SPGB Meetings (1977)

Party News from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Lectures and Meetings (1977)

Party News from the July 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The guest speaker at the Westminster Branch of the SPGB, Tony Bunyan, speaking on the subject of 'The Political Police in Britain', was the author of the book of the same name. It was reviewed in the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings (1972)

Party News from the December 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gender myths (1979)

From the December 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many words have been written to explain, justify or rationalise women's social inferiority as against men. There are those like racists with their particular prejudice, who have claimed that this social inferiority is a direct reflection of women's biological inferiority. For example, it has been said that the average brain size in women tends to be smaller than that of men, the inference being that women are less intelligent. It is true that the brain of the female sex in homo sapiens tends to be smaller than in the male, but then the whole morphological structure tends to be smaller in the female than in the male — something known in scientific jargon as sexual dimorphism. The Neanderthal human, who preceded — and was for a time a contemporary of—homo sapiens, had an average brain size of 1,4550 cc. or 100 cc larger than the modern human. However there have been few, if any, attempts to claim that Neanderthal people therefore must have been more intelligent than homo sapiens.

There can be no doubt that the social position of women is closely bound up with the emergence of private property relations and class society. Lewis H. Morgan who, together with Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, can be said to be the founders of social anthropology, was the first to discover this connection. His claim was that people living in those stages of human development which he called savagery and barbarism, had social organisation democratic in character. They practised communism in living and operated a matriarchal kinship structure, in contrast to institutionalaliscd private property and territorial government which. Morgan claimed, had evolved from primitive society. He was able to show that the patriarchal and monogamian type of families had not always existed — a complete break from the theory of original sin and the idea that primitive people were the result of degeneration from previous civilisation.

Morgan’s works greatly upset the academics of contemporary society. While Morgan put no special emphasis on the social position of women in primitive society, in the much more free society he described the implication was that women were not oppressed as in civilised periods. Much of what he claimed for primitive society is substantiated by modern anthropology.

However, it must be remembered that the peoples he studied were organised in tribal society and were not primitive in the prehistoric sense as understood by modern anthropologists in their studies of hunter gatherer bands. For example, Elman R. Service, who has made a close study of hunter gatherer peoples still existing in various parts of the world, and who are the closest approximation of early homo sapiens society of 40,000 years ago, says this in his book The Hunters:

Food gathering is the major enterprise of course, but more than that, it is a direct confrontation of man with nature. That is to say, there are no specialised groups who get their food by buying it from, the producer or exchanging services for it in some way. There is no full-time specialisation of labour other than the domestic age and sex divisions that are found in any family. Among hunting-gathering peoples this division of labour is simply that men do the hunting, at least the kind of hunting that takes them any distance from the camp. Women, probably because of the relative confinement of bearing and rearing children, are left to forage near the camp for vegetable foods and such small game as can be easily caught. But this does not mean that men's hunting is necessarily of greater economic importance than women's work.

Service calculates that in aboriginal Australia, even on the northern coast where game and fish are abundant, vegetables make up 70/80 per cent of the people's diet—collected, of course, by women. Woman’s work is important: most hunting-gathering populations could not be maintained without it. On the other hand, they can, and do, go for long periods without meat hunted by men. Only the Eskimos live by hunting and fishing alone, and Eskimo women do most of the fishing.

The question now arises: why was it that the oppression of women by men took place at all? In spite of its shortcomings, the probable explanation for this is that contained in Engels' The Origin of the Family Private Property and the State based, as it is, on the concept of historical materialism and with much use of the researches carried out by Morgan. 

Needless to say, this explanation has been, and still is, rejected by most of the supporters of that epitome of all private property societies, capitalism — and by sonic of those who are interested in what is constantly referred to as “the liberation of women”. One such is Simone de Beauvoir who, in her work The Second Sex, says:

. . . On the same grounds it is impossible to deduce the oppression of woman from the institution of private property. Here again the inadequacy of Engels' point of view is obvious. He saw clearly that woman’s muscular weakness became the real point of inferiority only in its relation to the bronze and iron tool; but he did not see that the limitations of her capacity for labour constituted in themselves a concrete disadvantage only in a certain perspective . . . 

Instead, she implies as a metaphysical explanation:

Thus it is that man’s interest in his property becomes an intelligible relation. But we see that man's interest cannot be explained through the tool alone: we must grasp in its entirety the attitude of man wielding the tool, an attitude that implies an ontological substructure, a foundation in the nature of his being

It is not surprising that someone with these ideas can write the following passage in relation to the aspirations of women:

I have pointed out in the introduction how different women's situation is, particularly on account of the community of life and interests which entails here solidarity with man — and also because he finds in her an accomplice: no desire for revolution dwells within her, nor any thought of her own disappearance as a sex — all she asks is that aspects of sexual differentiation be abolished.

In other words, let capitalism remain providing women are not discriminated against. If the determining factor in women's inferior standing is an existentialist one and is not linked to the rise of private property relations and class society, why did women allow it to happen? If the special oppression of women is not a necessary corollary — as de Beauvoir suggests — why was it that the agitation for woman’s liberation had to wait for the 20th century?

During the 20th century there has been much anthropological field work and study of the cultural diversity — and similarity — of various peoples in different parts of the world, with the emphasis on the differences. Margaret Mead, in her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, describes her study of three tribes living in New Guinea; the Arapesh, the Mundugumor and the Tchambuli;

We have now considered in detail the approved personalities of each sex among the primitive peoples. We found the Arapesh—both men and women displaying a personality that out of our historically limited preoccupations, we would call maternal in its parental aspects and feminine in its sexual aspects. We found men as well as women trained to be cooperative, unaggressive, responsive to the needs and demands of others. We found no idea that sex was a powerful driving force either for men or for women. In marked contrast to these attitudes, we found among the Mundugumor that both men and women developed as ruthless aggressive positively sexed individuals, with the maternal cherishing aspects of personality at a minimum. Both men and women approximated to a personality type that we in our culture would find only in an undisciplined and very violent male. Neither the Arapesh nor the Mundugumor profit by a contrast between the sexes. The Arapesh ideal is the mild responsive man married to the mild responsive woman: the Mundugumor ideal is the violent aggressive man married to the violent aggressive woman. In the third tribe, the Tchambuli, we found a genuine reversal of the sex attitudes of our own culture, with the woman the dominant impersonal managing partner, the man the less responsible and the emotionally dependent person. These three situations suggest, then, a very definite conclusion. If those temperamental attitudes which we have traditionally regarded as feminine, such as passivity, responsiveness and a willingness to cherish children — can so easily be set up as the masculine pattern in one tribe and in another be outlawed for the majority of women as well as for the majority of men, we no longer have any basis for regarding such aspects of behaviour as sex-linked. And this conclusion becomes even stronger when we consider the actual reversal in Tchambuli of the position of dominance of the two sexes, in spite of the existence of formal patrilineal institutions.

