Letter: Morality (1975)

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

Morality

Some years ago I read in the Standard that Socialism has nothing to do with morality, that it concerns practical decisions. This point, academic no doubt, has stuck in my mind over the years because I could not reconcile it. Did I, perhaps misinterpret what I read?

It seems to me that in the relationship between people there must be a moral element, implied if not expressed, and that factor will have a bearing on the kind of society created. Is not classless Socialism where all are given equal consideration according to their needs morally superior to the egoistic rivalry and financial divisions, injustice and inequality of a class system? I would appreciate your comment on this.

Taking the opportunity presented by the above question I enclose a recent letter to the Press “The capitalist way”. I would welcome any critical comment you might care to make on my letter. Although I have been interested in Socialism for the past twenty or thirty years and have badgered the Press when possible, I am still learning.

W. Walker 

Northumberland.

Reply:

Capitalism disgusts us, and most Socialists would say that their outlook is rooted in indignation at what they have experienced and seen. Nevertheless, the case for Socialism must be based on material interests and not ideas of moral superiority.

Whatever enrages you and us by its inhumanity and unreasonableness in the capitalist world, in fact arises from the class ownership of the means of living. Articles in the Socialist Standard point this out: it is the Socialist (materialist) analysis in contradistinction from beliefs that all can be made well by adjustments of capitalism, or by changes in attitudes and “values”.

Large numbers of capitalists and workers do profess moral attitudes. Political speeches abound in them. But what happens in practice, inexorably, is that “necessity” —i.e. the daily compulsions of capitalism—reduces them to either humbug or impractical personal philosophies. Everyone disapproves of wars, “the rat race”, and misery of all kinds: all who support capitalism go on doing (often expressing reluctance and impotence) the things which cause them.

On the question of relationships between people, we think you have been seduced by one of the claims made by religions and ethics—that “the brotherhood of man” is their preserve and depends on adopting their viewpoint. Man is a social creature with a natural tendency to co-operation and order; if he were not, we should not be here today. Class society opposes that tendency, setting man against man when neither wants it. In this circumstance “love thy neighbour” appears as a special moral teaching, but it is redundant.

Our position is the one stated by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto: instead of seeking morality, justice, etc., we want to do away with them and have Socialism instead. As ways of thinking about capitalist life they obstruct, not facilitate, harmonious relationships between men. And when Socialism is established, people will be able to behave as you, quite correctly, want them to; to cite Marx again, we shall have “human” instead of “civil” society.

Editors.

Sans ceremony. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The effect of the recent decision of Mr. Justice Neville in the case where action was taken against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants by one of its own members, on the ground that contributions by the Society to the funds of the Labour Party were illegal, is that any association of the working class has a right to do what it likes with its own. According to Lord Wolverhampton (Daily Chronicle, 21/7/08) “the whole complicated machinery of civilisation is carried on by the working class,” “upon whom society depends.”

***

The whole of society depends upon the work of the working class. The working class is entitled to do what it likes with its own—the wealth it produces as a result of its work. Therefore it is established that the working class may legally proceed to expropriate Lord Wolverhampton and the rest of the dependent capitalists who, without legal title, annex anything between two-thirds and four-fifths of the wealth produced by the workers.

***

As law-abiding and right-respecting citizens, Lord Wolverhampton and his fellow capitalists will, of course, cheerfully resign themselves to the process—I don’t think !

***

Much outcry has recently been raised by “humanitarians” against the method of feeding pythons in the Zoological Gardens with live kids. The Socialist outcry is against the capitalist python feeding upon live children. “Humanitariamsm,” when distinguished from Socialism, is cant or ignorance.

***

Mr. Vanderlyn, F.Z.S., claims against the “Humanitarians” that the feeding of the Zoological pythons is a satisfaction of Nature’s demands which has for its result “the survival of the fittest.” The anti-Socialist “Humanitarians” in the field of human effort make the same claim.

***

The survival of the fittest is an expression of a natural law operating under all conditions. The conditions prevailing at any given time determine the character of the product of the law. Under conditions of exploitation the biggest robber survives. Under conditions conducive to the production of muddle-headedness, the “Humanitarian,” the “Ethicist,” and the rest of them survive. Under Socialism the workers survive. Natural law justifies nothing. It explains many things.

***

Mr. Th. Rothstein, S.D.P. Executive, quotes (Justice, 11/7/08) from the organ of Bronterre O’Brien, this passage: “Oh, Baring, Baring! (Baring was the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days) many a better man than you was hanged at the lamp-post; and our sincere prayer is that no Englishman may ever again suffer for burglary or sheep stealing so long as enormous culprits like you cheat the gallows of its due.”

***

We have a weakness in the Socialist Standard for downright language. Our delight is to call spades, spades, but when we do, we are, according to Mr. Rothstein’s fellow members of the S.D.P., merely abusive. Nevertheless, Mr. Rothstein properly applauds the “robust fashion” of Bronterre O’Brien’s criticism, and thinks it a “sickly generation” that is too respectable to emulate it. I hope now, that Mr. Rothstein will lead the S.D.P. to see that we are doing them a power of good by shewing them in “robust fashion” the error of their ways. Because they are still miles out of the proper track, and not being a “sickly generation” we shall not be too respectable to tell them a lot more unpleasant truths before we are through. I should be glad to know they are in a mind to appreciate the force of our criticism. Perhaps Mr. Rothstein will drop me a line when the conversion is complete.

Alegra.

Letter: More than emotion (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

More than emotion

Thank you for printing my letter “Spiritual Matters” and your reply. I think for the most part I have to agree with you, although I have been partly misunderstood.

In using the word “mere” in connection with explanations I meant “solely” and not in the sense of trivial and unworthy of attention. A work of art can be analyzed and explained, but this will not necessarily explain why they create an emotional response. This, as far as I am aware, is peculiar to Man and differentiates him from other animals. This response is a contemplative condition and “spiritual” is the only word I know to describe it, although you would probably prefer to keep to “emotional”. To me it is something more than emotion.

Your extract from J. W. Draper’s History of the Intellectual Development of Europe was well chosen but I didn’t say that spiritual conditions are independent of physical forces. An explanation of the earth’s axis of rotation doesn’t help me to understand why Man should glory in the phenomena. In talking of spirituality you seem to have assumed that I meant an ability to appreciate beauty. I didn’t say this. I don’t know what beauty is and certainly, as you say, ideas about it can change in time and place. Love, hate, compassion, aspiringness, pride, indignation, joy — are these not things of the spirit? and although related to physical conditions I wonder if they can be fully accounted for by them. Why should Man be moved to these states of mind? Indeed, why Socialism, which concerns itself with the wellbeing of the human race?

Your point about ridding the mind of cant is taken, but I see no reason to bar membership to anyone holding similar views to those I have expressed. It is not helping the SPGB to spread its message.

George Pearson

London S.W.20

Reply

Man produces emotional reactions to stimuli simply because he is physically equipped to do so. Darwin, in his Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, put forward three principles in broad explanation of them. It is now generally accepted that the experience in feeling or emotion depends on the activity of centres in the portion of the brain known as the hypothalamus. However, the forms the reactions take are dependent on social custom and law. In the opinion of some experimenters, smiling and laughter are respiratory phenomena which, being approved or rewarded, are “selected” as socially appropriate (while other respiratory or expressive mechanisms are disapproved). The difference in usage between emotional reactions and “spiritual” ones is that the latter term is reserved for more highly sanctioned spheres of interest.

You have missed the purpose of the quotation from Draper and the remarks about social conditioning. You say the mechanical explanation does not tell us “why Man should glory in the phenomena”. Our point was that Man does not glory in it. Some men do, under some circumstances. A simple illustrative story is of the townsman and the farmer together gazing at the landscape: the townsman rhapsodizes about the multi-coloured vista, the farmer spits and says “Thirty-bob-an-acre stuff”.

