Letter: More about inevitability (1975)

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

More about inevitability

Your article on “The Inevitability of Socialism” was interesting, but I feel that you did not deal adequately with a fundamental contradiction at the core of your case.

One of Marx’s central arguments was that philosophical ideas and political principles always occur as a result of historical material forces and social relationships, rather than the other way round.

If as you claim the material conditions for Socialism now exist, then surely, according to Marx, the necessary ideas ought automatically to be present also. If these ideas are not present at the moment (you admit that they are not) then this must mean either (a) Marx was wrong or (b) you are wrong in saying that the conditions for Socialism now exist. No amount of juggling with the arguments will avoid these difficulties.

If, in the current situation, it requires a freely made, conscious and almost unanimous decision of the international working class to achieve Socialism, it must follow that there is a possibility of that decision not being made, which certainly appears to be the position today. To say in these circumstances that “Socialism is inevitable” is surely to rob the word of all meaning.

If I remember correctly, Marx once said something about no social system ever disappearing before its possibilities for expansion and development had reached their limits. Despite the grotesque violence, inequalities and illogicalities, it cannot be denied that capitalism in recent years has generally displayed a certain dynamism in producing increasing quantities of material goods.

Could it be that in certain areas, perhaps in the developing nations of the “third world” capitalism still has some way to go before its potential for expansion is exhausted?

A. R. Ewbank 

Middlesex

Reply:

Our correspondent alleges that we claim, along with Marx, that the material conditions automatically produce Socialist ideas. We claim no such thing, and the article makes this clear.

Socialist ideas do arise from the economic conditions of capitalism, but not automatically. The prevailing ideas held by most people are the ideas of the ruling class. They are capitalist-minded; they accept the wages system and the buying and selling of wealth as in the natural order of things. Also the property institutions, its legal code, ideas of religion, morality and capitalist politics. These dominant ideas arise from the material conditions of capitalism, and propaganda through the press, TV, pulpit and the educational system will try to keep these impressed on workers’ minds. However, you cannot nourish a starving man on propaganda, or provide him with a house, or solve any of the recurring social problems brought about by the contradictory nature of capitalism. The performance never matches the promise.

Socialist ideas arise out of an examination of these social contradictions and the nature of capitalist society. Socialist knowledge, like all knowledge, has to be gained, and to the extent that workers are interested in learning something new it will be gained. We cannot have Socialism without conscious socialists. The workers of this and other countries have never been in a position to make a decision on whether or not to establish Socialism, for the simple reason that the overwhelming majority know little or nothing about it. Philosophically speaking, workers can reject Socialism in the same way that a drowning man can reject a lifebelt thrown to him. Growing discontent and greater social awareness of the nature of the system will compel men to think and act. Socially, men do not act arbitrarily — they act with cause.

The use of the word “inevitable” in the context of the article means that Socialism simply has to come if society is to develop. It is a social necessity which follows inexorably from certain causes. Its establishment will be a consciously organised social decision.

Our correspondent is mistaken in his interpretation of Marx’s phrase stated in the Materialist Conception of History viz:— “No society ever goes out of existence before all the productive forces for which there is room have been developed.” He claims that capitalist productive potentialities have some way to go, particularly in the Third World. Production under capitalism is based on a world market; goods are produced for sale or exchange. The productive forces exist to serve this world market alone. When the market has absorbed all the products it is capable of absorbing production is curtailed or fettered. The productive forces do not exist simply to produce wealth — they must produce profit. No sale — no profit — no production. Technically speaking there is practically no limit to the development of new means of production. Every advance in science and technology, each new mineral discovery, can add to the social wealth. But there is simply no market room for further development of the productive forces, and this is what matters. The working class is the greatest productive force in history but millions are forcibly debarred from producing through unemployment. The present international crisis of capitalism is based on over-production of commodities of all kinds, motor cars, oil tankers, steel, textiles and food. This is what capitalism is, and why we want to replace it with a sane and sensible method of social production based on social need.

Editors.

Letter: An evolutionary view

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

An evolutionary view

It has not been the denial of access to the mass media that has limited the growth of your party, for the appearance of Socialism on the TV screen would have resulted in a massive switch-off, as the tens of thousands of workers who have stood at your platform have been switched off — by capitalism. To safeguard its career capitalism developed an intolerance of any idea which sought to subvert its will, and reduced the working class to a silenced majority. It has been this ideological impregnability of capitalism that the SPGB has been vainly trying to breach.

The fact now being revealed is that capitalism, its zenith behind it, no longer needs its age-long grip on the mind. The ethos which could be defined as the social mind is now being disengaged that it might reach for its next objective. Vandalism, hooliganism, dissident political violence are physical manifestations of this disengaging process which is causing a slackening of social cohesion — a sense of lack of social purpose.

The ideals and standards which have stood sacrosanct for so long are now examined, questioned, debated. More or less concurrent with this enquiry is a groping for an alternative which must identify itself eventually with the Socialist aim.

The SPGB cannot expect to benefit immediately from capitalism’s final phase, for political thinking is evolutionary. Your party does not hold this view, but it follows from a careful reading of your excellent pamphlet “Historical Materialism”.

Today a majority of workers are in favour of a monarchy; within five years that opinion will be reversed and the institution scrapped. The economic and social circumstances which have hitherto frustrated the Socialist aim are now yielding to the needs of the new social order, which encourages me in the reiteration that, although at the age of 62, I expect to witness the triumph of Socialism.

F. C. West 

London E.2.

Reply:

Though you write as a sympathiser, your letter expresses views we cannot accept. Your standpoint seems to be that capitalism will amiably unfold — in fact, is now unfolding — to give Socialism. Our “Historical Materialism” pamphlet does not give any warrant for such an automatic process. On the contrary, it emphasizes what Marx insisted: that men make history.

What you call the “ideological impregnability” of capitalism is another way of saying what Marx said also that the dominant ideas of every epoch are those of its ruling class. These ideas are not the same ones throughout the lifetime of a social system, but alter as its needs change. But unless they give way to class-consciousness and the understanding of Socialism, they remain supporters of capitalism. What makes you think that vandals and hooligans accept capitalism any less than the most respectable citizens? Or that there is more hooliganism and violence today than in the past (you’ve been listening to the mass media, haven’t you?)

Nor do we understand what is meant by saying that capitalism is past its zenith. The evolution of society has been one in which classes have struggled against one another for the ownership of the means of living, and this applies today. The capitalist system has been in existence two hundred years or less. At times it appears exuberant, at others in low water; but it remains capitalism nevertheless, and its giving way to Socialism will take place only when the working class pursues its economic interests to their proper conclusion.

If you want to bet that royalty will have been disposed of by 1980, we can find you a taker.

Editors.