Whatever the other conclusions or speculations one can draw from this, one thing is certain. It show's that human society is capable of a variety of behavioural patterns, and that the so-called masculine and feminine characteristics are not based on fundamental sex differences, but reflect the cultural conditioning of their societies. The question could be posed here, what are the crucial factors which determine the cultural conditioning? It would seem that these studies go some way to support the implication of Simone de Beauvoir of an ontological explanation, and to invalidate the universal approach of Morgan in his insistence that “The history of the human race is one in source, one in experience, one in progress.” However, what has to be taken into account is that all of these studies have been carried out with peoples living in tribal society where private property relations had already developed to a considerable extent, as indeed were Morgan’s, and should not be regarded as examples of the hunter-gatherer society of prehistoric people of some 40,000-50.000 years ago. As E. R. Service points out in his introduction to The Hunters “All the hunting gathering societies listed above have certain characteristics in common that serve to set them apart from tribal and other higher levels of society.”

As mentioned earlier, the hunter-gathering peoples studied by Service and others are the nearest approximation to the society of primitive humanity. There is no substantial evidence whatever to suggest that ownership aggression or the domination of one sex by the other has any part either with the hunter-gatherer peoples living, or in the society of primitive peoples of prehistoric times.

The agitation for women’s liberation is a phenomenon of modern capitalism. The oppression of women by men only arises in those societies where the form of marriage and the family is patriarchal or monogamian. and is associated with private property relations of an advanced kind. The problem is only recognised after the possibility of its solution has become apparent.

The social problems engendered by capitalist society, which dominates the whole world, cut across all speculation, all special pleading. The liberation of women is inextricably bound up with the liberation of the whole of humanity. Capitalism exploits its working class regardless of their sex. The question to-day is not just the emancipation of women, but the emancipation of the working class, regardless of sex.

Harry Walters

The end of human nature (1978)

From the November 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

People are only too well aware of the magnitude of the social problems which daily confront them. The persistence of conflict at every level of human affairs, from wife bashing to open warfare, serves only to reaffirm the prevailing mood of pessimism about social relations. Society’s manifest failure to solve or alleviate problems such as malnutrition or war has not however, led to a rejection of the principle of leadership or to a lack of faith in those with ‘new solutions’. Far from the working class thinking and acting in terms of common human interests on a social basis, we find that popular wisdom continues to accept the failure of political solutions as inevitable.

The reason for this lack of success, according to most people, is not the misconceptions of leaders but the ineradicable flaws in the human make-up. If humans are naturally aggressive, selfish and acquisitive, the establishment of social harmony is out of the question. What is referred to as human nature will not permit it.

In the difficult task of rebutting this popular fallacy, socialists are not alone. In the field of research into the nature and history of the human species, there has developed a strong body of opinion in support of the view that they are not dominated by an innate aggressiveness and self-interest. Furthermore, these studies stress the possibility, and indeed necessity, of human beings transforming their behaviour and relations in society in order to overcome their problems.

The anthropologist Elman Service in the Introduction to his book The Hunters, has this to say about twentieth century people:

Civilised man is often uneasily aware that not all of civilisation is an improvement, although there seems to be very little agreement about what is wrong, unpleasant or perhaps unnecessary about it — except of course such things as war, crime, and mental illness. And even for these ills there is no obvious panacea. Could it be that civilised man does not understand his civilisation very well? Most anthropoligists are likely to go further. Civilised man does not understand his civilisation at all. He does not even know what it is. (our emphasis)

Study of societies still living at the food gathering and hunting stages of cultural development points up the error of those who see the future of the human race as determined by ‘ineradicable shortcomings’. Attempts. particularly of the Konrad Lorenz/Desmond Morris/Robert Ardrey school, to show that homo sapiens is simply an improved form of ape have been soundly and scientifically debunked, in particular in the works on human aggression by Ashley Montagu and Erich Fromm. (That apes are not innately aggressive, as has been demonstrated in the research of Jane Van Lawick-Goodall, George Schaller and Dian Fossey, is another matter). ,

Service, in the above quoted work, shows that selfishness and hierarchy are not common features of primitive society, and that on the question of dominance the hunting and food gathering band differs more completely from the apes than do any other kind of human society. There is a total absence of authority based upon either physical strength or sources of power such as wealth, heredity, military or political office. Even when, by dint of greater strength or wisdom, individuals possess greater status or prestige than others, the manifestation of these prerogatives is the opposite of ape-like dominance; the rewards are intangible, being merely the attention and love of others. In primitive society prestige is accorded to the individual only if their qualities are put to work in the service of the group, a feature alien to ape society. Service further refutes the idea that what is accepted to-day as natural human behaviour holds good for all times in history:

In no hunting-gathering society is gratitude expressed, and, as a matter of fact it would be wrong even to praise a man as “generous" when he shares his game with his camp-mates. On another occasion he could be said to be generous, but not in response to a particular incident of sharing, for then the statement would have the same implications as an expression of gratitude; that the sharing was unexpected, that the giver was not generous simply as a matter of course.

This was exemplified by the reproof another anthropologist received when thanking an Eskimo hunter for sharing his meat with him.

On the question of aggression another equally eminent anthropologist, Colin Turnbull, in Wayward Servants or the two worlds of the African Pygmies remarks on the virtual absence of physical or emotional aggression in the groups known to him. This was borne out by the lack of warfare, feuding, witchcraft and sorcery. Even the act of hunting is, to Turnbull, not carried out in aggressive spirit at all. Due to the consciousness of depleting natural resources there is actually a regret at killing life.

So, contrary to popular belief, the human race is capable of different behaviour in different environments. In the words of Marshall Sahlins:

In selective adaptation to the perils of the stone age. human society overcame or subordinated such primate propensities as selfishness, indiscriminate sexuality, dominance and brute competition. It substituted kinship and cooperation for conflict, placed solidarity over sex. morality over might. In its earliest days is accomplished the greatest reform in history; the overthrow of human primate nature and thereby secured the evolutionary future of the species.

Many anthropologists are not only aware that humanity can radically change its behaviour patterns as a species, but realise that it is absolutely essential that this be done if we are to survive. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin in their book Origins have this to say:

Precisely because evolution produced an animal capable of tackling whatever challenge the environment might offer, the answer must be that very few behavioural patterns are rigidly built into the human brain. Obviously our brains are not jumbled networks of nerve cells with no overall structure. The anatomy of the human brain is well ordered, but it is built in such a way as to maximise behavioural adaptability. Within reasonable biological limits, humans, it is fair to say, could adapt to living in almost limitless numbers of ways. Indeed this flexibility is manifest in the rich pattern of cultures expressed throughout the world, (page 945)

Primitive people began the process of social production, making possible the enormous technical development of modern times. However, in the course of this progress the individual became more and more dependent upon society as a whole, his changing behaviour reflective of new social structures. Capitalism, based as it is on private property relationships, creates problems which are insoluble within its own framework. The further development of social co-operation and the elimination of antagonism can now be achieved only within the framework of Socialism, a society of common ownership and production for use. Anthropologists may be dimly aware of the barrier to human progress presented by the social relations under capitalism, but unfortunately this awareness takes the form of mild reproach and idealistic moralising.