However, in your repeated question about SPGB membership we suspect another kind of misapprehension about materialism. Obviously you value emotional experience: so do Socialists. To understand the reasons for phenomena does not dissolve or disvalue them. We may know that being in love is a combination of the activity of hormones, certain portions of the central nervous system, and the social climate; that does not at all exempt us from it. Materialists appreciate works of art and sunsets too.

Editors.

The man on the flying trapeze (1975)

From issue number 2 (1975) of The Western Socialist

A chronic(le) expounder of "simpleminded" politics tells it like it is not!

Charles McCabe is a newspaper Journalist who writes a dally column for the San Francisco Chronicle. He is widely regarded around these parts as a liquor drinking philosopher; a commentator upon man’s many foibles, his failures and his successes, but an Omar Khayyam he is not. A wiseacre yes, and when in his cups a savant of no mean regard.

Now Mr. McCabe Is one of those high-wire journalists, who is able — so it would seem — to oscillate effortlessly from problem to problem, subject to subject, without so much as even a casual glance at the danger below. Or even regard for the accuracy of his undoubted mental gymnastics. He is, to boot, a latter day Cassandra. A self-proclaimed Humanist, a Liberal-Anarchist, going along with J. S. Mill who “argues not only for political freedom but social freedom, not only against the tyranny of the majority but also against the social tyranny of prevailing conventions and opinions.” So he says.

So last Monday’s (1/27/75) sermon to the “laity” (McCabe’s term) was no less tendentious than most if not all of Mr. McCabe’s intellectual carousing.

Friendship vs. Politics

It seems that Mr. Alistair Cooke, who is well known on both sides of the Atlantic (whereas Mr. McCabe only this side) in a recent talk to the BBC made this observation : “To be close only to people who share your own political views and prejudices is not only a terrible restriction on the world of friendship, but is a denial of life itself, since life itself is a good deal larger and richer and more complicated than politics.”

Now no one but a myopic wombat would deny that life without friendship would indeed be a very sad mess of pottage. But for Alistair Cooke to claim that life as we now experience it is larger than politics and more complicated to boot, is a proposition of another vintage.

However, as I have said before, Mr. McCabe is no slouch, and if the wind is in the right direction, he will dribble niftily along any old intellectual tightrope, not only not caring whether it sags in the middle — and this one certainly does — but proclaiming his unqualified support with Alistair Cooke’s statement with the following unctuous observation: “A well-put statement as nearly all of Mr. Cooke's are, and one very near to my heart, as nearly all of Mr. Cooke’s sentiments are.”

Mr. McCabe then goes on to compound Mr. Cooke's naivete with the sure-fire prerogative of the ignorant by proclaiming “My politics are, in fact, rather simpleminded. I’m against all well-intentioned kindnesses to others, apart from the essential kindness of letting them do their own thing within the framework of laws against hurting, killing and stealing.’’ (Wanna bet!)

In support for this muddled-thinking, Mr. McCabe (who is also a name-dropper) drags in poor old Mrs. Patrick Campbell’s trite remark about homosexuals “It doesn’t matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.’’ The irrelevance of this quote by Mr. McCabe, in relation to the substance of his article, would make Mrs. Campbell and the horses whinny in their graves.

The milk and water approach to human affairs as evinced by Mr. McCabe is touching, and no doubt would get a lot of votes from most sections of a befuddled populace! it is therefore pertinent to ask of Mr. McCabe whether his sentimental approach to violence, killing and stealing would motivate an advocacy against the laws in favour of the appropriation by the capitalist class of the surplus wealth produced by the working class, because it is this particular situation that at base causes the hurting, killing and stealing which Mr. McCabe tells us he finds so objectionable. And also if Mr. McCabe felt so disposed to crusade against capitalism would the columns of the San Francisco Chronicle still be available to him?

Politics Bigger Than He Thinks

Mr. McCabe expresses the view in his column that “politics is but a part of the full life and not so damned big part at that.” Is that so? Let him read the San Francisco Chronicle, for which he writes, and see how much space is allocated to that which is supposed to constitute the full life! Unless he is referring, of course, to the Society Columns.

The blood and guts of the situation is that our whole existence today is dominated by economics, and politics is the stock in trade, the tools we use to deal with the problems spawned from a particular economic predicament—that of poverty amidst plenty.

Capitalism is the society that has long since overcome all of the main problems of production to the extent that all human life could adequately be sustained: its failure, however, lies in its inability to distribute these goods and services which it so obviously hasn’t the power to do. Distribution in capitalist society demands the repository of the market place and the possession of money. The latter presupposes the former.

With the exception of the capitalist class most of us are quarantined to live out our lives on a wage packet. Capitalism’s problem is to dispose of the surplus wealth produced by the working class, for which they do not get paid. If society were able to have free access to this surplus wealth, not only would we then be able to live the full life, but It would mean the end of politics as well.

Politics, political activity, is that function that lays claims to the various opposing interests between (1) rival sections of the capitalist class, primarily over the vexing question of taxation — who shall pay what to whom and how much, and (2) between rival national capitalists the world over. Over the question of markets; cheap or cheaper sources of raw materials; trade routes and spheres for investment; warfare, internecine warfare, is the scenario which politics has to deal with and in the process whole countries are decimated, and many, many more live in constant deprivation. If after this “ball game” there is anything left over to live the “full life” perhaps Mr. Alistair Cooke would care to comment on it, and Mr. Charles McCabe would care to drool about it.

Harry Hamme

Letter: “Emotional Man" (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Emotional Man"

Dear Editors.

The October editorial headed "Cure for the fascist cancer" while expounding some fundamental truth, also contained the persistent and basic flaw that is always present in the advocation of your arguments. Your editorial stated: "Do those who seek to ban them (BNP) believe that workers are so stupid as to fall for fascist nonsense when it is countered in public by clear and logical opposition?"

The answer unfortunately is yes they can. There is sufficient evidence to show that millions of people are incapable of rational thinking.

The cause is not because people are “stupid" but because they are subject to early emotional experiences that can thwart mature development of their objective capabilities to fully overcome repressed and infantile fears in later adult life.

If this were not the case, the countless numbers who have, over many years, heard the Socialist Party, with its "clear and logical" position, would have not only rejected their own previous views but, at least most, would have joined the SPGB.

On the contrary, the observations are that millions not only flock to and vigorously support reactionary political philosophies, but in addition millions more become obsessively addicted to religious rantings of the most primitive and irrational kind.

While I am in agreement with the Socialist Party in its desire for a truly democratic world community, based on common ownership, I find that its lack of a deeper and more positive understanding of “Emotional Man", as opposed to its fixation on purely "Economic Man", is its weakest essential link.

Human beings — this should be self-evident — are not robots and mechanical, but living organisms of much complexity in their inner emotional life.

Political reactionaries (including fascists) and religious advocates always make their appeal to the irrational in "Emotional Man" that repeatedly and successfully recruits millions in each generation to their ranks. Despite the fact that those millions, as a result, act contrary to their own rational interests.

This constant seeking after substitute strong symbolic parental images, in the form of Gods, leaders and powerful nation states of "Motherland" and "Fatherland", should give a conclusive indication of the infantile and "lack of confidence" evident in the human psyche.

The source is not in his "nature" but in the "nurtured" early emotional experience. "Fascism" is not merely a political attitude but the outward expression of inner conflicts that we are all capable of living under certain anxiety conditions.

The increasing demand for Sado-Masochistic style movies and violent horror "comics" by vast numbers of young people worldwide, as some attempt at release from inner conflict, should be of great concern.

Trends are also observed in the presentation style, over the last twenty years, in the music of the young, behaviour at football events, drug-taking and drinking habits. All are symptomatic of outward and inward drives of destructive aggressive behaviour.