Materialist Conception of History (1979)

From the Fall 1979 issue of The Western Socialist

Down through the ages there have been various interpretations of history. For example, there are the theories which see in history the working out and realization of some sort of divine plan — like Hegel’s philosophy of history, which sees the whole historical development of society as the realization stage by stage of the so-called Absolute Idea. Again, there are the various theories which see history as moving through “cycles,” every civilization passing by some inescapable necessity through the cycle of rise, plentitude of power and decline — as in Spengler’s Decline of the West or Toynbee’s Studies in History. These are idealist theories and socialists are opposed to them. The idealism of such theories lies in the fact that they see the laws of development of society as a “fate” imposed upon society from outside, so that men and women are mere instruments of fate, the tools of external necessity. If such theories are accepted, then we are driven to fatalism. If what takes place is in the hands of God, or is decreed by fate, or follows by some iron necessity — it makes little difference in practice which you say — then it follows there is little we can do to determine our own destinies for ourselves.

Until the advent of Marx the various interpretations of history might be listed under five headings — religious, political, hero, ideas, and war. The elaborations found under these headings make interesting reading but they all contain serious shortcomings. The war or military interpretation of history, for instance, fails to recognize that war, a phenomenon that has been present in all phases of human development, is a result rather than a cause of events. With the coming of Marx and his theory of the materialist conception of history, history took on new meaning — it became rooted in the material conditions of life.

This interpretation of history holds that in any given epoch the economic relations of society, the means whereby men and women provide for their sustenance, produce, exchange, and distribute the things they regard as necessary for the satisfaction of their needs, exert a preponderating influence in shaping the progress of society and in molding political, social, intellectual and ethical relationships. In his Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, Edward Aveling, Marx’s son-in-law defines this theory :

“The materialist conception of history is that the chief, the fundamental factor in the development of any nation or any society, is the economic factor — that is, the way In which the nation, or the society, produces and exchanges its commodities . . .

"Now, whilst it (the economic factor) appears to be the fundamental one, there are others developed from it and reflexes of it, that also play their parts, acting and reacting upon their parent, the economic factor, and one another. The art, the science, the literature, the religion, the legal and juridical formulae of a country, although they all spring directly from the economic conditions of the country, have to be reckoned with.”

The most complete and most significant statement of the main elements of the materialist conception of history are formulated in Marx’s Preface to the Critique of Political Economy. There one learns that the subject matter of history is man himself, his economic and social conditions and not his ideas. The relations between men’s material conditions of life and their ideas are described in this general fashion by Marx: It is not the consciousness of men which determines their existence, but, on the contrary, it is their social existence which determines their consciousness. William Ebenstein in his Today’s Isms illustrates this concept:

“In a nomadic society . . . horses might be considered the principal means of acquiring and accumulating wealth. From Marx’s viewpoint, this foundation of nomadic life is the clue to its superstructure of law, government and dominant ideas. Thus, Marx would say that those who are the owners of the greatest number of horses in such a nomadic society would also be the political chieftains who make and interpret the law; they are also likely to receive the highest response and deference from the tribe’s members who own no horses. In the realm of ideas, the predominant social and cultural concepts would reflect the dominant economic position of the owners and horses. Even in religion the impact would not be missing. God might, for instance, be represented in the image of a swift and powerful rider, and the concept of divine justice and rule would be, in a sense, an extension and magnification of human justice as determined by the horse-owning chiefs.’’

Even as the above horse-owning class determined the political, social, legal, and cultural institutions in its society, so, too, do we find, on looking back, that the landowners in a settled agricultural society set its society’s values. Today in our industrial society the owners of the means of production are in the saddle and have been for the last two hundred years. No matter the formal and legal facades, this owning class, the capitalist class, rules contemporary society. This class conceives that “the ultimate purpose of the law, education, the press, and artistic and literary creation is to maintain an ideology that is imbued with the sanctity and justice of capitalist property ownership.”

The misrepresentations and distortions of Marx’s writings are legion. They perhaps are paralleled only by the slanders and vilifications on Marx’s person. For instance, critics love to reproach Marx that the materialist conception of history disregards the influence of non-economic factors. This is not so. There is nothing in Marx’s theory to indicate such an assertion, though it is true that he failed sufficiently to safeguard himself against this charge. Engels repeatedly acknowledged that many interacting forces give rise to an historic event. Again, some critics would have one believe that Marx’s “materialism” is but a depiction of man’s wish for monetary gain and comfort, of his desire for material goods, and this charge is sometimes coupled with the distortion that Marx was an advocate of the barracks, that is, the giving up of one’s individuality and entrusting oneself to an all-powerful state bureaucracy. Again not so. Relative to this Erich Fromm writes in Marx’s Concept of Man:

This “description . . . fits almost exactly the reality of present-day Western capitalist society. The majority of people are motivated by a wish for greater material gain, for comfort and gadgets, and this wish is restricted only by the desire for security and the avoidance of risks. They are increasingly satisfied with a life regulated and manipulated, both in the sphere of production and of consumption, by the state and the big corporations and their respective bureaucracies; they have reached a degree of conformity which has wiped out individuality to a remarkable extent They are, to use Marx’s term, impotent ‘commodity men’ serving virile machines. The very picture of mid-twentieth century capitalism is hardly distinguishable from the caricature of Marxist socialism as drawn by its opponents.”

The materialist conception of history is not only a theory about how to interpret history, but also a theory about how to make history. This theory was arrived at by Marx by applying the materialist world outlook to the solution of social problems. And in making this application materialism was no longer just a theory aimed at interpreting the world, of building a society free of the expoitation of man by man.

REN.

Letter: Capitalism was Necessary (1948)

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

We have received the following letter criticising the article in the October Socialist Standard entitled "Will ‘The Last Hottentot’ hold us Back?"

Dear Sirs,

Capitalism is Necessary.

Gilmac, at the beginning of his article in the October Socialist Standard, chiding those who talk in a superior way of backward races, writes the word “backward" in inverted commas, as though its use is unjustified. Later he uses the word without quotation marks, as though its use is justified. We gather that peoples can be backward in one way and not in another; they are good enough mentally but backward socially. In his own words, they lack the “social conditions favourable to the development of Socialist ideas." By social conditions he obviously means capitalist conditions. So it seems we have got to wait for the Hottentots after all.

Once the backward peoples “take part in building up capitalism on their own account," he says, “then they cut the cord that ties them to the past." So that is what they need, says the Socialist—Capitalism. "Everywhere native populations are stirring restlessly, struggling to cast off the shackles of the past in order to enter the heritage of today"—that is, the heritage of Capitalism.

Gilmac says: “India is undergoing the birthpangs of a capitalist state which will soon transform its primitive village economy," and “the primitive agricultural communities of India will soon be overwhelmed as India gets upon its capitalist feet." India must have Capitalism, implies Socialist Gilmac. Capitalism is necessary in India. And while the Indians are enjoying the necessary Capitalism, Gilmac will presumably say: "Capitalism is horrible; away with it and replace it by Socialism."

I can imagine a S.P.G.B. seaman disembarking at Bombay this week and meeting an Indian steelworker. As he would be anxious to spread Socialist propaganda the following dialogue might take place:

Socialist: Comrade, you have a miserable life. You are born in poverty, you live in poverty and misery and you die in poverty. Capitalism is the cause of this.

Indian worker: Yes, I am poor and miserable. What would you substitute for Capitalism?

Socialist: Socialism! Under Socialism all would work and all would share in the wealth produced, so we would all be well off.

Indian worker: That sounds fine to me. We must have that.