If it is true that, in the words of Marx, “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness”, the abolition of private property will see the beginnings of the development of the new humanity and the disappearance of ‘human nature’, a concept central to capitalist ideology.

Harry Walters

Obituary: Harry Walters (1996)

Obituary from the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Harry Walters, a long time member of the old Paddington branch and its successors died in July after a long a long illness, at the age of 82.

It was not until 1946 when he was aged 32 that Harry joined the Party. Characteristically in registering as a conscientious objector during the war without holding a Party card he had made the task of facing the tribunal that much harder but he had been loath for it to be thought that becoming a member was in any way motivated by it being to facilitate his avoidance of joining the killing machine. His time in jail in this context substantiated the fact that he truly was a man of principle. Contrary to the popular sentiment about COs, Harry was no namby-pamby weakling. Indeed, there was a famous occasion when a mid-week Hyde Park meeting arranged by Paddington Branch was being broken-up by thuggish opponents and his still remembered pugilistic skills saved the day.

Harry was a painter by trade and worked many years at the Elstree Studios, painting scenery for films where he built up a formidable reputation as a UCATT shop steward, never compromising the interests of his workmates out of political considerations as was often the case with his Labour and Communist Party opposite numbers.

Harry had a remarkable flair for handling and conveying scientific ideas and became very well read in anthropology and kindred fields. Sound as a rock on Socialist essentials, he never lapsed into any kind of dogmatism and was prepared fearlessly to get into the thick of debate at all levels. I shall  never forget when he went along to one of the New Left meetings at their Oxford Street venue with its audience of 500 chaired by the shamefully biased Raphael Samuel. It is true that Harry's argument was going to require his full quota of time plus a bit. When, after only about two minutes, the chair signalled time Harry, who had only got as a far as the ice-age, was thrown off his stride and said surely he had not gone over the limit. Mr Chairman, he appealed, how long have I been speaking? A voice from the back of the hall answered, ten thousand years! And brought the house down in laughter.

Party members attended the funeral at Golders Green Crematorium at which Comrade Grant gave the address and Comrade Easton played IWW songs on the organ.

ESG

SPGB Meetings (1983)

Party News from the October 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

There is an audio recording of Edgar Hardcastle's debate with Arthur Johnston of the Conservative Party at the following link.

There is also a write up of Howard Moss debate with Roger Scruton in the May 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Live with it (1979)

A Short Story from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

On October 51st, some time this century, a conference took place of biological, agricultural, economic and theological experts which was under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation for the Disposal of Food Surpluses.

The chairman, Cyrus Blankmind (chief marketing adviser to Pacific Continents Food Producers Association) opened the conference by pointing out that it had been called because of the gigantic build-up of food surpluses and the complete inability to solve the problem of disposing of them. Bearing this in mind, he would without further comment throw the meeting open to general discussion in the hope that a solution would be found.

During what followed many speakers took part. There was talk of government subsidies, lowering prices, increasing prices, devaluation, revaluation, the green pound up and down, the dollar up and down, even changing the colour from green to blue.

And then it was the turn of Viscount Knowless. chairman of the board of directors of the worldwide multinational animal foodstuffs suppliers, Selmore and Growless Ltd. What has to be done, he said, was to export the food surplus, no matter where, perhaps to some derelict waste—it did not matter as long as there was no-one to eat it. The main thing was to get it off the world’s market. There were nods of agreement from the assembled experts and murmurs of ‘Excellent idea’, ‘What a brilliant suggestion’. The snag, however, was who was to be paid for the transportation and the compensation to the owners.

At this point the chairman wished to bring to the notice of the conference that they had been honoured by the presence of a distinguished visitor, none other than the heir apparent of the United Kingdom of Great Botheram, The Prince of Whales, who would address the gathering. (Applause). The Prince then delivered his speech in the manner of his father, the Duke of Idlesburg.

He said that there were some people who thought that exports should be increased, but on the other hand there were some who said that exports should be decreased. There were those who maintained that prices should be increased, but there were also those who said they should be decreased. There were those who said that food surpluses would never be disposed of, but on the other hand there were those who said that they would and should be disposed of. The problem, he announced, was that surpluses had to be sold and the stability of civilisation depended on this. It was not his prerogative to take sides in the debate, but this much seemed apparent to him: that should the problem not be solved it would remain an unsolved problem. It was with great pleasure, therefore, that he had to inform the conference that the Prime Minister of Great Botherham, Mr. James Lucky, very often endearingly referred to as Honest Jim. had appointed the world famous economist. Professor C. Ball, to head a loyal commission to investigate the possibility of finding a solution to the food surplus problem. These profound observations were greeted by the assembled experts with loud applause and cries of ‘Hear Hear’.

There followed many more speeches: tax concessions, MCAS intervention, price control, dehumanising processes, sell cheap to the Martians.

The chairman then announced that the world famous anthropologist, Dr. Margaret Mindbender, was in attendance, accompanied by the medicine man of the group of primitive people who were the subject of her recent study into the life style of people still in the food gathering and hunting stage of cultural development, the Esaigoinga tribe of the Central Pacific continent. And he invited her to address the conference on the behaviour and attitudes of these people.

In her speech the famous anthropologist explained that the tribe were few in numbers (about five thousand) and that they lived by food gathering and hunting in the middle of dense jungle. She explained that they only gathered and hunted sufficient for their needs, that there was no private property, there were no leaders, no exchange values and consequently no money. Each member of the tribe gave service to the community to the best of his or her ability and took from the common pool what he or she needed.

Through the whole course of this speech there were involuntary cries of incredulity and amazement from the gathered experts. When she had finished the chairman thanked her for her contribution and asked the experts if there were any questions they would like to ask.

The first question was from Dr. Bunkum van Bletheridge, a well known member of the central committee of the World Council for Religious Survival. He described himself as a theologian (he was a practising pastor of the Doltz Misinformed Church) and scientists (he was a member of the Loyal Society for the Advancement of Idealistic Materialism). He said he had been very interested in Dr. Mindbender’s address, but she had failed to make reference to the question (to him, a moral one) of food surpluses, which was, he reminded the experts, the reason for the conference. What, he asked, did the Esaigoina tribe do about the food surpluses that they accumulated? At this, the famous anthropologist had a conversation in an incomprehensible language with her companion, the medicine man. She then addressed the questioner. It was very difficult, she said, for these primitive people to understand what is meant by accumulated food surpluses as it was very rare for more food to be gathered than was required, but on the rare occasion that this did happen no further hunting or gathering took place until the food had been eaten, each member of the tribe having free access to it. This reply brought forth more cries of incredulity and horror. The very idea that surplus food should be consumed with no money or exchange being involved was inexplicable to the assembled experts.