The development of new religious cults shows an increase in the infestation of mysticism, particularly in the young.

The danger is that these tensions can be projected onto reality with "fascist" values. As a guide to the difficulties Socialists face, if we are ever to secure a genuine and lasting democratic society, may I recommend two two works: The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich and The Psychopathology of Everyday Life by Sigmund Freud. Until Socialists fully understand and tackle these deep matters, little progress, if any, can be made for a sane society. Failure to recognise this could have the most serious consequences, in this technological age, for the future of our planet.

Lionel M Rich,

London NW6

Reply:

Who says we are fixated on "economic man"? Socialism is about improving all aspects of human life. We even have members who like the ideas of Freud and Reich (though others reject them as unsubstantiated speculations, not to say unscientific nonsense). The point is we all agree that the task of Socialists today is to make more Socialists, by reasoned argument and democratic persuasion. What are you suggesting we do in addition? Organise a campaign of mass psychoanalysis? 

Editors.

Unscientific emotionalism. (1914)

From the December 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The widespread misery of workers in modern times has brought forward two main classes of people claiming to hold the remedy for the social evil. On the one side you have those who, horrified at the miserable conditions everywhere, preach brotherly love, a return to Feudalism, and similar things as a solution for the problem; on the other hand you have the scientific Socialists who, studying societies from the point of view of modern science, regard them as undergoing a process of growth and decay. Thus, instead of attacking the superficial relations in society, the Socialists concern themselves with the centre, the pivot on which the system turns, i.e., the method of producing and distributing wealth, the relation between the masters and the workers, because from this relation springs all the other relations that appear so prominently and make such a show.

Socialists recognise that the technical development (development of the tools) in society has made it possible for small groups to operate large masses of machinery and turn out vast quantities of wealth with a small expenditure of energy ; and that these powerful means of production, if commonly owned, could be economically used for the turning out of only just that amount of wealth required for the needs of all the members of society, and to provide the necessary new means of production for the future. This would necessitate a comparatively insignificant expenditure of energy on the part of each, and leave a great deal of leisure for the cultivation of Science, Art, and so on.

The private ownership of wealth is not only uneconomical, but, owing to the fact that the ruling idea is the enriching of the owners regardless of the consequences to the rest, so soon as the wealth of the owners does not continue to increase, production slackens down, even though this slackening down is the cause of untold misery among the workers. When the ruling idea will be the comfort of all, production will be regulated accordingly.

This view of the “social question” has been forced into the minds of Socialists by the every¬day facts of working-class life which they meet when performing their particular functions in the various industries of the world.

When our method of reasoning is applied back through history, we find that man’s thoughts have always been governed by his inherited notions and the material conditions surrounding him ; and as these conditions have centred around the obtaining of food, clothing, and shelter, so at each period of social history the more or less clear relations that were built up on this basis (the particular relations that existed at the particular time, between the various producers and distributors, of the social wealth) have been reflected in the mind in a correspondingly more or less clear manner. After the break up of the early tribal communities society was split into various classes, and history since then has been the record of the struggles of each class in its turn to control society for its own advantage. When the progress of the method of producing wealth had reached a certain point the class in society that was taking the principal part in production, found the old laws (that were suitable to the existing governing class) placed a restriction on their further development. The problem of the removal of all these restrictions therefore constantly occupies them, and it is then forced home to their minds that the only solution to the problem of the removal of these restrictions is the control of society by themselves, and the alteration of existing laws to suit the new conditions. Just as at present the spectacle of the workers doing all the work of the world forces home to the minds of men the Socialist view that, if the workers produce and distribute all the wealth of society they therefore should own it, and reap the benefit of their work themselves, instead of supporting a group of idlers and good-for-nothings. The solution of the problem is constrained within the problem itself. “Therefore mankind always takes up only such problems as it can solve” (Marx).

This matter of fact view of the question is not palatable to the “Red Revolutionists,” who like a great deal of noise (“Full of sound and fury, signifying—nothing”) ; and the soft-hearted and soft-headed, who think the problem can be solved by reverting to antiquated, out of date societies, and whose views of brotherly love cause them to raise their hands in pious horror at the misery they see among workers, and—thank God for his loving kindness in not placing them in a similar position.

The thinking human mind reasons from particular facts to general conclusions. That is to say, we form in our minds abstract pictures drawn from practical experience. The thinking faculty is an instrument for separating the world of things into groups and sub groups, according to likenesses and differences, in order to gain as complete a picture of the world as possible. For instance, the general picture we have in our minds of a horse (the idea of a horse) is derived from practical experiences of different kinds and colours of horses. Abstract ideas of all kinds are produced in the same way, by everyday experience. The difference between the scientific and the unscientific (who are typified by the emotionalists) is that the former recognise this fact and act upon their knowledge, while the latter (owing to the fact that this reasoning is done partly subconsciously in ordinary affairs) imagine the general conclusions existed first and from all time—that the “Idea” is the thing par excellence. The Socialists reason from the practical affairs of everyday life to general conclusions, while the emotionalists set out with a plan formed in accordance with certain abstract ideas true for all time (!) without taking account of the historical development of society. They try to organise society according to the Idea instead of recognising that the shape their particular ideas take has been formed by society.

The emotionalists and their followers play upon those latent ideas of equality that have lain dormant in the minds of human beings since tribal communism disappeared. Thousands of years of life under this form of society fixed in the mind of man these views of equality, and the development that followed, through Patriarchalism, Feudalism, and Capitalism, although it has driven these ideas into the background, has not eradicated them. During periods of revolution these equalitarian views are used as a bait to entice the mass of the oppressed to the side of the particular class that is struggling for supremacy. During the French Revolution these ideas gave the rising commercial class the slogan with which to arouse the down-trodden serfs to assist them in their battle. Their much-vaunted pleas for equality, however, were afterwards shewn to be the equal right to oppress, the freedom of capitalist enterprise from Feudal bonds, and the liberty of the wage workers to starve.

The emotional school, who come forth with their battle-cry of freedom and equality, are merely reproducing the old ideas of primitive tribal equality, instead of examining the constitution of present society and its historical tendencies, and thus arriving at the correct scientific standpoint. The introduction of private property broke up the old societies ; with the abolition of private property, therefore, and the advent of Socialism, these ideas of equality will again have a chance to appear on the stage—but in fact, and not merely in imagination, and in a much higher form than in the ancient societies, owing to the marvellous development in the control of natural forces, or rather, the knowledge of nature’s laws, that has taken place since those societies broke up.

The forerunners of scientific Socialism : Fourier, St. Simon, and Robert Owen—the first who attempted a scientific explanation of social problems—failed in their constructive efforts, and gave merely Utopian solutions, because (as Engels has so clearly shewn in “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific”) society had not yet advanced to that stage when it could exhibit its historical tendency, machinery being in its infancy, and steam not having yet shown its potencies for revolutionising production.

Once our way of looking at the matter (reasoning from facts and not fantasies) is recognised by the workers, they will no longer be prey for the supporters of capitalism with their metaphysical notions, but will see that there is only one hell about which to worry and that is the hell in reality, the hell of capitalist production in which the wealth producers of the world already find themselves.

Those who adopt the sentimental attitude are of all types, and their views generally are of a very noisy character. The individuals of the Industrial Workers of the World, the Anarchist, the Syndicalist, the “Daily Herald” League (or Leagues !), and similar varieties, believe that the Social Revolution will come along to-morrow or the day after, if you will only kick up a row and run your nose up against police batons, bullets, maxim guns, and such “harmless” instruments of coercion. Others follow the showy method in other directions, as, for instance, the Party that at present goes under the name of the British Socialist Party. This party, not making a great show of numbers, followed the method of changing its name, thinking to emulate the proceedings of a conjuror. This same party recently came to the conclusion (after the failure of its policy of “Swell the ranks and never mind who enters ! Let ’em all come, Syndicalists, Political Actionists, Anarchists, and any old rubbish, what matters so long as we get a crowd”) that they had better consider the advisability of joining the Labour Party (very sound conclusion !) whom they have been denouncing for so many years.