Socialist: Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare you for Socialism.

Indian worker: You tell me Capitalism is awful and that I ought to do away with it and have Socialism, but you also say I can’t have Socialism until I have had more Capitalism. You are telling me mutually contradictory things. If I must have Capitalism, as you say, I will put up with it, and not waste my energy grousing about it.

I should like the S.P.G.B. answer to this question: If Capitalism is necessary and inevitable in the evolution of human society towards Socialism, why grumble about it?

If you print this letter, I suggest you keep my heading, if it states your position correctly. It will, however, look somewhat peculiar in a Socialist journal.

Yours faithfully,

G. Davies

London, S.W.17.

Reply.

Mr. Davies makes no attempt to deal with the substance of the article he criticises, nor does he deny that Capitalism is rotten and produces wars, poverty in the midst of plenty, degrades the wealth producers and causes a host of other evils that spring from the particular type of class ownership in which it is rooted; his only argument is that if Capitalism is a necessary evil why grumble about it? He forgets that most of man’s conquests of natural forces have been accompanied by necessary evils, and that it was only by "grumbling" about them that these evils were eventually either eliminated or considerably reduced. In the social sphere the horrors of the early factory system, which degraded, demoralised and decimated the factory population, were responsible for fierce protests that helped to bring about changes in factory methods. The protests were just as much a necessary product as the factory system itself. According to Mr. Davies’ curious ideas of necessity there should have been no protests, and children from the age of six or seven years of age ought still to have been abandoned to the unbridled lust for profit and exploitation of people like the cruel factory owners of the middle of last century, who battened upon human misery.

Mr. Davies refers to the phrase the “heritage of today" as if it simply meant the Capitalist social organisation itself, but it meant more than that; as the article makes clear it also meant the ideas that develop out of Capitalism, the opposition to Capitalism from which springs the desire for the common ownership of the means of production that will involve the disappearance of clashes, of trading, of money, of the exploitation of man by man and of all forms of social privilege except those which are accorded to the young, the old, and the infirm. By giving birth to ideas like these, and by demonstrating that it is incapable of bringing comfort and security to the mass of the world’s population, Capitalism of necessity digs its own grave.

Capitalism became a necessary evil once sections of mankind had got upon the track of the advantages to be derived from privilege but it also, in its time, conferred benefits as well as evils upon mankind. In the general march towards Socialism it has played a valuable part. Capitalism has been both revolutionary and reactionary. It was revolutionary in the sense that, at considerable cost in human suffering, it developed the productive forces to a pitch where it became possible to guarantee comfort and security to all, relieving mankind from blind dependence upon natural forces; it is reactionary in the sense that, being founded upon privilege, it is now a barrier to the achievement of this comfort and security. Socialism, a necessary product of Capitalism, will absorb all the valuable productive achievements of Capitalism but it will abolish class ownership of the means of production and, at the same time, the multitude of evils that spring from this class ownership; it will abolish privilege, thereby leaving the way open to a free, full and happy life-for all. Capitalism has taught mankind the value of associated labour on a world scale; the profit motive which is its central idea, sordid though it is, sent people scurrying all over the earth, and delving deep under the earth, to make the earth fruitful; it developed marvellous machines and methods of production, but now, as far as the advanced nations are concerned, its work is finished and its fruit has become rotten; what remains to be done is to take advantage of its accomplishments and turn its achievements from means of causing suffering to means of bringing happiness.

Now let us turn to the imaginary dialogue between an Indian worker and an S.P.G.B. seaman which Mr. Davies regards as so devastating to the position we take up. We preach Socialism to the Indian worker, to the Hottentot and to every other worker; we recognise, however, that, regardless of our desires, Capitalism is still continuing to develop in India and elsewhere and that the Western workers have not yet decided to establish Socialism. We further appreciate that though India cannot at the moment jump straight into Socialism without a considerable development of industry and ideas yet it can learn from the advanced nations, learn both industrial methods and socialist ideas, and that it can do so comparatively rapidly. If India does happen to lag behind when the workers of the advanced nations establish Socialism then, for the reasons outlined in the article criticised, India would have no difficulty in becoming absorbed into the new world social system, the advantages of which would be obvious from the outset and would be easy to absorb.

Where backward people “take part in building up Capitalism on, their own account” they do “cut the cord that binds them to the past." It is also a fact that this development, as we have already shown, brings them nearer to the achievement of Socialism. On the basis of this Mr. Davies argues that we should advocate Capitalism to the Indian worker as a stepping-stone to Socialism. What he overlooks is that Capitalism is already well developed in India, in spite of areas of backwardness, and that Socialist ideas are already spreading there. It is, therefore, the Capitalist who advocates and builds up Capitalism in India and the Socialist who advocates Socialism and builds up the Socialist movement. The Socialist does not say to the Indian worker “Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough of Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare for Socialism.” What he does say is: You can have Socialism as soon as the majority of the Indian workers understand Socialism and want it! Therefore study it and work for its achievement.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Mr. Davies’ suggested heading is wrong; Capitalism was necessary but is no longer. That, however, will not prevent it from undergoing a hothouse development in areas where it has not yet made great progress. On the basis of Mr. Davies’ argument there would have been no social evolution; chattel slavery and other forms of social organisation would still be flourishing because nobody would have "grumbled” about their evil consequences. Unfortunately for his argument they did "grumble,” just as, no doubt, he grumbles when Capitalism pinches him in some directions. It is certainly astonishing to find someone cavilling at grumbling after the fearful consequences of the first world war, the last world war and the prospect of still more terrible experiences in the new war that is foreshadowed ; wars that were and are a necessary consequence of the Capitalist social order. Mr. Davies seems to have been blinded by his logic and, like the imaginary Hottentot, is out of touch with developments in the world in which he lives. 

Gilmac.

Letter: If and when (1975)

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

If and when

In the May Socialist Standard, page 93, in the article “Is Socialism Inevitable?”, "Socialism is inevitable because men will seek and gain Socialist knowledge” as stated in the article seems to me to have an air of fatalism about it. If you said “Socialism is inevitable if men will seek Socialist Socialist knowledge”, I agree.

The Western Socialist No. 2, 1975, page 10, agrees with my position when it states: “So the road to Socialism is a clear road if our fellow workers will simply blink the fog from their eyes and rub the nonsense from their ears.”

Anyway, there is nothing to say the atomic bomb won’t beat us all and devastate the world.

Edwin A. Watkins,

Victoria, Australia

Reply:

The argument of “Is Socialism Inevitable?” is that the forms of society are not static. The social systems of history have existed for as long as they matched the development of man’s consciousness and productive powers. Ceasing to do so, each was supplanted by another; and the nature of every such change has been the transfer of ownership of the means of living from an old ruling class to a dynamic new one. It can therefore be said that capitalism must give way to another system, and the only form the new system can take is the establishment of Socialism by the working class.

You say “if the working class”, etc., and quote our companion journal the Western Socialist. However, the Western Socialist does not mean what you mean. Its “if” says that the working class, by blinking the fog from their eyes, can establish Socialism tomorrow; failing that, we have to wait a little longer.

The atomic bomb is not an entity outside society, but part of — vide Marshall McLuhan — the message inherent in the capitalist medium.

