knowledge of the subject. Monogamy is more than a social custom. It is a legal institution and, as such, bears the unmistak­able impress of its origin in the private ownership of the means of life. There have been other forms of private property be­ sides that at present obtaining, and we did not suggest that capitalism alone was re­sponsible for the origin and development of this form of sexual relationship. Modern marriage and prostitution in all its forms imply the economic dependence of the woman upon the man. This condition did not exist under the communal arrangements of primitive society, and sexual relations were, as a consequence, of a widely differ­ent character from those which at present prevail. We have not space here to describe them in detail, but Mr. Montague would be well-advised to study Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” and Engel’s “Origin of the Family” before indulging in more random generalisations about “love.” Women sell themselves, in marriage or out of it, because their economic circumstances so determine; and prostitution, so far from “cancelling out” monogamy, supplements it. The capitalist’s legal wife presents him with heirs to his invested wealth. His paramours help him to enjoy that which overflows from the field of investment.

In conclusion, we referred to Sir H. Slesser in order to illustrate our contention that, politically, Mr. Montague keeps strange company for an alleged Socialist, which does not exactly tend to remove our suspicions as to the utility of philosophy. As for the “economic man” theory, we should have credited even a member of the S.D.F. with knowing better!

Editorial Committee