Thus do the emotionalists gain a following and safely pilot them over to the enemy.

As for us who are members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, our ranks may not appear to grow so fast, we do not lay out our stock in fantastic and alluring drapery, but we deal with the hard facts of working-class life from the scientific standpoint banded down to us by previous workers in the same field. We know that in spite of the apparent slowness of our growth, underneath the surface our work is creating among the members of our class, the working class, a growing knowledge of their position in society, and the line along which to act to achieve their freedom. Only those who build, as we do, on the solid rock, can expect the edifice to stand. Those who build on sand will see their work continually obliterated. In any case we have every reason to be satisfied with, our work up to the present, and that knowledge,, combined with the spectacle of the continual downfalls (the re-actionary attitude of all the self-styled “Revolutionaries” on the present capitalist war in Europe is the latest manifestation) of those who sneer at our attitude, will nerve us to still greater exertions in the future.

“For while the tired waves vainly breaking,

Seem here no painful inch to gain,

Far back, through creeks and inlets making,

Comes silent flooding in the main.

“And not by Eastern windows only,

When daylight comes, comes in the light ;

In front, the sun climbs slow, how slowly,

But Westward, look, the land is bright !”

G. McC.

Blogger's Notes:

'G.Mc.' was Gilbert McClatchie. For the majority of his writing life in the Standard he used 'Gilmac' as his pen-name, but like his close comrade, Edgar Hardcastle, ('H.' in the Standard), he didn't not settle on his better known pen-name for a couple of years.

The poem quoted at the end of this article is 'Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth' by Arthur Hugh Clough. It must have been a popular poem in socialist circles in the early days of the SPGB, as this is not the first time I've seen it quoted in the Standard. See here and here.

More Fabian Notes. With Some Fabian Notions. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following letter from a gentleman who suggests that our regard for common honesty will move us to the desired point of publication has been passed to me. If he had appealed to our regard for an uncommon honesty it would have been more to the point. However, here is the communication : —

Dear Comrade,

I am a regular reader of the “Standard” (the monthly, not the daily), and in the current issue I see that one of the features of the March issue is to be an interesting letter on “Why Every Other Political Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B.”

In part the answer is supplied by some of the writings in the Party’s official organ—your own paper. I admire unfettered thinking, and clear, incisive writing, but I wish to lodge a respectful protest against the column-and-a-half entitled “Fabian Notes” in the February issue. It embodies either a ridiculous misapprehension of a sentence used by Mr. H. Snell (and quoted), or a wilful distortion of his obvious meaning—for the purpose of discrediting the Fabians in general. Even if an individual member did entertain the ideas attributed to Snell, it is grossly unfair to brand the whole society on such evidence.

The quotation from Snell’s speech was as follows : “The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts.” In this sentence, “we” most certainly means Socialists generally, and not members of the Fabian Society in particular. Under the Socialist State (unless people should revert to a very simple life—which is unlikely), it is certain that experts will be needed—in manufacture, in the arts, and even in distribution. There will be no government in any sense approximating to the present class government. And during the transitional stage, which has now commenced (with the growth of trusts on the one hand, and of municipal enterprises on the other), it is equally certain that experts are needed ; and it was to this aspect that Snell’s remark had special reference, for if one thing seems specially obvious in this matter, it is that the workers—the real producers—will receive a nearer approximation to justice under a Socialist than under an individualist; but, just as obviously, the Socialist expert is likely to be passed over, if his principles are known and put into practice. The implication is, that the experts must be converted to Socialism, just as the workers must be : and in this direction the Fabian Society is doing sound work (although its work covers much ground in other directions also).

Whether, under Socialism, the expert would be paid at a higher rate than the “ordinary” worker, is a question which is really not raised by Mr. Snell. I would give my own answer to the question by asking another: Why should he be ? That his abilities are of a less common kind than those of the men who work under his direction, supplies no ethical claim for special treatment. Generally speaking, the work of the expert (as of the artist) is agreeable : he is impelled to do it: and he will give his best howsoever he be rewarded. I, and many who think like me, would have a high reward accorded to the scavenger rather than to the expert.

Your leading article, “The Quintessence of Socialism,” gets to the root of the matter. Until all industries are socialised, and their control won by the workers, the nationalisation (or municipalisation) of isolated industries will be of little service. The best to be hoped of the latter is that conditions shall be somewhat superior to those in the corresponding privately-owned industries—and even that is too seldom attained. The moral is : Unite, for Socialism and Democracy; accept all palliatives offered, but be sparing of thanks, for the most that will be conceded falls far short of the just claims of the workers.

Nevertheless, to preach hatred of the bourgeoisie or the so-called “upper” classes or to foster misunderstandings or “bad feeling” between class and class is both impolitic and immoral. All classes include Socialists—genuine Socialists. So far as the well-to-do are concerned—the people who stand to gain nothing tangible from the victory of Socialism—I ask, why decry those who adhere to the cause “for righteousness sake,” and for no other reason ?

Yet another, and a practical reason for preaching class-consciousness rather than class-hatred, is the immense numbers of “hangers-on” of the wealthy—those who produce useless luxuries for the “upper” classes or who minister directly to their comfort. These, too, are underpaid and oppressed : and the serious part of it is that they are rapidly increasing (in consequence of the growing aggregation of wealth in capitalistic hands). Yet their apparent interest, in the immediate future at any rate, lies in perpetuating existing conditions. These also need to be converted—must be converted, if Socialism is to be won ; for they are too numerous to be disregarded. At present they appear to be about the most impermeable classes of the whole community : they are unlikely to be moved by mere rancorous abuse of their “masters,” but in the long run they must be amenable to reason. (As my letter has dealt largely with an attack on the Fabian Society, I may say—to anticipate a possible gibe—that I do not think the Society either tries or expects to make much impression on the classes in question—though ultimately, perhaps, the impression may be made through their masters).

Whilst preaching the Class War, then, it is imperative that the constructive and idealistic side of Socialism should also be emphasised. In the Socialist State, none (save the shirkers) will be worse off than at present—in all that really makes the happiness of existence : but it will uplift the toilers almost beyond their most daring visions.

I plead, therefore, for union and co-operation within the movement—with free but not ill-natured criticism of each other when differences arise.

Yours fraternally,

Fabian Free.

Reply:

As the blushing author of the article referred to I beg to thank “Fabian Free” for his “free but not ill-natured criticism,” the more so because with almost overwhelming magnanimity he gives me the choice of two labels, I am, it seems, either a liar or a fool—whichever I please. (As a lover of “clear, incisive writing” “Fabian Free” will appreciate the merit these easily understood terms possess over “ridiculous misapprehension” and “wilful distortion.”) And that is very sweet and comradely in my good-natured critic. There have been gentle Fabians who have given me no such freedom of selection.

But notwithstanding this much appreciated concession for the sake of “union and co-operation within the movement,” (which the gods forbid that I should attempt to disturb), I will venture a free and not ill-natured rejoinder in the hope that I may be successful in making my “grossly unfair” conduct appear a little less reprehensible. I hope “Fabian Free” will bear with me.

Now it seems that when Mr. Snell said “we naturally want to be the experts” who will govern in the future, he most certainly meant Socialists generally and not Fabians in particular. Did he ? And how does “Fabian Free” know that ? Will he be greatly surprised to learn that Mr. Snell “most certainly” meant nothing of the sort ?

When Mr. Snell made the statement he was describing the special function of the Fabian Society as distinguished from all other Socialist and pseudo-Socialist parties whose origin and work he was at the moment outlining. If his words had any meaning at all they made it emphatically clear that Mr. Snell was of the opinion that the particular duty laid upon the Fabian Society on whose behalf he was speaking, was that of the training of the expert who was, he thought, to govern in the future.