Editors.

Letter: Intellectuals (1975)

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

Intellectuals

As socialism like death is inevitable, can we not sit back and wait for it? If it is determined by the materialist conception of history then surely it will take its course and arrive when capitalism reaches its zenith or utmost point of development. Under these circumstances, how can we hurry it? Can we hurry the rise of the sun before the laws of the universe are obeyed?

I am of course open to correction, as you so kindly did when I stated that Hitler gained power by coercion and bully-boys. You proved by figures that a majority voted for him. Will you do the same service for your member who wrote “Why I joined the SPGB”, wherein he says Hitler held fake elections and polled 99% of the votes.

I shall be grateful if you will define “intellectual”. “Ivan” describes Crossman as a glamorous one. Does it mean one of high intellect; good education; deep knowledge of politics, economics, so enabled to discern one system from another? If such a person then fosters or preaches that which is not compatible with his learning, can he qualify as intellectual? Is he as with MPs who, too modest to call themselves honourable, allow others to append the distinction? Or are they covered by the words of Tom Paine — “When a man has so corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”

The point is: What is an intellectual?

R. Rellenck

London S.E.

Reply:

On your first point, perhaps you have seen the letter and reply headed “An evolutionary view” in the August Socialist Standard. The materialist conception of history does not hold that society unfolds inexorably in perpetual motion. This was not the attitude stated in “Is Socialism Inevitable?” It emphasized on the contrary that men make history.

Your question about Hitler involves a misunderstanding of the two items you put together. The first, which we are glad to learn was illuminating to you, concerned how Hitler and his party gained political power in Germany. The statement in “Why I joined the SPGB”, that Hitler held fake elections in which he got nearly all the votes, referred to when he was established in power.

Last, what is an “intellectual”? We might have used the inverted commas, or said “self-styled”, to make our attitude clear. Your remarks are to the point. The intellectual posture is of having higher knowledge and being altogether superior to the common herd. The article on Crossman was intended to show what a sham this is.

Editors.

Why Socialism is inevitable. The Marxian view. (1931)

From the June 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Socialist declares that the process of capitalist development makes Socialism inevitable, he does not mean that the present system evolves into Socialism without the conscious effort of the workers.

M. Tugan-Baronovsky remarks in his book on “Modern Socialism” :—

“If the economic development itself naturally and really leads Socialism to victory without any conscious assistance of man, why then should the labouring class take part in a struggle and expend their forces to attain an end which, at any rate, must come about without submitting itself to any interference whatever from outside?”

The fact is, however, that present-day society does not develop “naturally and really” to Socialism, any more than the economic development of feudal society led “naturally and really” to capitalism. But, then, Marx never suggested that it would. The struggle between the capitalists and the feudal State was extended over generations, and the workers likewise will have to struggle with the capitalists for the possession of the means of life.

Let there be no mistake. On the industrial side the capitalist system can evolve into all manner of forms—into combines, cartels, joint stock companies, and into municipalisation and nationalisation, and public utility companies, but it certainly does not develop into Socialism. The basis of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of life. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of life. Not by any stretch of imagination can we see capitalism evolving “naturally and really” into a Socialist society. The only force that can bring the transformation is a majority of Socialists.

But the Socialist claims that the capitalist class is a parasite class and the capitalist system an unnecessary system. Capitalism has developed the productive powers of society into such gigantic organisations that these social forces of production must come under the control of society. The economic conditions are ripe for Socialism. The business in hand is to make enough Socialists. We say that Socialism is inevitable because Socialism is the only solution to the present-day problems of the majority. Every age has produced its own social problems, but it has also produced the solution to them. That solution may be ridiculed or ignored for a time, but in that case the problems remain unsolved. They remain unsolved now because they can only be solved in one way, that is, by Socialism. What are the problems of capitalism ? The poverty of the workers amidst a superabundance of wealth, extensive unemployment and the waste of the productive forces. Unemployment and “over-production” are the inevitable outcome of capitalism. The markets at home and abroad are always choked with surplus produce because the workers’ consumption of the wealth they produce is limited to the amount of their wages, supplemented by State charity, and a great amount of wealth is left in the hands of the master class, which they are unable to dissipate, despite the wildest extravagance. The competition for markets forces ever cheaper methods of production to be devised, chiefly by labour-saving machinery. More and more wealth is produced with less and less labour. Hence, over-production and unemployment.

In capitalist society production is limited to the needs of markets, not used to satisfy the needs of the workers. As the extension of production is much above the extension of markets, the number of unemployed tends always to grow larger.

Production is fettered because the workers are not allowed to consume the wealth they produce, and they are not able to consume it because they have not produced it for themselves, but for the owners of the means of life. It is not necessary to stress the point any further. The process of machine development makes every reform abortive. Economic forces are ruthless; they do not compromise with Labour Cabinet Ministers.

It must be admitted that the workers, so far, would sooner try any plausible scheme offered by the capitalist politicians in the way of reform, than consider the case for Socialism. But we are not discouraged.

We say that Socialism is inevitable because, sooner or later, the workers will learn through bitter experience the futility of reforms and will be in that mood when the Socialist idea will interest them. The workers must first have knowledge, for a revolutionary movement can only be strong in the sense that the members are conscious of the aims and objects of its activity.

Kaye.

Marxism and Inevitability – The Critics Criticised (1956)

From the March 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

“There’s a destiny that shapes our ends, rough hew them as we may.”

Is Marxism the prose Rubaiyat of economic fatalism? Many pseudo-Marxists have half believed it. Quite a few critics of Marxism—Eastman, Berlin, Popper, etc., have wholly asserted it. A host of sentimental liberals and political do-gooders have also chosen to see Marxism as a secularised version of—”and the good must come to pass.” For such critics Marxism is either a synonym for Kismet or a variation of “The Lord will provide.”

It is true that the Communist Manifesto states, “Capitalism is its own grave-digger; its fall and the victory of the proletariat are alike inevitable.” This has been taken up by opponents of Marxism and echoed and re-echoed down the corridor of the years as evidence of the fact that Marxism spells out fatalism with a capital f. Yet anything less like religious or philosophical quietism than the Communist Manifesto it would be hard to imagine. Not only do its pages breathe political activism but it ends with a stirring call to action—”Workers of the world unit,” utterly at variance with any predestined assumptions. It is not difficult, however, to tear a sentence from its context and make the author appear to say the opposite of what he actually meant.

Now this particular type of criticism of Marxism pivots on the word “inevitability.” If we are to believe the critics of Marx the term inevitability, especially as related to human society, is synonymous with fatalism or predestination—”The moving finger writes and having writ moves on.” Thus in the Marxist scheme of things, vide the critics, inevitability means that human wills are writ so small as to be virtually non-existent.

The word “inevitability” as used by the critics in reproaching Marx carries a stigma; the stigma being that human beings are but puppets in some vast cosmic process. But is that the only significance which can be given to the word? One of course does not deny that in a given context the word “inevitability” can be synonymous with fatalism. What one does deny is that in the Marxist context they mean the same thing.