After some further speeches and questions along similar lines, the chairman announced that the time had come to conclude the proceedings. He thanked everyone concerned for their attendance and remarked that although no solution had been found it had been a useful exercise. In the meantime vast food surpluses still remained and although millions of people had to die with it, all of us have had to live with it.

Harry Walters

Letters: More about “human nature” (1988)

Letters to the Editors from the February 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

More about “human nature”

Dear Editors.

I was very interested to read in the December 1987 Standard, Richard Headicar's letter containing his criticism of an article appearing in the September issue of the Standard, with the title "Society Without Exchange", which I regard as being very fair comment. However. I must say that I find your reply to his criticism most unsatisfactory with regard to the question of the human nature-human behaviour syndrome.

It is, I think, as important for us to make separation, for the purpose of analysis, between these two terms, and to define exactly what we mean by both, as it is in the field of political economy to make a separation and a clear definition, between the terms labour and labour power. The terms human nature and human behaviour are not interchangeable terms because they mean and connote different things.

They are not, however, mutually exclusive. The one (human nature), cannot exist without the existence of the other (the phenomenon of human behaviour) and vice versa. They are complementary. In complete contrast are the terms socialism and capitalism which not only mean different things but the phenomenon which each term connotes is mutually exclusive. The one can only exist in the complete absence of the other.

In the short paragraph at the end of your reply you say: "This leaves us with very little which can be properly called human nature As far as the case for socialism goes, it is so insignificant as to justify the phrase that it does not exist”. May I point out what can only properly be called human nature (in contrast to human behaviour) is the sum total of the biological attributes common to all members of the human species. Far from being insignificant this unique combination of biological attributes is not only not insignificant, it is the most amazing and important biological event (apart from the emergence of organic matter itself) that has ever taken place.

After three thousand million years of biological evolution by natural selection a species has emerged which has the biological potentiality of determining the future course of the evolutionary process, conceptually thinking matter had arrived, making it possible for all kinds of human behaviour the prerogative of the human species, instead of being the prisoner of natural selection for the first and only time in the history of the solar system. It is quite true that "human behaviour is what our opponents are really referring to when they say that 'human nature" would make socialism unworkable". But that is because they are in a state of confusion about the whole question of the human nature-human behaviour syndrome.

May I add that I use the term human nature as I have defined it on the basis that there is only one human nature applicable to all members of the human species. And this I claim is a concrete fact verifiable from all the evidence from all branches of natural and related sciences. On the other hand there is no such thing as one simple human behaviour which is applicable to all members of humanity. Animals, including homo sapiens, do not and in fact cannot inherit behaviour genetically. Behaviour is learned and developed by the organism as it grows and inter-relates with its environment. Therefore it is much nearer the truth to say, that whilst there is only one human nature, there are many human behaviours.

Yours fraternally.

H D Walters 

London

Nailing males?

In our otherwise excellent journal, occasional lapses are the more remarkable. Why do we attack "insecure, immature males" for attempting to take advantage of female colleagues at office parties (Season of Goodwill, December 1987) and not passive, compliant females who are far greater in number?

Nailing the working class on their acceptance of capitalism is our priority, the destructive behaviour of individuals within it is effectively dealt with by Ben Elton.

Yours for socialism,

Janet Carter 

Walthamstow. London

Is human nature a barrier to Socialism? (1977)

From the October 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to this question will depend on how human nature is defined. The commonly-held belief does not often go further than to describe human behaviour, or some aspects of human behaviour, mostly the worst, which are summed up as aggression, violence, selfishness and greed. The other aspects of human behaviour—cooperation, self-sacrifice and concern for others—are not so often mentioned. Of course, human behaviour is a part of human nature and cannot be separated from it, any more than elephant behaviour can be separated from elephant nature or anthropoid-ape behaviour from athropoid-ape nature. But whilst elephant or ape behaviour cannot change beyond the limits set by the sum total of an elephant’s or ape’s biological attributes, changes in mankind’s behaviour are limitless.

All individuals as a species have in general the same combinations of physiological features common to the species, and it is this that determines the nature of the organism. It is this that is relatively the constant part of an organism’s nature as distinct from the relatively variable part of its nature: its behaviour. The nature of a species and its behaviour or behaviour-patterns are part of a single whole, in the same way as one end of a stick is contiguous with the other end but separated from it like the south pole from the north pole.

All animal species other than mankind are prisoners of the limits which biological specialization has set. Mankind is a unique organism in the animal world. The upright standing position with the hands (which have fingers and opposable thumbs capable of a very elaborate range of manipulation) quite free, stereoscopic binocular colour vision, the power of speech, and above all, a brain of a size and quality possessed by no other animal species alive or since extinct. It is this unique combination of biological attributes (the nature of man) which has enabled mankind to leave the animal kingdom as far as the continued determination of evolution by natural selection is concerned.

There is no evidence to suggest that there have been any significant changes in the biological make-up of Homo Sapiens during the last 40,000 years, but there is overwhelming evidence of great changes in human culture and behaviour and, therefore, in man himself.

What is usually called human nature is human behaviour. Class consciousness is greatly determined by social experience, but social experience includes ideas. In fact, mankind is the only species which has been able to accumulate knowledge, systematize it and hand it on culturally, making it unnecessary for succeeding generations to re-learn anew everything which has gone before. It has been pointed out many times that capitalism brings into being its own grave-diggers; the working class. The inability of capitalism to create conditions which would enable the working class as a whole to live full and harmonious lives in line with social potentialities will lead inevitably to the realization of the need for a new social system. This process needs the intervention of the accumulated knowledge of human society systematized into ideas; not ideas which interpret everything in terms of what is necessary for the continued existence of capitalist society, but the ideas, on a class basis, of what is necessary for the emancipation of the working class; in other words, Socialist ideas.

An existing social system cannot be destroyed unless it is at the same time replaced by another, otherwise this would mean that society would cease to exist altogether. Working-class consciousness means therefore a realization of a positive as well as a negative understanding, and this can only be developed by the spread of Socialist ideas. When the working class as a class adopts these ideas and brings into being Socialism as a working system of society, this will be the beginning of changes in human behaviour in line with the change in social relations.