This may, of course, be a wilful distortion or a ridiculous misapprehension of the function of, and grossly unfair to, the Fabian Society, but that is not my affair. “Fabian Free” had better take the matter up with his Executive Committee, who will then probably restrain their unhappy fugleman. But I think it more likely that “Fabian Free” will receive the shocking intimation that the Executive of his Party share Mr. Snell’s view. In which case “Fabian Free” will perhaps apologise to Mr. Snell and withdraw from the Fabian Society—and perhaps not. However that may be, I trust he will not trouble to apologise to me. I don’t matter. Besides, I’m used to being called names—especially by good-natured comrades of other parties. It’s their little way of ensuring union and cooperation in the movement.

For the rest, “Fabian Free” does not appear to have profited by his regular reading of this paper, and therefore fails to realise that “clear and incisive” style which is his admiration and our normal method. His meaning is often, if he will allow me to say so, obscure, and is not made more apparent by repeated use of the word “obviously” or its equivalent. It is a little—may I say—ludicrous, to keep on making the strenuous assertion that obviously it is so-and-so when obviously it isn’t. It is like crying peace when there is no peace. But I will try my ‘prentice hand at digging his argument out.

Let us assume Mr. Snell meant what “Fabian Free” says he meant. So. “The government of the future” applies only to the transition stage. It is for this stage that the Socialist expert is required. Yet in this stage “Fabian Free” agrees the working class can be little if anything better off. Why ? Because while capitalism holds the causes of poverty and working-class unhappiness remain. Therefore your Socialist expert under capitalist conditions, because he can do no more than administer capitalist laws, is of no more use than a non-Socialist expert. And as under Socialism “there will be no government in any sense approximating to the present,” the Socialist governmental expert of the transition period will then find himself without visible means of subsistence !

It seems to a plain person like myself a dreadful waste of effort to labour in the conversion and training of Socialist governmental experts who are useless to day and for ever. They had far better take my advice and apply themselves to the acquisition of some useful trade.

And I cannot allow “Fabian Free” for one purpose to limit Mr. Snell’s statement to a certain machinery in a certain stage and for another to apply it in a broader sense to a different stage. I am quite ready to have at him with a free and not ill-natured criticism on any question of working-class interest he likes to raise, but he must keep to his premise or definitely relinquish it. If Mr. Snell’s statement referred, as I believe it did, to government under Socialism,—that at any rate was the impression left not with myself alone, by Mr. Snell’s clear and incisive oratory,—”Fabian Free” may deal with my article from that standpoint, and I will deal with him—very happy for the chance, I’m sure. (And then perhaps I shall be able to get him to explain what the Dickens he means by his Socialist expert under Socialism being overlooked because his principles were known.) If the statement referred to the ante-Socialist period, as “Fabian Free” asserts, then the question of the remuneration of the governmental bureaucrat does not arise. The industrial expert under Socialism is a different person from the governmental expert. The first, adequately defined, may be allowed. The second is the person we are talking about. If “Fabian Free” desires to drub me on him, let him wade in. I’ve still got an old pencil stump and a piece of paper left to me by the friendly broker’s man.

“Fabian Free’s sixth par is, I admit, a fair contribution to incisive writing and displays at once the unfortunate misapprehensions existing in the writer’s mind. To talk of hatred of the bourgeoisie being impolitic and immoral is piffle. The hatred is simply an expression, a natural and inevitable expression, of detestation of what “Fabian Free” admits is a wrong, viz., the subjugation and robbery of one class by another. To point this out and emphasize its purport is not immoral—if there be any meaning left in that ill-used word. Nor is it impolitic—unless “Fabian Free” desires to suggest that it is unwise to tell the truth. True all (read both) classes may prima facie, include Socialists, but members of the capitalist class are only Socialists to the extent that they vacate their class position and go over to the working class.

I will argue this point at greater length if “Fabian Free” wishes it, later, and will only say here that the number of people who are Socialists “for righteousness sake,” large though it appears to “Fabian Free,” will dwindle almost to a vanishing point under scrutiny, and come out from the ordeal mainly as a congregation of individuals who have decided that anyhow, to use “Fabian Free’s” own words, they will not be worse off under Socialism, but might be considerably better. Holding as we do that material interests are, in the final analysis, at the root of all human actions, we can quite understand the existence of men in the ranks of the bourgeoisie who can see the advantages of Socialism, and are prepared to fight their own class in order to realise it. Their help is not rejected, but it is not necessarily of more consequence than the help of a similar number of the working class. On the other hand, however, it must not be forgotten that men of the capitalist class have come out ostensibly to help but actually to wreck, if possible, the working-class movement. Therefore, recruits from that quarter should be dealt with circumspectly.

The important point to be remembered in this connection is, that the Socialist movement is absolutely and entirely a working-class movement. It expresses the struggle of the working class against the exploiting capitalist class, and must finally result in the triumph of the workers and the extermination of the capitalists.

Nor can we gild the Socialistic pill for the benefit of the flunkey class. Their material interests will probably keep them bound to their masters until pressure of economic forces, already perceptibly operating, compels them to see that their sole hope, also lies in Socialism. They will have to swallow the pill willy-nilly. And if they then discover, as they will, that there is nothing nauseating in the operation, so much the better.

For our part we will tell them the truth (when we can get at ’em) as straight and clear as we tell it to any other section of the people. That is our business—the only reason for our existence. And not even for “Fabian Free,” much though we should value his union and co-operation, will we depart from our habit of calling a spade a spade, or a labour misleader a fraud, or a Fabian a bureaucrat, or an I.L.P.-cum-L.R.C’er a man on the bounce, or an S.D.F. palliative-monger a confusionist.

And that, gentle “Fabian Free,” if you particularly want to know, is in brief the reason why every other party is opposed to the S.P.G.B. and the S.P.G.B. is opposed to every other party.

A. James

A “Marxist” with a Heart Attack (1932)

From the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a series of articles appearing in the New Leader, entitled “The Danger of Orthodoxy,” Mr. J. Middleton Murry is making desperate efforts to graft on to Marxian economics a brand of emotionalism which he seems to think will make it more attractive. He finds Socialism, based on exact definitions and scientific analysis, too logical and convincing in a mathematical sense, but lacking in appeal to the heart. With him the heart should come first. He says :

“Therefore it is far more important that a man should be a complete Socialist at heart than that he should be a Marxist in his head. (It is not possible to be a complete Marxist in one’s head alone). For there is no difficulty in converting to Marxism a man who is a genuine Socialist at heart—that is, ready to give up everything for the establishment of complete economic equality among men.”

Now, a man does not think with his heart, but with his head. True, his heart has something to do with the process, as do all the organs of the body. To become a Socialist, however, a man must think, and thinking is the special function of the brain. Mr. Murry would not, of course, deny this. Even his “Socialist at heart” must first have what Mr. Murry calls the idea of “complete economic equality among men” in his head. But why he must be ready to give up so much for it is a mystery, seeing that he has nothing to give up but his slavery.

The brain is an organ that develops by use and is a better organ the more it is developed. But even the cross-word enthusiast does not rack his brains for the mere sake of development. There must always be an incentive to thought; usually it springs from material interests in some shape or other.

To use Mr. Murry’s phrase, the man who got the idea of “economic equality” must first have got the idea of economic inequality from his everyday experience. Consequently, however crude the process, it is a process of reasoning. Crude reasoning is often forcible, but seldom comprehensive, and the man who has only the two aforementioned ideas in his head is more easily confused or misled than the man who is capable of reasoning correctly from a series of connected facts or factors. The student of Marxian economics is, therefore, not only a better Socialist; he is better equipped to resist the wiles and intrigues of the political adventurer. But Mr. Murry will not have it that way. He says:—

“The fact is that Marxism, genuine dynamic Marxism, itself rests on an ethical postulate. It rests on the ethical postulate that the man who understands the historical process, and approves of what he believes must be its eventual outcome, will make himself the willing instrument of the process. Without this ethical resolve in the individual, Marxism becomes a mere armchair theory of revolutions.”