Let us, to paraphrase Marx, consider the word “inevitability” a little more closely and see how its meaning varies with the context. Thus we say night, inevitably follows day. Do we imply by such a statement that fatalism or predestination of some kind is involved in the rotation of the earth on its axis? It can, we think, be agreed that the regular sequence of events connected with the solar system has nothing to do with fatalism or any other kind of supernaturalism. Some one might, of course, say “but is it not true that men are nevertheless powerless to control solar events?” Here it would seem that inevitability implies the powerlessness of men. But surely the answer is that such events being non-human have nothing to do with the powers possessed by socially organised men. Therefore the question of powerlessness on the part of humans in non-human processes does not arise. The power of human beings lies in the fact of their ability to understand and utilise natural phenomena to their social advantage.

Again the inevitable sequences of events which occur in the solar system are of inestimable advantage to humans during the course of their lives. It enables one to go to bed supremely confident that after a night’s sleep one will wake up and it is morning. And to feel assured that in making an appointment a week hence the solar sequence of things will not have been reversed. If solar events were so arbitrary that in the words of the song “when it’s night time in Italy it’s Wednesday over here” then life on this planet would be a matter of conjecture. If inevitability, then, entails some aspect of a regularised and sequential eternity one can only add—long live inevitability.

One can further expand the advantage which inevitability has for us humans. Thus if we know that “A” will always bring about “B” then the certainty of this knowledge gives us an assured basis for utilising it. Such knowledge not only gives us power to understand the world but the power to change it.

On the other hand, if events were so capricious that water raised to a certain temperature did not always produce steam, or in switching on an electric kettle the water got colder instead of hotter, then the organisation of knowledge consequent upon an inevitable sequence of things would be impossible.

It does not follow then that inevitability pre-supposes the powerlessness of humans. It can, in fact, imply the contrary. Thus, for example, if the Moscow Dynamos were to meet a scratch village eleven we could say the result would be inevitable. This would not be because of the inability of the scratch side to kick a ball but of the highly trained athletic power of the Dynamos.

Now the working class in Capitalist society constitute not only the bulk of the population but are a highly trained productive class. Potentially they are the most powerful social group and the only section capable of basically transforming existing social conditions. When Marx spoke of social inevitability he was not as vulgar critics such as Eastman and Isaiah Berlin contend, postulating mysterious agencies beyond the control of humans, but had in mind the latent powers resident in the working class.

Marxists recognise, however, that inevitability has a twofold character; one of denial as well as one of affirmation. From one aspect it can be considered as a restraint on human power. From another, a source of possibilities and opportunities. Thus Capitalism through its social productive agencies constitutes a fetter on the free and fullest use of human skills and productive resources; just as the ownership of these productive resources by a class gives them power over the lives of others and inhibits their free development. Only in a classless society can human activity be equal, creative and shared.

If then extant society gives rise to certain social consequences inseparable from its existence, i.e. if “A” always affects “B” then, in order to eliminate “B” we must get rid of “A.” It is this recognition of the “must” which makes possible our decision to achieve the “ought.” Because the pressures and conflicts of Capitalism are permanent, powerful and pervasive, it becomes not a matter of preoccupation for the few but the concern of the many. If “A” is then a necessary condition for “B” this itself promotes the idea and need of getting rid of the cause. To say that in a system such as Capitalism which generates the consequences of its existence as a continuous and cumulative process men will never, never be able to correctly diagnose their social ills is to condemn them to a moronic level utterly out of keeping with their own history.

The Marxist concept of inevitability links the negative and positive aspect of the social situation and reveals the driving force of social change.

Socialists do not deny human will and choice. What they say is that if men are to raise themselves to a truly human stature this exploitative set-up where magic and myth, charlatanism and violence are agencies through which social problems are mediated, must go and the choice can only be a social arrangement of free and equal access to social wealth. Given the means the choice is inevitable.

Among the critics of Marx, and they are numerous, are those who fail to grasp the aspects of affirmation and denial in the concept of inevitability. For them social laws are another name for pre-determinism or an animistic notion of causality. They regard society, if they can commit themselves to such an organised notion, as a laissez-faire arrangement which can be altered and re-altered like a meccano set. Having no social charts or compass they remain as “free” as a cockle boat in mid-ocean.

There is also irony in the criticism of Marxism which asserts that not only is Marx’s inevitability, fatalism, but Socialism is utterly impossible. To the Marxist “aye” they can only counter with an everlasting “nay.” Their inevitability is shot through and through with fatalism, a sublime belief that inscrutable agencies control men and make it impossible for them to master a world.

Such critics can be shown on analysis to be supporters of the “eternal status quo.” For that reason their misunderstanding of Marxism is perhaps—inevitable.

Ted Wilmott

50 Years Ago: Are We Progressing? (1983)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

The two theories found most frequently among those who will not listen to the Socialist case are not confined to any one political party, but are common among Liberals and Tories, Labourites and Communists. The first is the theory that conscious organised action to achieve Socialism is not necessary because, in spite of appearances, “things are getting constantly better and better.”

The second is the theory that conscious organised action need not be taken, because everything will go on getting worse and worse until there is a really terrifying crash “which will simply force people to do something”.

Yet both theories are unsound — neither the gradual accumulation of social reforms, nor the periodical outbursts of violence solves the problems which face us. To see that this is so it is only necessary to glance over the events of the past 30 years. In spite of wars and upheavals, Labour governments and dictatorships, capitalism persists without any essential change for better or worse. It makes a little adjustment here and another there, it replaces one set of rulers by another set, it calls things by different names, but the same essential capitalism is here with us yet.

(From an editorial: “Are we Progressing? Hopes and hears for Socialism”, Socialist Standard, October 1933)

The Inevitability of Socialism. (1905)

From the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are told by the poet that:—

”Two principles in human nature reign,

Self love to urge and reason to restrain.”

Another principle which manifests itself as an essential feature of our common human nature is sentiment or altruism.

Now if we take these three principles and apply them to our everyday lives do we find anything in them which would lead us to hope for greater progress towards Socialism in the future than in the past? It is natural that man should strive to secure the good things of life—as he understands them—for himself. It is a platitude that the human heart is buoyed up with selfishness. Everywhere we are told that man is ready to secure his own advantage at the expense of his fellow.

A RESULT OF MAN’S SELF-LOVE

is that he naturally envies his fellow who is more richly endowed with the good things of this life. When therefore we have a class who are living in a condition of inferiority to another class we must expect that sooner or later the former will seek for as good conditions as the latter. The working-class in every capitalist country finds itself situated in such a condition of inferiority. Whether it is the means for satisfying the physical, intellectual or emotional side of his nature, the worker is faced with the fact that he receives not the best but the worst which his time and country produces.

It is true that the rich are not altogether free from the evil results of their own advantages. A condition of their class privilege is the exploitation, or robbery, of the worker. When the worker has by his labour turned the raw material into manufactured product the employer takes the whole of the finished article as his own. Out of its value he offers—if he sees the possibility of personal gain—a small fraction to the worker to continue the work of producing.