Harry Walters

Party News (1983)

Party News from the December 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was a fine, sunny Friday morning in September and this was my usual afternoon for selling literature at the junction of Charing Cross Road and Oxford Street. Picking up my portable literature stand I made my way to Central London and arrived at my usual place at 11 o'clock. I set up my stand in front of the big, yellow sand-bin which is part of the local scenery. Hundreds of people hurried along the street and I studied the expressions on their faces as they passed by. Most had looks of intense desperation, as if they were thinking that unless they could get to where they were going in time all would be lost for them. Time moved on; nothing sold as yet . . . more time went by. It was 2 o'clock and in spite of numerous requests for directions to Covent Garden, Piccadilly Circus, the British Museum and various well-known book shops, I had sold nothing; I had not made contact with anyone who was interested in discussing, supporting or opposing the idea of socialism.

I decided to walk slowly around the sand-bin and then, if no buyers approached, I would call it a day. After four trips around the bin my peregrinations were arrested by a tall, broad-shouldered, well-dressed young man who towered above me. "Hello", he said. "I have been a supporter of the Party for some time and was a fellow student of some of the members at college". He asked for a copy of the Marx Centenary special issue of the Socialist Standard. Feeling triumphant, having at last broken my duck. I handed him the Standard and, to my great surprise, our young friend insisted on making a £10 donation to the Party.

An interesting conversation followed, during which I sold another Standard to a passer-by. After a while our comrade had to continue on his journey across London and I decided that I would continue selling for another half an hour. Even without another sale, my efforts so far will have been worthwhile. Then, another surprise: I saw coming towards me the familiar figure of a former Party member (now living in Africa) who had done great work as a propagandist in the past. Result: another sale of literature and a very pleasant conversation, during which 1 made further sales to some other interested people.

It was now well into the afternoon and there were more people about. It was Friday afternoon and, as workers made their way home after a week of employment, it seemed to me that their faces looked more relaxed. Perhaps this impression was reinforced by the fact that I was able to sell many more Socialist Standards after 4 o’clock. I then decided to call it a day: a very successful day.

Harry Walters

Darwin and evolution (1982)

From the April 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury in 1809 and died in Bromley, Kent, in 1882, one hundred years ago. Darwin’s great contribution to human knowledge is contained in his book, The Origin of Species, which sets out a theory of organic evolution by natural selection.

Darwin had arrived at the theory of evolution as early as 1837 but proceeded no further with it until he found an explanation for the fact of adaptation. The solution occurred to Darwin when he read Malthus's essay, The Principles of Population. It is a curious fact that Malthus’s mistaken view of population, which was to become the basis of Social Darwinism, prompted Darwin to develop his own theory. Indeed, we might say that Social Darwinism existed before Darwinism.

The theory of natural selection contends that all living things show a tendency to vary and that heritable variations (each of which may originate from one or more mutation) are transmitted from one generation to another. Those individuals affected by heritable variations, which give them a definite advantage over their fellows, will be more likely to survive in the struggle for existence and more likely to reproduce their kind. The less favoured individuals will tend to die out. Thus, in the course of many generations the species will tend to show a gradual change in the direction of a more favourable adaptation to its environment and a new species will emerge which is distinct from the original one.

With the knowledge and development of Mendelian genetics, the discovery of DNA, the development of molecular biology, and the formulation of the genetic code, the theory of natural selection has become sophisticated and is often termed as Neo-Darwinism. This theory has been subjected to a number of modern criticisms. For example, it has been argued that once species come into existence they persist for millions of years with little or no change (homeostasis). It has also been argued that when evolutionary changes do occur they are concentrated into relatively brief periods. The most recent criticisms of Neo-Darwinism have constituted a revival of Lamarckism: the theory that certain characteristics acquired during a parent’s lifetime can be passed on to the offspring. Darwin himself accepted this theory. It was the German biologist, August Weismann, who demonstrated the invalidity of Lamarckism. He showed that the hereditary substance—germ plasm—is transmitted from generation to generation without being influenced by bodily cells acquired during the individual's lifetime. Modern research work by geneticists supports Weismann’s thesis. Claims have been made for cytoplasmic inheritance a non-molecular genetic mechanism in the cytoplasm (all the protoplasm excluding the nucleus). But it is now known that organells (specialised parts) of the cytoplasm (chloroplasto and mitochonaria) not only contain DNA, but also the machinery for transforming DNA into protein. Nevertheless, a number of experiments have been made, the success of which do not rule out the possibility of genetic mechanisms not dependent on the replication nucleic acids. Yet. as John Maynard Smith points out:

It seems unlikely that they have been of major importance in evolution. The vast majority of inherited differences between organisms which have been analysed have turned out to be caused by differences between nuclear genes . . . The inheritance of acquired characters would lead to deterioration rather than evolution. On the other hand, homeostatic genes, resembling the self-correcting codes used for programming computers which always reverted to their original form after mutating, would make evolution impossible. (The Theory of Evolution, p. 73)

None of the critics of Neo-Darwinism is arguing that evolution has not happened, but some of them are questioning the course it has followed. What is significant is not the way in which evolution has occurred, but the fact that it has occurred. We have only to refer to the fossil record to confirm its reality.

The most important qualitative event in the evolutionary process was the emergence of humanity. When physical evolution brought Homo Sapiens into being it gave rise to a unique organism. Humanity set in motion a new kind of evolution, which is not biological and established by inherited physical variations, but is social, cultural and technological. In social evolution, humanity makes itself by developing culture through successive stages. Nature transcended itself, so to speak, and created a being which is more than just a Naked Ape. Homo Sapiens is not merely an animal repeated, but is qualitatively something higher, something which has never existed before. Humans have an ability to think conceptually and this enables us to determine our own mode of existence.

Harry Walters

Should the Film Industry be Nationalized? (1975)

From the March 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following letter was sent by a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to the “Borehamwood Post”, stating the Socialist attitude to a question which appears from time to time.

Your correspondent, Mr. A. J. Carnall, in a letter to your paper of January 23rd 1975 makes a plea for the take-over, by the Government, of the Film Industry. His main argument in support of this seems to be his opinion that (contrary to the belief held by some people) the Government in this event would not dictate what kind of films would be produced and that creative and artistic freedom would not be restricted. He then goes on to give what he claims are examples of this in those areas where the Government are at the present time in control.

Under the conditions of the present-day capitalist society the principal object for the production of films or, for that matter, the production of almost everything else in other fields of human endeavour, is to make a profit for that group in society who own the means of production, the capitalist class. Mr. Carnall says that the entertainment industry is a necessary social service. With the same kind of logic so is every other industry including, for example, the arms manufacturing industry, which, although it performs a social service, does not produce anything useful to society, on the contrary it produces harmful weapons of destruction. It is, of course, a matter of personal opinion as to whether the Film Industry falls into this category.

The reason for government nationalization of certain industries in those countries like Britain where capitalism is operated under what is referred to as a mixed economy, is not for the purpose of providing a better social service, as such, but to ensure that the surplus-value-producing machinery of the whole national capitalist class continues to exploit the working class with the maximum possible efficiency.