The words “historical process” are, of course, an abbreviation for the “materialist conception of history” discovered by Marx and Engels. The latter expresses it as follows:—

“That the economic structure of society at a given time furnishes the real foundations upon which the entire superstructure of political and juristic institutions, as well as the religious, philosophical and other abstract notions of a given period, are to be explained in the last instance.”

Abstract notions based on sentimental ideas of justice, duty, patriotism, brotherly love, etc., are quite common to the period in which we are living. They are the result of economic relationships. The class that owns all the means of wealth-production exacts duty and patriotism from the dispossessed. And while exploiting them do actually obtain brotherly love—or is it money-bag worship?—in place of a natural resentment. The well-paid moralists of the capitalist class have built up quite a respectable doctrine around the idea of self-sacrifice, and large numbers of workers are quite incapable of seeing realities, so strongly are they affected by these and similar sentiments.

Now, while it may be true that men often act purely from sentimental motives, Mr. Murry says that when actions are dictated by reason alone, non-action invariably follows. Reason and the will to act are common sense, while Socialism of the heart and ethical postulates are quite obviously abstract notions with no foundations on the solid earth. True, the heart has always been spoken of as the organ of good intentions ; but then, orthodoxy, that continually prates about this quality of the heart, is flatly opposed to Socialism. Consequently, Mr. Murry is responsible for a contradiction in terms, i.e., an ethical Socialist.

Moreover, according to him, the difference between the ethical Socialist and the Socialist without adjectives is the difference between action and inaction. The question of useful or useless action does not arise with him. Apparently that is irrelevant. Although the people most loudly advertising themselves as Socialists—the I.L.P.—have been nosing up a blind alley throughout their political existence. Even now, when their failure as a working-class party has forced them to take stock of their ideas, they are still befuddled with reforms that are based on capitalist ideas of justice, fairness, etc. The obvious course being to determine the cause of working-class poverty and the action necessary to end it.

The will to act in the case of the Socialist is not ethical, but an impulse to act which arises from self-interest. Convinced Socialists quite rightly assume that every worker who recognises the soundness of Socialism will act in accordance with his reasoned conclusions. Whether the new-comer does little or much in the movement depends on circumstances, temperament, opportunity, physical and mental qualities, etc. The totality of these individual efforts at a given moment constitutes the Socialist Movement, with the growth of which, individual effort becomes more and more unnecessary and only the question of counting heads remains.

The Socialist is not prompted by ethical considerations in his work for Socialism. He works according to the strength of his convictions and his desire for Socialism. There is no question of sacrifice. He puts time and effort into the movement that brings nearer the thing he wants. Mr. Murry calls this an ethical resolve in the individual. The capitalist calls it by other names. Much depends on the point of view, but Mr. Murry’s point of view does not square with either. The explanation, no doubt, lies with the party to which he belongs—a party that runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds.

F. Foan

The Socialist Forum: Do we need an emotional upsurge? (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the following letter a correspondent from Tottenham seeks to explain why Socialist propaganda does not make rapid headway :—

To the Editor.

Sir,—The teachings of Socialism seem to be making little headway among the workers. Although the solution to the economic evils which afflict them is pointed, they seem little interested and crowd the cinemas and football matches, responding at election times to the attractively dressed programmes of parliamentary parties.

Something in the Socialist estimate is lacking, and I think the deficiency is explained by the discoveries of modern psychology. Instead of man being a rational creature who, perceiving his interests, economic or otherwise, acts in accordance with them, his behaviour, his opinions and attitudes are the outcome, largely, of psychic needs and conflicts are adaptations of thwarted instinctive urges, and assume a far from rational character.

The researches of modern psychologists seem to unite in proclaiming the greater part played in man’s life by unconscious trends, and the study of psycho-neuroses have thrown into relief the tremendous power of seemingly trivial experiences to influence reaction in all sorts of situations.

A sense of inferiority arising from some physical defect, or unimpressiveness of appearance may lead one to join forces with, an organization which gives scope for venting hostility against an inconsiderate environment. Many speakers of the S.P.G.B. have impressed me as having found within its ranks a means of rescuing themselves from an oblivion to which their appearance and mental attributes would otherwise have doomed them. They gain a satisfying distinction by being “not as others.”

Experiences of a sexual character, dislike of certain individuals, jealousy, etc., are elements which find plenty of consolation in Socialism.

The class character of Society and the assumption of superiority which goes with wealth, so provoking and resented by Socialists, are accepted by the majority. The supporters of the Arsenal are feeling quite superior because “their” team has topped the League. Following the fortunes of teams, satisfying .a multiplicity of psychic needs at the theatre, they are not attracted by the rational programme of Socialism, for it holds, but for few, a means of meeting these psychic needs.

The working; class abounds in types, and it is a cardinal error to reduce it to an economic homogeneity. The critical, the cynical, the aggressive, the submissive (attitudes depending largely on previous experiences not necessarily of an economic nature), find satisfaction in exercise, whether it be in politics, sport or love.

Socialism must make an emotional appeal, in which all types can find expression ; purely intellectual approach, its appeal to rationality are barren. Revolutions are impossible without emotional upsurges.

Yours faithfully,

R. Hobsbaum.

Reply.

Our correspondent does not tell us the date of the dividing line between what he calls “modern psychology” and its not so modern predecessor, hut we can assure him that his, “discovery” is not new. Members of the Socialist Party were hearing this, tale from members of the I.L.P. and the Labour Party twenty and more years ago. And that fact has its importance. These people were going to make their emotional appeal and get Socialism quickly, rather than follow the method we advocated, of informing the workers about Socialist principles. They and their successors and imitators, the Communists, have made their emotional appeals and suffered their emotional upsurges times without number, but our correspondent, curiously enough, omits to dwell upon the result of it all. May we, then, remind him of one spectacular success achieved by the emotionalists—the great war fever of 1914, aided by the Labour leaders and prepared for by the previous years of Labour Party and I.L.P. appeals to emotion?

Our correspondent is wrong in thinking that the workers do not act in accordance with what they believe to be their interests. The trouble is that they mistake the capitalists’ interests for their own. Only knowledge will alter that, and the emotional appealers do not give that knowledge and, in the main, do not themselves possess it.

We are asked to believe that the statement of Socialist principles fails to appeal to the mass of workers because they accept the capitalists’ assumption of superiority, and appeals only to those who do resent it and have a “sense of inferiority.” Why, then, does our correspondent himself find that not all the members of the S.P.G.B. are like that ? Why only some of them ? If the Socialist appeal does attract some of these workers who are without a “sense of inferiority,” why not others, and why not eventually large numbers? This we are not told.

We are told that we must not reduce the workers “to an economic homogeneity.” The answer is that we do not, but the capitalist system does. The worker may possess any or all of the characteristics enumerated in the letter, but, being without property, it will avail him nothing. He will remain a member of the subject class and will find himself up against the inevitable disabilities arising therefrom. Knowledge of Socialism is the necessary preliminary to emancipation. It is not our avoidance of emotional appeal that delays our progress; on the contrary, it is largely the confusion spread by the emotional upsurgers and the despair born of disappointed hopes that is responsible for the workers’ indifference to the Socialist message.

Editorial Committee.