THE CONSEQUENCE FOR THE WORKER

is cheap clothing, cheap food, insanitary housing, all of them conditions making for the germination of disease. But alas ! it is impossible for the capitalist to give the worker a complete monopoly of disease. The air, impregnated with its germs, is carried by all the winds of Heaven even into the palatial residences of the rich. Here it meets with women and children possessing a hot-house culture, and the results are that the capitalist conscience is for a brief moment awakened. Soon, however, the heart of our modern Pharaoh is hardened, and the conscience is again lulled to sleep. With the worker, however, the trouble is everlasting. Disease is always with him and he tends to become angry with conditions which mean the loss of some loved one through the ravages of a remediable disease.

The spirit of altruism—the desire for the welfare of his fellows is a characteristic of the modern man. We all know how quickly he responds to the telling of the story of some good deed, how he sympathises with the pathos, aye, and with the bathos of many a life history. His heart thrills when he hears of brave men risking their lives for the lives of their fellows, his most popular literature is that wherein

VIRTUE TRIUMPHS AND VICE IS REPELLED.

Vicious and cruel actions raise a storm of indignation within him.

True, all these emotions are futile to prevent him from wrong doing, from, under the influence of competitive conditions, harming as much as possible those with whom he competes. But it shows that man once rid of his sordid capitalist environment would rise to a higher level both of self-esteem and of altruism than is possible in a society based upon the individual ownership of property.

When self-love and altruism combine in the mind of the worker to force him to seek a betterment of the economic conditions of his class he can by the exercise of his reasoning faculties acquire a knowledge of the means whereby such betterment is to be secured. He looks around him and sees the actual conditions of existence—the worker poor, the non-worker rich—and he is constrained to ask why those who do the work of the community are deprived of the fullest measure of enjoyment from the fruits of that work.

This question can only be answered by an investigation into

THE CONDITIONS OF WORK,

of wealth production. This study is two-fold, historical and economical. From historical research the student learns that present day methods of production are of no great antiquity. It is by no means permanent in its nature. He analyses the processes which have led from the old local handicrafts system with its mysteries and jealousy between rival towns to the worldwide capitalist production which now prevails. He sees that in the evolution which led to this result a revolution in industrial processes has occurred, and that the relations of those engaged in industrial operations have also been revolutionised.

Under the handicraft system the worker was the owner of his tool, and of the product of his labour; to-day the worker has ceased to own his tools. The machine has become the most important factor in production, and this is owned by a class who do not take any part in the production. As a result of this

DIVORCE OF THE WORKER

from his means of production, and of his possessing nothing but his power of working, a condition has arisen whereby he can be forced to sell himself in order to maintain his life.

Examining the actual methods of this capitalist system our student finds that so long as the system of capitalist production with its individual ownership of the means of wealth production prevails, so long must the worker sell his activity—become a slave—and so long must the corollaries of this slavery, disease, misery, want, poverty, and degradation continue.

The worker bringing his reason to bear upon the facts acquired by a historical and economic examination of wealth production will be forced to the conclusion that the element which is the cause of all the trouble is the fact that wealth is individually owned, and individually controlled. As a result of this control the owners of wealth are enabled to monopolise all the benefits accruing from science and invention—while the worker is given

A TRAVESTY OF AN EDUCATION

based upon the knowledge of two centuries ago.

When he realises this he will conclude that it is only by removing this refractory element from our modes of wealth production, and taking social possession of what has become a social service, that is to say of the community taking complete ownership and control of the whole of the material conditions of life that a remedy can be obtained from the evils which beset us.

That this time is coming rapidly nearer is every day more apparent. A society based upon the communal ownership of wealth is coming every day more and more near. This society of the future will be based upon a condition which will prevent

A SORDID RIVALRY OF MATERIAL INTERESTS

between man and man. Competition for profit will have vanished. The antagonism of classes will have disappeared, and it will be possible for man to really harmonise his self-interest with the interest of his fellows in a society which satisfies his reason.

Life in such a society where man dominates machinery and wins more and more power over nature, wresting from her her innermost secrets not for the benefit of a few but for the good of all, will be pleasant and men will pass from the cradle to the grave free from any of the carking cares of capitalism. Such a life is possible only when Socialism is achieved, and it is the duty of every man to hasten the day which shall give humanity so great in need of joy.

Robert Elrick

Letter: What capitalism depends on (1975)

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

The Socialist Standard welcomes letters for
 publication, putting questions about the Socialist case 
or commenting on articles.

What capitalism depends on 

I have been a reader of the Socialist Standard for the past three years and would not hesitate to call myself an SPGB sympathiser. However I sometimes doubt whether Socialism will ever come about. I have no doubts that it is the only logical and democratic society, but it seems that the capitalist class through its control of the means of socialization — the television, the press, in advertising and the educational system, together with its control of the means of production can continue to dominate indefinitely.

It also appears that capitalism can ride crises which it creates and even come through the same as ever without causing the working class to realize its follies and become politically conscious and support the SPGB. As E. Hardy said in the debate with Sir Keith Joseph "There has been a growing recognition that perhaps Marx was right. Then in the years between the wars a blight fell upon the world. Its name was Keynes . . .” Thus it seems that it was quite easy for the capitalist politicians to talk of "interest rates," “the circular flow of income," and "Government investment" in relation to unemployment instead of the crucial theory of surplus value, neatly avoiding the truth.

Obviously Socialism cannot come about overnight as it requires the understanding of how the capitalist system works by the working class. However, is it not true that we are no further along the road to a society based upon common ownership of the means of production than we were in 1904?

Finally, in relation to what I have already written do you endorse the view of the SPGB in The Nature of Politics by J. D. B. Miller when he writes "They are not daunted by smallness and ineffectiveness, arguing that everyone will come round to their view in the end, or that mankind is, in general, too stupid to see what is good for it” ?

Adrian Walker

Liverpool, 8.

Reply:

On the points raised by the quotation you give, it is true that we are not daunted by reason of our size: we have no need to be with the strength and accuracy of the case supporting us. Although Socialism has by no means been attained, it does not follow that the SPGB is ineffective. Wherever our literature is read, or our position put at meetings of all sorts, many people express — as you have done — a sympathy with our Object and often an agreement with our analysis of capitalism.

The last two points of the quotation are contradictory, yet, if either were correct, the SPGB would need to carry out no more activity. We argue that once workers understand our ideas fully, they will desire and work for Socialism. This is not put forward as a proposition to reach "in the end” but now. This is why we are active now. The quotation’s sneering rejection of workers’ ability to attain the necessary understanding must represent the personal view of its writer. It has never been our view.

You say "capitalism can ride crises which it creates” but remember that in practical terms it rides them only with the active support of the working class. Capitalism cannot carry on without this support, whether in crises or not. Workers are hoodwinked and misled to this end. The point being that the stronger our voice, the more workers will recognize the real alternative to be attained.

Editors.

Letters: Trade Unions & Jobs (1975)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade Unions & Jobs

You have repeatedly pointed out, in the SS that membership of a Political Party, other than the SPGB, only strengthens Capitalism and brings Socialism not a wit nearer. Your reasoning compels me to accept the logic of this viewpoint. The Labour Party, beloved by so many of the working class, has proved itself a hypocritical fraud on innumerable occasions.