The Labour Government of 1945 had this in mind when they nationalized the railways and mines etc. Whether or not they were successful depends upon the individual opinion and attitude of those who attempt to make an assessment. Most certainly it did nothing to fundamentally change the social position of the workers employed in those industries, or for the working class generally.

Mr. Carnall says that the Arts Council administers millions of pounds in subsidizing opera and ballet. Quite true; this is an area of human endeavour which the Government considers to be useful in creating a good international image, like the monarchial institution which is maintained for the same reason. However it does not alter the fact that the people who are engaged as dancers and singers who have to attain, over a period of intense training of about ten years, a very high degree of performance, receive wages which, apart from a few star performers, and in spite of the efforts of Equity, and the pretensions of the government-sponsored administrations, are abysmally low by any standards.

Mr. Carnall implies that the BBC exercises little or no discrimination in relation to programme content, strange implication to make when even the mighty leader of the Labour Party claimed that they did — in spite of the fact that the Labour, Tory and Liberal spokesmen were hardly ever off the BBC during the last election. The fact is that minority political parties get little, or no time, on the BBC even during election times.

In relation to the restriction, by governments, of artistic and creative freedom, the classic examples of this are to be found in those countries, like Russia, where state capitalism predominates. Some of us have read other literature besides Soviet Weekly, and most people are aware of the incidents of defection, and what led up to them, by the Nureyevs, Panovs, etc., from the state-controlled Kirov and Bolshoi ballet companies.

Mr. Carnall makes no mention of this, which is understandable, since he is a member of the Communist Party, an organisation which ever since they formed in 1920 has slavishly applauded and apologized for everything the Russian government did.

Of course sections of the capitalist class in Britain, and elsewhere, teetering on the edge of a possible world-wide stagnation, with some of them facing bankruptcy are only too pleased for the Government or the workers to “pull the chestnuts out of the fire” for them. Even the Tories, who over the years

have falsely claimed to have had some objection in principle to nationalization, would not be opposed to that.

Nationalization of the entertainments industry, or of any other industry, will do nothing to solve the problems engendered by capitalist society. If Mr. Carnall was really concerned about the problems created by capitalism, of which the crisis in the film industry is only a small part, then instead of making a plea for state capitalism he should be advocating the introduction of world-wide Socialism, a classless, moneyless system based upon common ownership and production for use, democratically controlled by the whole of the world’s population. But then this solution would be inimical to his Party line with its blind support of the Russian ruling class, and would necessitate him doing some real thinking on this matter for a change. This, however, would probably be too much to expect from a man of his generation.

H. D. Walters 

(Employed at E.M.I. Elstree Studios)

Note: The third and fourth paragraphs from the end were omitted when this appeared in the “Borehamwood Post”.

More knowledge but less understanding (1987)

From the July 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Recently I attended a lecture at the Darwin Theatre University College London - "Two Feet Rather Than Four: The Distinctive Human Adaptation"; speaker Lesley A. Aiello, Lecturer in Anthropology. The précis of the title was: "Bipedal locomotion and the accompanying specialisation of the human hand for tool use and manipulation are distinctive human characteristics. The evolution of these features, as revealed in the fossil record, is traced over the past 4 million years of human prehistory".

This suggested that the lecturer regarded bipedal locomotion as the most important feature of all human biological characteristics. During the course of the lecture it became obvious that the lecturer was very knowledgeable about the limited field with which she was dealing but the lecture was given in so hurried a way that I formed the impression that she was performing an obligation rather than engaging in a genuine desire to impart knowledge. It confirmed what I already thought to be the case - that very few anthropologists understand the overall significance of their field.

I have no doubt that most students of anthropology and related disciplines are aware of the controversy over the years in relation to the evolutionary origins of homo sapiens. For example, did the enlargement and complexity of the brain in hominid evolution take place before or after upright stance and bipedal locomotion had been achieved? Was upright stance a necessity for the evolution of vocal tract anatomy? Were the Neanderthals members of sapiens or were they a different species? If so did sapiens evolve directly from them? These questions and many more have been debated at great length.

However, it seems to me that what we, and in particular the anthropologists, should also find important is: when homo reached the sapiens stage in evolution, what then happened was that an animal made its appearance on the evolutionary scene equipped with a unique combination of biological attributes making it the most superior organism that had ever existed. And it was not any one of these attributes which gave it superiority. It was not just upright stance with bipedal locomotion, or prehensile hands with opposable thumbs, stereoscopic binocular vision, audio and vocal tract anatomy, or the relatively largest and most complex brain of any organism alive or long since extinct, but a reciprocal and complimentary combination of them all. working one with the other.

We might say it was the supreme achievement of biological evolution by natural selection and it brought with it a new dimension to the evolutionary process — cultural evolution which has rendered further biological evolution by natural selection comparatively unimportant. When someone says to me: what do you think of human nature? What immediately springs to mind is precisely that unique combination of biological attributes possessed by our species, the sum total of which is human nature (as distinct from human behaviour) and is not necessarily connected with human behaviour except that it genetically lays the foundation for human behaviour of virtually unlimited variation and adaptability.

Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1956 described this process admirably when he wrote:

Evolution is a response of living matter to the challenges of environmental opportunity through the process of natural selection. The response of the human species, or rather of the species ancestral to man. was a unique one; it developed the genetic basis for the accumulation of, and for the extragenic transmission of a body of learned tradition called culture. The relations between culture and its genetic basis are all too often misunderstood. This topic is too complex and important to be dealt with lightly, but the basic facts are simple enough. Genes determine the possibility of human speech but not what is spoken. The cultural evolution of mankind is superimposed on its biological evolution; the causes of the former are non-biological without being contrary to biology, just as biological phenomena differ from those of inanimate nature but are not isolated from them. (Evolution At Work — one of a collection of essays in Ideas on Human Evolution. Ed. William Howells).

 I think that it is true that most natural scientists working in the field of anthropology would agree that the Cro Magnon type of homo sapiens of about 40,000 years ago. was not very different anatomically and physiologically from present-day humans and from 40,000 years ago up to the present there has not been any significant biological modifications to our species; and I suggest for the very good reason that there been no necessity for such changes, the biological equipment that humanity already has is sufficient to ensure adaptability to any environment.

Furthermore, there has been no speciation; variation there most certainly is but there is no evidence that any groups of human beings, even those in the most geographically remote parts of the world, have evolved any mechanism which makes them reproductively isolated from any other groups. There has been no necessity for that to happen, because of the ability of the human species to adapt and to change its environment and in so doing to determine its own destiny. Natural selection alone as far as homo sapiens is concerned is no longer operative for further evolution. It can only work to preserve and augment the human ability to create, absorb and transmit culture.