Blogger's Note:

R. Hobsbaum replied to the Editorial Committee's reply to his letter in the August 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Socialist morality and war (2023)

From the January 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some believe that the struggle for socialism is a moral crusade against the evils of capitalism or, more usually, against the promoters and practitioners of capitalism. Bankers, hedge fund managers, media moguls, multi-national CEOs, City traders, politicians etc. have all taken their turn as incarnations of immorality and even evil. Every morning you can hear that archetype of leftist moral outrage called James O’Brien indulging in his endless diatribes denouncing the latest demons of the right on his LBC radio show. Is this merely an impotent exercise in self indulgence or are political debates, at their heart, always primarily a conflict between right and wrong or even good and evil?

Moral sensibilities seem to have always been part of the human psyche. Perhaps because, as a social species, we are aware that our individual survival depends on the survival of our communities we have developed a level of interaction that demands the ability to empathise with others. When we suffer, or perceive the suffering of others, we seek the cause. If this cause is the activity of another we can regard them as antisocial and immoral. This perspective insists on us all being moral agents who have a level of free will which enables us to choose between right and wrong. Although there have been infinite cultural varieties of what constitutes moral values all of them derive from the belief in the individual’s potential and actual ability to control his or her actions. Control is the key concept here because if we deny its existence on a personal level we are in danger of delegating it to others who are considered to be our moral superiors and so create a religious hierarchy. The conscience (Freud’s super-ego) and its malicious companion guilt together with the fear of eternal punishment still haunt even the most secular of moral value systems. So what effect has this ideology had on politics and what is the historical evidence for its efficacy?

Crusading zeal

One of the more interesting historical attempts to synthesise morality and politics within one ideology was that of Christianity. The control it offered to the Roman empire proved to be so seductive that it was adopted by Constantine and the successive Germanic ‘barbarians’ who took over during the ‘dark age’ and later medieval period. All through its rise Christianity had many glaring contradictions with the realities of power in the warrior states that adopted it. One of the most obvious was the commandment that ‘thou shall not kill’. Sanctions against violence and murder are universal in any moral system worthy of the name so how could this be coherently absorbed by a society based on violent exploitation (slavery, serfdom) and imperialist expansion (destruction and pillage). This came to a head as Europe suffered the depredations of warlords whose bands of knights terrorised everything and everyone. The Pope came up with an ingenious solution – he would send these troublesome knights to Palestine to reclaim the ‘Holy Land’ where the murder of the indigenous population was not only rewarded, it guaranteed the forgiveness of any previous mortal sins and promised eternal paradise in the next life.

A moral system had been manipulated to serve the needs of the powerful, and today we see the same justification for war. Russians are demonised and the defence of Ukraine is considered a crusade against the evil of Putin. Lines on a map drawn by the powerful constitute a ‘sovereign state’ which is regarded by many as a kind of moral absolute that must not be violated. Of course this is nonsense since wars are continually fought in defiance of borders created by others. But it proves just how pliable a moral system can be when faced with political reality.

Again we see that the central conceit of a moral approach to politics is the illusion of control. Socialists see political, religious or moral systems as just elements within an ideology that seeks to justify the power and wealth of a parasitic minority that has historically emerged in private property society. These systems develop independently of those who make them work, and the values and struggles of those people are irrelevant unless they become conscious of this. Such consciousness can only develop when they become aware that the system they are part of is not in their interests. They can finally liberate themselves from the shackles of history and have a chance, for the first time, to impose true and authentic moral values. The anger and frustration caused by trying to impose such values on an amoral economic system like capitalism is replaced by conscious participation towards resolving the class struggle, which alone can make this possible.

Socialists seek to understand the origin of power, who has it and how it is legitimated. There is no legitimacy to be found in the relationship between wealth and power, as the morality of property relations pretends. We can transcend the superficial and superstitious origins of that morality and replace it with a fully democratic system within which a mature community can decide what rules and values it wants. The voice of the individual will finally be heard and the shrill hypocrisy of the defenders of amorality will be silenced.

Wez

Letter: Should We Use the Terms “Faith” and “Belief”? (1928)

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

“C.C.” (who does not give his address) comments on the fact that Socialists avoid the use of such abstract terms as “faith” and “belief” in reference to Socialism. He suggests that this attitude is not helpful in the matter of making members, and, secondly, that these words represent real things: We “have to believe in one another to have faith in one another, to confide in one another.” “Is it, then, correct or incorrect to make use of these words? “

“C.C.’s” difficulty appears to arise from his having failed to notice that these words as loosely used in popular speech have widely different meanings. If a Christian says “I believe in God,” he means that he is confident that there exists a supernatural being. But if he also says ‘”I believe in Lloyd George,” he is not affirming the existence of Lloyd George. He simply means that he trusts Lloyd George and considers his political principles to be sound. The first is based not on verifiable evidence, but on what is sometimes called “faith,” and as there are people who hold unverifiable “belief ” and “faiths,” then there is need of words to describe those attributes.

Socialism is not a “faith,” like Christianity, and it would therefore be incorrect to describe it as such. Moreover, although sympathy with one’s fellow human beings is a deeply-rooted instinct, past experience has shown that personal attraction is not the foundation upon which can be built the organised movement for the abolition of capitalism. “C.C.” writes: “We have to believe in one another, to have faith in one another,” but is it entirely true? Does he “have to believe” in Mussolini or “have faith” in Winston Churchill? His recognition of his class position inside capitalism prevents this. Socialists do not base their policy and actions on “belief”‘ or “faith” in the religious sense, but on their knowledge of their class interests. The justification for Socialist principles is that they are in accordance with observed facts, and we subscribe to those principles because they show us the means of escape from the evils of capitalism from which we as workers suffer. We avoid the use of these terms because they would obscure the nature of Socialist principles and Socialist organisation.

“C. C.” will perhaps have noticed that it is the practice of the Socialist Party to seek to make Socialists, not merely to make members.

Editorial Committee.

50 Years Ago: The Gravesend By-Election by Eye-Witness (1998)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour victory in this hotly-contested by-election—we were told at almost every meeting that the eyes of the world were on Gravesend—must have been a surprise to the Tories. They believed that the discontent of the masses with their living conditions would assure them of victory; but two things the Tories forgot: first, that the workers have a memory which they sometimes use and secondly, that the Labour Party are at least their equal at pulling stunts out of the bag.

The main issue of the election was "Which party can better administer Capitalism, the Labour Party or the Conservatives?” Throughout the campaign, the question of Socialism—the abolition of private ownership of the means of life and the consequent ending of wage-labour and capital—was mentioned by neither party (...)

The Labour Party flattered the electors by telling them that they were intelligent people and able to use their reason in deciding which party to support. And yet they did not shrink from making the biggest emotional appeal either party attempted. With about 3,000 present at a meeting, lights were put out and a miners' choir, complete with helmets and little lights shining, entered the hall from the rear, walking in single file and singing as they came.The applause was tremendous, as it was after each hymn and song rendered by the choir in the darkened hall. Sympathy of other workers for the miners had been won and, in the speeches which followed, the audience was told that every Tory vote would be a smack in the face for those miners. As an emotional appeal this was terrific and worth many votes to the Labour Party. The Tory stunt of carrying around a potato, dressed in Conservative colours, was puny in comparison.

(From an article by C.A., Socialist Standard, January 1948)

Phrase Worship. (1924)

From the February 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are few things more dangerous to the student—whether of politics or of any other subject—than the habit of mind which mistakes an eloquent phrase for a powerful argument, and, accepts a striking illustration as proof of the principle it is intended merely to illustrate. Persuasive eloquence may be a gift, or it may be won by arduous toil, but there is at least no reason to believe that it serves only under the banner of Truth. There would be lean times for lawyers if this were so.

As for the seductiveness of the carefully chosen example, there never was an unsound theory which could not be supported by battalions of plausible instances ; and there is no notion so transparently false that it will not serve to explain certain experiences to some person or other.

How else could fallacies win adherents or be conceived at all?