One of the main props of the Labour Party, the Trades Unions, must also support Capitalism as they are a reformist body and nowhere do they support Socialism, therefore it follows that membership of the SPGB and any Trade Union are irreconcilable, or so I should have thought. Could I have your thoughts on this.

I should also like your views on another point that has been bothering me. In the April edition of the SS paragraph 3 page 63, R. Barltrop says that unemployment means a loss of respect for the worker. As I am unemployed I would concur, but how can you advocate employment when to work degrades us to the position of being a mere wage slave. Surely the SPGB should not concern itself with employment, full or otherwise. The object of the Party is the establishment of Socialism, there are plenty of other parties to concern themselves with such things.

P. Steed,

Tyne & Wear

Reply

We are aware of the limitations of Trade Unions but workers are in a better position to bargain over pay and conditions if they are organized in a Union. The jobs of some of our members may necessitate their Union membership. No Socialist pays the political levy to the Labour Party.

In the article you mention, past Labour Party aims concerning unemployment were contrasted with the fact that, despite the Welfare State, unemployment is still a dread prospect for the working class. It is essential to be well informed about capitalism the better to show that the system has outlived its usefulness. This does not mean we advocate reform of the problems we analyze. You will not find Socialists in the ranks of those demanding “the right to work”. In fact the article said that reform cannot remove a problem “in-built in capitalism”. As you rightly say the object of the SPGB is Socialism.

Editors.

Can We Predict ?

The article “Is Socialism Inevitable?” is a model of left-wing revolutionary positivism, and underlines the crude deterministic interpretation given by the SPGB to the Materialist Conception of History.

Let me remind your readers of the sentiments expressed. “Socialist society will be the result of historical necessity. There is a law of social development which traces the birth, growth and decay of social systems . . . its scientific validity has been demonstrated repeatedly . . . Socialist ideas are indestructible and cannot be destroyed any more than you can abolish the law of gravity”.

Comparison is therefore made between the “laws” of natural science and those social laws of development supposedly discovered by Marx and Engels. As the Law of Gravity enables us to predict with certainty that the apple will fall, so the social laws enable us to predict with equal certainty the eventual fall of capitalism.

Such is the stuff of which dreams (and SPGB dogma) are made. Evolutionary positivism, with its portrayal of nature and a vast mechanical structure operated by the laws of science now long since expired — put out of its misery by Planck and Einstein. Events can no longer be predicted with certainty only with a degree of statistical probability. The apple does not necessarily fall, neither do men necessarily become “conscious of the need for social change”.

But this is perhaps a philosophical (do I hear you say bourgeois?) quibble. A more serious objection to be made against assertions such as “There is a social law of development which traces the birth, growth and decay of social systems” is that no distinction is made therein between a law and a trend. A law is a statement of regularity such that of two classes of event the occurrence of an event of the other kind. A knowledge of the laws which hold in a given situation is never by itself sufficient to enable us to predict. To predict we must know both the relevant laws, which enable us to infer correctly from the occurrence of certain causes, the occurrence of certain effects — and in addition, the antecedent and concomitant conditions which hold. A man who tries to make predictions without a knowledge of these is a man who tries to infer the conclusion “an event of type Y (e.g. men changing society) will occur”, with the premise whenever an event of type X occurs (e.g. men seeking and gaining Socialist knowledge), an event of type Y will occur, without seeing that he can only derive his conclusion validly if he is also able to assert that “an event of type X will occur” — and to do this he must be certain that no external interests will prevent the occurrence of an event of type X. Can you be certain that these will not occur, can you be certain for instance that reformist propaganda will not continue to spread?

A trend is a sequence of historical events moving in a certain uniform direction. Clearly one cannot predict a trend without knowledge of both the relevant laws and the relevant antecedent and concomitant conditions; when the SPGB and its mentor Engels try to predict trends unconditionally that is, independently of antecedent and accompanying circumstances, they are both mistaken.

T. J. Caulfield, 

Manchester

Reply

Our correspondent’s criticism amounts to this: (1) the SPGB interprets the Materialist Conception of History is a crude deterministic way: (2) that it is impossible to predict the eventual fall of capitalism: (3) that men do not necessarily become conscious of the need for social change; (4) we do not distinguish between a law and a trend.

Our correspondent objects to our maintaining that there is a social law governing the activities of men living in society. The law referred to in the text of the article is the law of social growth known as the Materialist Conception of History, which explains the rise, growth and decay of social systems throughout history, and the reasons why social change occurs. He appears to recognize the existence of the MCH but attacks us because of our alleged crude deterministic interpretation of the theory. We are left in the dark as to what his interpretation is, as he offers no evidence, nor does he state his own view. He claims that we predict the demise of capitalism without having any knowledge of the factors involved. Again, he does not name the factors which we have failed to take into account. He accuses us of confusing laws with trends: a trend he tells us is a “sequence of historical events moving in a uniform direction”, but he adds that you cannot predict this trend without knowledge of the relevant law. But even this is insufficient. We must also know the antecedent and concomitant conditions in addition to knowing the law. We find this very confusing. The law of social growth to which the article refers is a scientific proposition and as such takes into account all the factors dealing with the evolution of society, past, present and future. It is these factors which go to make up the law. Whoever heard of a metereologist predicting the weather without taking into account all the factors involved — wind, sun, time of year, local conditions, etc? It is part of the science of metereology that everything that relates to that particular science is considered. So it is with the science of socialism. It is a historical fact that men, again and again, socially organized in different social classes, did take part did become conscious of their conflicting interests in class struggles, did change the basis of society, and did promote the unrestricted development of the productive forces. What is there to prevent men doing this again? Surely, if through a study of the evolution of human society you are able to identify a pattern of social change and development, and the causes responsible, you are entitled to arrive at certain conclusions as to the future course of social change. We predict correctly that capitalism causes unemployment, crises, war and poverty. We explain the laws governing its operation. In the same way we predict that we will get control of the political machinery when we have a majority of Socialists. At the moment we do not know the speed of the socialist revolution but we do know its specific direction. We are certain of our goal and of the efficacy of the methods we use to achieve it.

The substance of our correspondent’s letter suggests to us that the writer does not wish to be hampered in his criticism by the existence of the laws of history and economics, and would prefer to keep his purely negative criticism on some academic philosophical level. For our part, the simple issue is — are the historical conditions present which will enable Socialism to be established; can the workers understand Socialism and establish it, and where are the factors which prevent it?

Editors.

Fair Comment

Let no-one say the readers of the Socialist Standard are uncritical! In the May issue, in writing of the “Myth of the Middle Class”, I commented: “There’s no such thing as fairness in fixing the price of labour-power, any more than in the fixing of the market price of any other commodity.”

In case these words seem ambiguous (and I have at least one critic sharpening his hatchet), I wish to stress that I was not saying that wages are unfair. In general, labour-power is sold at or around its value — like other commodities.

The point I was trying to make is that all talk of fairness (or unfairness) in connection with wages, the price of our labour-power, is as irrelevant as talk of a fair or just price for a house. The question of fairness just doesn’t come into the picture. Perhaps it ought to, but that’s not how capitalism works.