This does not mean, however, that we are making a very good job of it. It is with human behaviour that we have a problem. The human species is at present rushing towards extinction in relation to geological time. (I think that rushing is the appropriate term to use) and if it does not change its behaviour by introducing the much more rational and harmonious social system of socialism (which it is quite capable of doing) it could become extinct very quickly. That would be an irony indeed, when we consider that the dinosaurs, animals which tended towards having very limited brain power, nevertheless managed to exist for about 125 million years and yet the supreme achievement of biological evolution would have become extinct after only about one 3000th part of that time.

Harry Walters

Knowledge is Power (1980)

From the February 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

The greatest weapon available to the working class in its fight against the system which oppresses us is knowledge. The wealthy and powerful capitalist class can destroy us with bombs, lock us up and ignore our poverty, but the one thing that they will never be able to beat or ignore is a politically conscious working class. To reach consciousness of our class position and what we can do about it requires knowledge. That is why every new member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain must show that he or she understands and wants the revolutionary objective to which our party is committed. It is not an objective based upon emotional appeal, but upon a rational comprehension of the nature of society. The chief task of the SPGB is to develop and spread knowledge about the world around us.

It is for this reason that Islington branch has decided to run an education programme which will cover some of the basic areas of socialist knowledge. The programme is primarily intended for members and sympathisers in the Islington-Haringey-Camden area, but we shall, of course, welcome interested people from any part of London. The classes will be in history, anthropology and economics and will provide introductory information, while at the same time providing an opportunity for critical discussion.

They will be held every Sunday evening at 8pm SHARP at the Latin American Bookshop, 29 Islington Park Street, which is adjacent to the Hope and Anchor pub in Upper Street and 2 minutes walk from Highbury and Islington tube station. We list below details of the education programme:

ECONOMICS Lecturer: E. Hardy. Dates: Feb. 3, Feb. 24. Mar. 16, Apr. 6, Apr. 27, May 18, June 8. (Subjects for each class to be announced at the first class).

HISTORY Lecturer: S. Coleman. Dates and subjects: Feb. 17. THE MARXIST PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY, Mar. 9. THE EMERGENCE OF CAPITALISM, Mar. 30. THE INDUSTRIAL AND AGRARIAN REVOLUTIONS, Apr. 20. THE ASCENDANCY OF THE CAPITALIST CLASS, 1789-1871, May 11. THE POLITICAL ORGANISATION OF THE WORKING CLASS, 1848-1904, June 1. THE HISTORICAL PLACE OF THE SPGB, June 22. IS THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION INEVITABLE?

ANTHROPOLOGY An Introduction to the Study of Pre-History. Lecturer: H. Walters. Dates and subjects: Feb. 10. General background and relevance of related sciences. The birth of the Earth, the organic period and the beginning of organic matter. Mar. 2. The succession of life through geological time. History of the primates and the emergence of the hominid line. Mar. 23. The evolution of mankind and the emergence of homo sapiens. Apr. 13. Darwin, Wallace and the theory of natural selection and the misrepresentations thereof (Social Darwinism). May 4. From hunter to farmer and the neolithic revolution. May 25. The natural division of labour and the subordination of women. Mankind the toolmaker. June 15. An appraisal: Is Human Nature a Barrier to Socialism?

All classes are free and will be open to any member of the public. It is intended to tape record all of the lectures; members wishing to obtain tapes should contact Cde. H. Walters. Further information is obtainable by visiting or writing to Islington branch.

ISLINGTON BRANCH

What about human nature? (1985)

From the Spring 1985 issue of the World Socialist

Although not very much to their liking, it was the Victorians who made the discovery that the human being was not an example of an act of special creation on the part of the Almighty, but instead, another animal that had evolved. Since Victorian limes many have claimed that humans could not be regarded as being unique; homo sapiens was nothing but another animal species.

The word "unique" means the only one of its kind and, although this tends to connote a concept of the absolute, the term can only be used relatively. For example, somewhere in North London is a building which the architects claim to be the first of all concrete-constructed buildings in the world. Let us assume that this claim is authentic. As a building it is like others; it was not the first building ever to be constructed. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it was the first in the world to be constructed throughout with concrete.

This kind of reasoning is applicable to the human condition. Homo sapiens is not just another animal species. Animal species it most certainly is, with phylogenetic links with the rest of the animal world, and indeed with the whole organic world. But it is a very special kind of animal species with a unique combination of complementary biological attributes which enable it to have a potentiality for qualitative behaviour of almost unlimited variability.

QUALITATIVE LEAP FROM APE TO HUMAN

Superficially, there does not seem to be very much difference between the human species and its nearest animal relative, the chimpanzee, with regard to genetic distance. Anatomically and physiologically there are great similarities, but bearing in mind the adage that it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back it does not require very much in genetic distance to transform quantity into a tremendous difference in quality. So that if ramapithecus of about 9-12 million years ago can be said to be the common ancestor of all future hominid evolution, it may well be that australopithecus of about 3 million years ago represents the first great qualitative leap towards homo sapiens. The emergence of homo erectus of about 800,000 to one million years ago represents a type of homo very near indeed to the Cro-Magnon of Combe Capelle type, the homo sapiens of about 40-50 thousand years ago, of which all men and women living today are examples.

The available evidence suggests that this species has not undergone any significant biological, evolutionary changes during the 50,000 years of its existence. Homo sapiens is the sole surviving hominid species. What exists at present is a single human species which is genetically unified and which populates the earth, whose basic biological attributes are the same in every case.

It is at this point that we need to deal with the term "race" as applied to human beings. In the context of biology the most basic fact in defining a species is its genetic and reproductive isolation from other species. During the course of evolution by natural selection, different species have developed through the agency of adaptation of favourable mutant variations to a restricted environment brought about by geographical isolation. A race, on the other hand, is made up of the members of a same species which, through geographical isolation, have developed physical differences which are non-basic in the sense that reproduction with the other members of the species still remains possible. A race is therefore a sub-species, or subdivision of a species which could, with continued geographical isolation and further adaptation through natural selection, eventually develop into a new species. In most cases the formation of a new species took a very long time, far longer than the 50,000 years that homo sapiens has peopled the earth.

The non-basic physical variations which now exist between groups of human beings (skin colour, hair, facial characteristics, etc), and which are considered by some ethnologists as defining "race", are mistakenly interpreted by popular wisdom to mean species. In fact all existing human beings are members of the same species, and even the term "race" is inappropriate in the human context since those sharing non-basic physical variations do not live in geographical isolation. On the contrary, there is, and always has been, constant and increasing intermarrying between the various groups. As far as the human species is concerned the factors which operate in the formation of new species have largely ceased to exist.

Although humankind is the highest form of organic existence (the supreme achievement of evolution by natural selection, as it were) it is also the end-product of biological evolution in the sense that its coming into being gave rise to a new direction which is determined by cultural development in which the ability of humans to adapt, to learn and to transmit knowledge by non-biological means is the most important single factor. With homo sapiens, evolution is no longer biological but cultural and social.

HUMAN NATURE: BASIC BIOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT

Is human nature a barrier to socialism?