Everyone knows how the skilful orator can persuade people by his eloquence to accept an argument which would fail to convince them if they examined it coldly and critically. And even if the argument be sound, it is probable that most of those who hear it and are so readily persuaded that it is true have in fact not understood it at all. It is not possible to grasp in a moment the whole of the strong and weak points of a new principle ; but it is fatally easy to grasp its application to a special instance, while overlooking the probability that the instance has been chosen because it is appropriate, and not because it is typical. The general principle, to be true, must apply without exception to all – the events coming within its scope.

Protectionists urged at the recent election that unemployment cannot exist where there is protection of home industries, and for evidence they said : “Look at America.” It gained many votes, but it will be remembered that there was usually no attempt made to prove the assertion. Those who made it relied solely on the force of the illustration, which was of course selected because, to the unreflecting, it seemed to be conclusive. No account was taken of the many countries where unemployment and protection are existing side by side at the present time, nor of the many occasions when they have coincided in the U.S.A. This illustration is of so little value really, that it could be used to support any number of other fallacious explanations of unemployment. For example : “Those countries are free from unemployment whose national pastime is gum-chewing. Look at America ! ”

In order that such a statement could be regarded as proved it would be necessary to list all the main possible consequences of protection in a particular country, and show how they would be likely to affect the amount of unemployment. The existence of both unemployment and protection in any other country would be fatal unless it could be accounted for by some special counteracting circumstances, for there can be no exceptions to a valid principle.

The saying, “The exception proves the rule,” is, as usually understood, just nonsense. What is really meant is that the apparent exception tests the rule. We, for instance, assert that unemployment is a necessary feature of the capitalist mode of production. If that is true, then every capitalist country should be subject to periodic trade stagnation and unemployment. France at once presents itself as an exception, until we remember that France has a large standing army composed of men who would otherwise be unable to find civil employment. The rule is thus tested by the apparent exception, and found not to have been shown incorrect as far as France is concerned.

There are many people who have phrases like the one given in the last paragraph, which they use on all occasions to explain any controversial question. Unfortunately, they do not realise that they are erecting a barrier between themselves and the truth they wish to comprehend, and that through making no real effort, but simply satisfying themselves with a surface explanation, they are retarding their mental development. They also lay themselves open to deception by interested persons who know the powerful effect on the mind of these deadly drugs.

How often do we meet opponents who think they have answered our arguments by repeating the proverb, “Half a loaf is better than no bread.” By this they mean that Socialism is not immediately obtainable, therefore, it is advisable to make the best of a bad business and try to reform capitalism.

They have some near relations—described satirically as the “step-at-a-time-and-the-smaller-the-better” school—who reach the same conclusion by way of the saying, “You must walk before you can run.”

Now let us examine these two wise remarks, beginning with the first. As a simple statement of fact, meaning that the persons who want bread to eat had better the half a loaf than no bread at all, its truth needs no demonstration; but when used as an argument it is intended to mean much more than that. We can safely go further and agree that it can be applied correctly to all things of the same kind in similar relationships.

But it is just here that the danger arises. Examination ought to be, but generally is not, made before we can be satisfied that there is any analogy. For this reason we might usually just as well try to get our independent proof by treating each new problem on its merits. The trouble is that the phrase is used without discrimination, as if it were a general proof, valid in all kinds of circumstances; which it certainly is not.

If someone were searching for things to throw at your head you would hardly consider that “half a loaf is better than no bread at all.” Again the force of the proverb depends on the nature of loaves. Solomon had no hesitation in deciding that half a baby is not better than no baby at all, and the baby’s mother agreed with the verdict. And the Prince in “Hassan” quite rightly foresaw that his chief of police and his military commandant, who were rival claimants for the credit of capturing an important prisoner, would not feel honoured by being compelled to split a gorgeous robe between them.

Before this proverb can properly be used as an argument in favour of reforms as against concentrating on the demand for Socialism, it is necessary to show that Socialism is divisible like bread, i.e., that it is merely the result of adding reforms to reforms. Examination however shows that it is not. Socialism is a system of society based upon the common ownership of the means of wealth production. Reforms are reforms of capitalism, which is a system of society based on private ownership. It therefore untrue that “reforms of capitalism” and “Socialism” stand to each other in the same relation as “half a loaf” to a “whole loaf.” There is no analogy and thus the proverb has no bearing whatever on the problem under consideration.

It is, of course, open to those who hold this view to argue on other grounds that agitation for reforms is justifiable. They might try to prove that such agitation yields, or could yield, material benefit to the workers; but they would need to bear in mind that if they could give satisfactory proof, they would then be in danger of proving at the same time that Socialism is unnecessary. Our contention against the reform programme is that it usually fails, that the efforts are out of all proportion to the gains, and that it obscures the main issue, and thus hinders progress towards Socialism.

It is not my purpose here to substantiate my assertion : that has often been done in these pages. My present purpose is merely to show that our case is not so much as touched by the story of the loaf.

Treating in the same way the proverb, “You must walk before you can run,” notice how this too depends on the special nature of the activities referred to, while like the other, claiming universal application. Is it necessary to walk on one leg before you can walk on two? Do tadpoles have to learn to walk before they can learn to swim? And has it any real bearing on the kind of activities required in replacing one economic system by another? Is it not merely a piece of laziness to avoid the necessity of dealing, with the facts of the situation?

Some of the things requiring proof are these: (1) That modification of capitalism, such as nationalisation or State capitalism, are steps towards Socialism, and not away from it; (2) That they are in themselves beneficial to the workers; and (3) That they are necessary. The facts are: (1) That they are only additional obstacles; (2) That they are intrinsically bad for the workers; and (3) that they are quite unnecessary.

Having said that, the onus is on us to prove it, and on our opponent’s to disprove it. If I were to point out that a doctor tending a smallpox patient does not waste his time treating each spot separately, but goes straight to the root of the trouble; and if all the members of the Labour Party were to reply in chorus : “You must walk before you can run,” no advance would have been made towards the settlement of the disputed question. But both statements are unquestionably true, and each is legitimately applicable to certain phenomena.

I would like to add that it is now about 120 years since capitalism began its “great” code of social reform. During those years the system has been constantly changing, but it is still the same capitalist system. The workers have had inflicted upon them innumerable reforms of different kinds, yet they are now, relatively to their powers of production, worse off than ever before. And the reason is simplicity itself. Reforms are but attempts to remedy the ever-increasing evils wrought by capitalism, but even if successful, the system still goes on producing new evils or aggravating old ones, and it does so much faster than the reformers can hope to arouse a sufficient demand for the passing of reform acts to meet them.

It has yet to be proved that further experience of “walking” under capitalism will teach the workers how to “run” under Socialism. It appears to me that the State-regulated “Labour” administered capitalism of to-day or to-morrow has no useful lesson to teach the worker with eyes to see, which was not plainly visible in the competitive anarchy of fifty years ago; and there are many activities, modes of thought and ethical notions that must be unlearned before Socialism is going to be a reality.

Running may be regarded approximately as “quickened walking,” but Socialism is not by any means capitalism polished and tinkered up; it is something different, because its foundation is different.

I suggest that the workers have been passive under capitalism because they have not yet learned to see that it is obsolete and therefore a social nuisance. If the inevitable worsening of conditions under capitalism breeds discontent in place of passivity it is a criminal act to turn that discontent towards reforms of capitalism, when without much more trouble it might be turned towards Socialism.

That passage like the one I wrote before contains assumptions to be justified and conclusions to be proved, but again I am not going to try to prove them here. All I wish to do is to repeat with emphasis that they are not to be proved nor disproved by references to quite other forces operating on objects of a different kind.

It is not possible to compile a complete, twentieth century “Guide to Emancipation” out of ancient proverbs, old wives’ tales, nursery rhymes and other interesting odds and ends of learning and wisdom, gathered from the mind of the race in its infancy, or coined in rough and ready fashion in the turmoil of every-day life.

Edgar Hardcastle