I would like to add that capitalism’s inefficiency is, if anything, understated in the Socialist Standard. For instance, in the article on “The Housing Shortage”, we learn that it takes almost 21 months to complete a dwelling for local authorities and over 14 months to completion in the private sector. Yet on a Woking site some houses on a prepared site were built in May from start to finish in the course of one week. I repeat, one week. On the assumption that site preparation took about 3 weeks on average, that gives 4-6 weeks as necessary time from the production side. The rest of these endless months are presumably frittered away in legal and financial haggling, tax juggling and the like. Meanwhile the tele-pundits wring their hands and wonder why there are battered wives and battered babies, broken families and millions taking pills for unhappiness and depression . . .

Finally we should note that capitalism does one thing very well indeed. It is continually producing evidence to support our arguments. In April I wrote that “even Civil Servants go on strike”. By the time the May Standard reached its readers, the university dons and professors had followed suit, and as of now the hospital consultants are still in dispute with the NHS. No wonder John Gorst’s Middle Class Association was still-born!

C. Sultan, 

Woking

The Helping Hand

I read with great interest your article “Charity begins and never ends”. As a receiver and a giver of capitalist charity you put me in a great dilemma. Looking at the problem of the homeless from both sides I ask myself how does one get these humans politically orientated towards a socialist programme. I find the answer, sad as it may seem, negative. Do I now await the great day while my friends on the embankment die of exposure and malnutrition, or do I continue to try and rehouse and feed these unfortunate people? I would like your opinion on this.

One point about your article; you state the Salvation Army provided 8,001,323 meals and 1,636,578 beds. This is very misleading. The Sally Army charge extortionate prices for the food and shelter; dormitory accommodation at 80p a night, tea at 5p a cup etc. which is another example of capitalist exploitation.

George Watts,

London S.W.1

Reply

Over the years we have been asked many times about the plight of those in desperate need, the implication being that solving their problems could not wait for Socialism. So decades of well-meaning effort have been wasted in attempts to solve the problems in isolation from their cause. Socialists are not different from other individuals in that we will give in a personal way such help as we are able to those we find in distress — but one of the reasons why we are in the Socialist Party is our awareness that the distress remains as a social problem. When attempts to relieve distress are put on an organized basis, the inevitable result is reform movements perpetuating it. A little help to friends is part of being human, but not to be confused with the need to change society.

Editors.

Population & Plumage

You should be ashamed of yourselves for attacking Thomas Malthus. By attacking Malthus you are helping the Catholic Church and also the so-called Communist Party. The wise man has always had bother from the masses as well as the boss-class. You should know the boss-class like the ignorant masses to have big families so they can get more cheap labour.

Your Party does rather keep within the bounds of legality. One good way to refute that reputation would be for Party members to be more non-conformist in dress. Most people are cowardly conformist in dress. Why not some Marxist clothing? I should like to see garments with “Abolition of the wages system”, "Why tolerate buying and selling?” and the head of Karl Marx. Why not be different?

J. E. Catercole,

London N.4.

Reply

The Catholic Church does not oppose birth-control from enthusiasm for Malthus, but for its own reasons. The argument that by attacking a false theory one is helping different opponents of it would, if heeded, prevent any criticism of anything. We criticize Malthus because he was wrong.

The Socialist Party keeps “within the bounds of legality” because that is the means to attain our Object, not for the sake of reputation. If you like garments with slogans and pictures, by all means wear them; but don’t imagine that conformity or non-conformity in dress has anything to do with working for Socialism.

Editors.

More About Art

Your reply to my letter “Art and the Ruling Class” (May SS) seemed to me to be quite superficial. Because of your assumption that Historical Materialism can explain all art and aesthetic tastes then, no doubt, from your point of view I am confused.

You say if the ideas embodied in Beethoven’s music — or Shakespeare’s plays or Burns’s poems — did not come from society, where did they come from? The obvious answer to that is from the minds of these creative men of genius. Can you explain Burn’s “Tam O’Shanter” through economics? And what had Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” to do with capitalist society?

And again, why did the Muslims who believed in the same God as the Christians build mosques and not cathedrals? What is the historical materialistic explanation of the aesthetic taste of the Muslims? And why did the Chinese prefer pagodas to Indian temples?

You also talk about Socialist art, but where is it, and what is it?

Ron Smith,

Dundee

Reply

Part of your letter is not reproduced because it only repeats assertions made in the previous one. It will be in place here to recall a line from Goldsmith’s The Deserted Village:

E’en though vanquish’d, he could argue still.

We do not at all dispute that there are differences in ability among people: good poets, composers, engineers, etc., while the capabilities of others run in different directions. Do you imagine that Socialists don’t appreciate Shakespeare, Beethoven and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner? We say of the arts what Marx said of all human activity: “Man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of the whole cloth, he does not make it out of conditions chosen by himself, but out of conditions such as he finds close at hand.”

This is opposite to your sweeping claim that it all comes from “the minds of these creative men of genius”. You do not mention Shelley, but he wrote: “The mass of capabilities remains at every period materially the same; the circumstances which awaken it to action perpetually change.”

Variations in architecture arise from the technical means available: in particular the local materials and the state of scientific knowledge. Building a pointed arch requires the solving of a mathematical problem (which precedes “aesthetic taste” in the matter). Classical Greek architecture was the elaboration of the one arch-shape available — the lintel — in the material available. Its magnificence shows those restrictions caused by the organization of society to have been the source of what you would call works of genius.

Likewise, other architectural forms have been the making grandiose of one of two shapes which were technically possible — the round arch, the ogee, and so on — and of structural necessities like the buttress. Why the ancient Egyptians did not build a St. Paul’s can be explained from their stage of society, but not by words like “preference”.

Socialist art is the products of man in the Socialist future.

Editors.

Women's Lib, Go Home

When the equal pay for Women Law becomes operative hell will be let loose, and Speaker’s Corner (where the SPGB speak). Charing X Road and Lincoln Inn Fields won’t be in the picture !

Women only use the industrial field as a stop-gap till such times as they get married, then the men become enslaved and tied up with capitalism more than ever!

The capitalist class don’t fear women on the industrial field as they can easily be used, thus increasing the profits of the capitalist class.

Women under capitalism play a rôle, a dominant middle rôle, and playing a rôle is not the same as being a product of capitalism. If my remarks are correct, then it is the duty of all men to avoid and not work with women on the economic jungle.

R. J. Todd,

London S.E.17

Reply

We hope you will soon feel better. In the meantime, give some thought to the following.

First, women have had equal pay in a number of occupations for several years. Have you noticed hell being let loose among teachers or Civil Servants?

Second, you want women out of "the economic jungle” but say that marriage makes men worse enslaved in capitalism. If you had your way on the first count you would be still more discontented on the second: men would then have to support not only wives but non-working daughters, sisters and others.

Third, you do not explain how women getting equal pay would increase the profits of the capitalist class. The latter do not seem to be grasping the opportunity you discern. The Equal Pay Act has been on the statute book since 1970, and the complaint of those specially interested in it is of lack of progress and a general lack of concern on the part of employers.

We do not understand your remarks about “a dominant middle rôle”. Middle of what?

Editors.