In order to come to any conclusion with any degree of objectivity, it is first necessary to define what we mean by the term socialism, and also what we mean by the term "human nature".

The World Socialist Movement has a clearly stated objective which is the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community. The establishment of world socialism will result in a transformation in human relationships and social behaviour. All the manifestations and paraphernalia necessary for a market economy will be discontinued and only those things under capitalism which would be useful to the new society will be retained and the rest discarded. The concept of exchange will fall into disuse together with the use of money. The production of wealth will be carried on throughout the world with the sole purpose of satisfying needs. Socialism will be a system in which the spontaneous and voluntary code of social behaviour will be from each according to ability to each according to self-determined need.

The factors which determine human nature are the same as those which apply to other animal species. The nature of a particular species is the sum total of the basic biological attributes common to all its members. It is these biological characteristics which impose behavioural limitations on all the individuals belonging to a species, irrespective of individual variations.

Chimpanzee behaviour refers to the chimpanzee on a species basis. All chimpanzees have the biological equipment enabling them to climb trees when necessary, although they are also adapted to movement on the ground. Elephants cannot climb trees, but there is no reason for them to do so. When a tree comes into their path, their nature determines that they go around it or uproot it. Neither chimpanzees nor elephants can modify to any great extent these biologically-determined and genetically-inherited behaviour patterns; they are not only the products but also the prisoners of natural selection.

The lower animals spend the greater part of their time engaging in functional behaviour, foraging for and consuming food, excreting waste, and mating and producing young, for example. The higher primates are also subject to this functional behaviour, including homo sapiens, but in human society, with its highly complex learned and non-biologically transmitted social activity on a collective basis, this reflex and functional behaviour has become of secondary importance as an individual survival factor.

There is no evidence to suggest that the nearest animal relatives of the human species, the anthropoid apes, are evolving towards the emergence of a higher form of ape. On the contrary, they are on the way to extinction. Homo sapiens on the other hand, has no evolutionary necessity to evolve biologically. The biological equipment it already has is sufficient to ensure the possibility of millions of years of cultural development to come. Human nature is the sum total or combination of the anatomical and physiological attributes applicable to all members of the human species on a species basis. This is to say that all groups of members of homo sapiens have, apart from minor variations, the same basic biological characteristics, which are, upright stance with bipedal locomotion, prehensile hands with opposable thumbs, stereoscopic, binocular, colour vision, vocal tract anatomy, and above all, the relatively largest and most complex brain of any species or organism living, or long since extinct.

HUMAN BEHAVIOUR: FLEXIBLE AND SOCIALLY CONDITIONED

Human behaviour on the other hand is what the human being does individually and on a social basis within the limits set by human nature as it has now been defined. But unlike other animals whose behaviour is not only very limited but stereotyped by specialised biological attributes for a simpler lifestyle, the complementary character of human beings' biological nature enables the species to possess what is virtually unlimited plasticity and adaptability of thought and action. A glance at our history over the past 40,000 years will show that human behaviour has changed considerably over time, and on occasions very drastically. Over tens of thousands of years human nature has remained more or less constant. But what is there in bipedal locomotion with upright stance etc., which makes it absolutely certain that human beings in society will behave in a preconceived way? The answer to that question is—nothing.

The human animal is a conceptually-thinking animal. It has the biological ability, not only to react in its behaviour to environmental changes going on around it, but to condition and determine changes in that environment for its own purposes. Human nature is not therefore a barrier to socialism. But this does not mean that human beings will automatically use their potentiality for finding rational solutions to social problems, so that socialism will come about without any effort from individual members of society. Socialism can only happen if people the world over want it to happen. It can only be operated by socialists.

It only remains to add on this whole question of human nature/human behaviour that they are both parts of a single whole. But this is not to say that they are the same, any more than each end of a walking stick is the same because they are part of a whole stick. When considering the anatomy and physiology of the human body, although the feet and the head are joined together as parts of the whole body, this is not to say that an assessment of the particular function of each is the same.

NO PLACE FOR CREATIONISM

All of the investigations of modern science tend to become more specialised (more and more becoming known about less and less). But in those sciences pertaining to the human species, the reverse seems to have taken place, each specialist presenting the same kind of eclectic explanation.

It is the kind of reasoning which enables a person like Richard Leakey, who is eminent in the study of pre-history, to at the same time hold religious ideas, and Sir Frederick Hoyle, world-renowned astro-physicist and mathematician not only to hold creationist ideas of the origin of the universe but to suggest a theory of biological evolution to accommodate this belief which claims that, although evolution has proceeded through the agency and mechanism of the genes, it has not been by the process of natural selection. According to his theory, mutations are not generated through the cell structure and the genetic pool but occur from outside; apparently outer space is full of organic particles, genes, which are directed by a mysterious force and float down to the surface of the earth and in some miraculous way are incorporated into the mechanism of reproduction.

There is no doubt that Hoyle would have been well advised to have confined his writing of science fiction to the field of astronomical physics and to have left the field of biology (in this regard) well alone. However this is not to say that there are no eminent biologists who are, or were, creationists at the same time. Which might explain Hoyle's admiration of Alfred Russel Wallace, who has been described as the co-founder, with Darwin, of the theory of evolution by natural selection, and regarded by Hoyle as the greater of the two. Wallace, who became a spiritualist, in spite of his undoubted great knowledge of natural science, was hoodwinked by the most outrageous charlatanism and trickery of fake mediums.

CONSCIOUS CHANGE OF SOCIETY

The human behaviour of property societies is, taken as a whole, a corrupt and degenerate behaviour compared with that of peoples who lived in the so-called primitive societies that preceded them. In spite of this, however, there are many instances of people living in modern "civilised" society performing acts of heroism and self-sacrifice for the benefit of the common interest. These two factors alone—the superior social behaviour of primitive society and the many instances of self-sacrifice of people living in property society—illustrate the enormous range and flexibility of human social behaviour.

Although it is true that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness" (Marx), it is also true that the forms that this consciousness takes can become instruments that determine social existence. It is the social contradictions engendered by capitalist society that give rise to socialist ideas. The antagonistic productive forces which have developed in the modern capitalist system have created also the material conditions for its abolition. But it is only people, or rather a majority of people, who have become conscious of this possibility who can bring about the required change in social existence. All previous social revolutions have been a transition from one kind of property society to another. The socialist revolution will abolish the last antagonistic form of the social process of production. By its very nature the introduction of socialism demands the participation of the world's population on the basis of majority understanding.

It is not human nature (which is relatively unchanging) that is a barrier to socialism, but human social behaviour which at present is determined by the social conditions of capitalism, reinforced with capitalist ideology. When this ideology is dissipated then human social behaviour, under the impact of the socialist revolution, will change dramatically, and the introduction of socialist society will become a reality.

Harry Walters (Britain)