Letter: Mr. Rennolls Again. A Fine Part for Shopmen. (1917)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Rennolls Again. A Fine Part for Shopmen.

(To The Editor)

Sir,—You have been fair enough to publish two letters I sent to you under your own headings. In these letters I tried to make plain a few ideas which I thought of considerable importance, and apparently I have failed, at least as far as “F.F.” is concerned, to make them plain, for he doesn’t seem to have any notion of the whereabouts of my arguments. His Calvinistic adhesion to a few shibboleths called a “party programme” prevents him from seeing anything outside the glass case in which he keeps his precious doxology and benediction. He replies to me by answering questions I do not ask, by explaining intensively and extensively the obvious, by trotting out from the glass case facts and arguments which are expected to, but do not, fit any criticism and explain any difficulty, as if they were the dependable elixir of wisdom, and by getting into an awful state of alarm lest the sacerdotal arrangement of his revolutionary diary gets deranged.

Such a reply only goes to support my impression of the inadequacy of this doctrinaire state of mind. “F.F.” has not yet considered my essential question to Socialists to answer, viz., “What would be done to-morrow morning by all the people if all the people were like . . . any member of the S.P.G.B., . . . class-conscious, revolutionary Socialists ?” to be out of order, or ridiculous, or unnecessary, or what not. On the contrary he answers it, and I gather from his answer that they would “capture the political machine.” Here again is an “abstraction.” Yet “F.F.” dares to challenge me to prove that “abstractions” exist in the S.P.G.B. view of things. Perhaps his is not this view, in which case why is he put up to answer me ? [It is rather remarkable that Mr. Rennolls has forgotten that this discussion commenced with a criticism of his upon an written by our contributor, “F.F.,” and that therefore there is no question of the latter being “put up” to answer him.—Ed’s. “S.S.”] If his reply is the official one, I beg of him to see how he provides the very evidence he demands to be brought.

There is another side to his reply. As I gather we should all “capture the political machine,” we shall, whilst messing about doing this, work for the capitalist. Fancy Socialists doing this ! And here’s the rub. It is all very well for an isolated Socialist now working for a capitalist under economic stress and strain yet at the same time not losing hold of his principles, but withal more strongly adhering to them and desiring their consummation. That position of his holds good, but when everyone or nearly everyone is like him—rabid, red-hot, and revolutionary, it is not their business to work for the bounders for five minutes.

If we can get an idea of revolutionary action that will cover this contingency, then Socialism is something to us. If, however, we are still going on talking about capturing (sic) the political machine, if that is all you can offer, then Socialism to you, by this test, is what your “abstraction” is, an abstraction buttering no parsnips.

Why should we not consider ourselves in the light of everyone being like us ? To “suppose” or “if” that is quite in order. It stamps us individually, for what we are worth. We prate of what we would do IF we were “in power.” That itself is “iffing” it. But as soon as “F.F.” does it he lands himself into a no-man’s-land of “looking up the book,” and then just recites, Psalms-like, something about “capturing political power.” But to “if” what would-be done TOMORROW is still a more searching test into our concreteness of Socialism. Timing the thing leaves “F.F.,” and I take it the S.P.G.B., stranded.

“F.F.” gets out of it all by saying : “If all the people were Socialists to-night could anything be mores impossible or absurd?” Yes, this reply. Which is the absurdity, the “if,” the “to-night,” or the “all the people” ?

Anybody can “if,” so it cannot be that, and as you’ll want all the people or most of them with you, it cannot be that, and as I never said the people would be Socialists “to-night,” it isn’t that. We are left, therefore, with a typically anti-Socialist “argument” pretending to reply to a Socialist question. Yet “FF” admits in a previous breath that underlying the dictum “Labour-power produces all economic wealth” is intimated one possible answer—to this “absurdity.” Should I succeed in finding exactly what people would do to-morrow morning on the strength of my impressions and understanding of Socialism, why should it not be done ? What they would do I would do and what I would do they would do. It is a mere accumulation of my individuality acting on the basis of my impressions of Socialism. Why should I put off thinking out what would or should be done to give live Socialism a chance, a start, just because others have not troubled ?

Socialism is not to me, and ought not to be to anyone else, what others would do without me, and as it must, under those circumstances, present itself to be, a pure speculation, a nebulous programme of well-juggled phrases, that does not satisfy me, if it satisfies you.

I put the extreme test my essential question, to myself, and I answer that if all were like me, say to-morrow, we would go to work just as usual, in the old coal-pit or saw-pit, in the same field or factory, ship-yard or show-room, bakery or workshop—just as usual. We would go on producing, but the shopman—the keystone to the edifice of “realising” surplus-value, the man who does the trick for the capitalist in that he takes money for the products, sells them, exchanges them, would do nothing of the kind anymore. He would give the “goods “away instead.

Herein the least interference would be made with the existing social order with all its complexities, but the greatest damage would be done to the exploiting principle in it. It would be annihilated, in fact.

The effect of such action would be immediately felt in free-everything instead of looking to the moonshine of a remote democracy of intellects. While the old strikers were charged with stopping production and starting starvation, the boot would be now on the foot of those who would interfere, in this case, with production.

Instead of delegating some bounder to perform the miracle of “representing” you, you set about the job yourself. And so on and so on. Any Socialist can work it out for himself.

The lack of concreteness, suggestive of an active part for everyone to play in the economic revolution, giving no momentum to propaganda, has created the stagnation and mistrust that has overwhelmed working-class movements in the world of Socialism.

The overbearing interpretation of Society as a gutter of material phenomena through which marches a helpless working class that can only find salvation in general elections and mechanics on the Woolsack, is a looking-backward proposition of no earthly use. The decrying and tabooing of initiative and assertiveness, qualities of great value possessed by every Socialist, and left to rot for want of probing, has given place to the worship of such self-contradictory absurdities as “Democracy” and “social-property,” and to the study of our revolution as if it were a lesson in mathematics and an “As it was in the Beginning ” affair.

My dear sir, Socialism is the greatest psychological proposition of the age, and from that standpoint has received scant consideration.

Let Socialists organise and come together with open mind, plain speaking, earnestness and mutual respect.

—Yours fraternally,

Tom Rennolls 

“F.F.’s” Reply.

If Socialism is a proposition it is more of a social or an economic than a psychological one. The relation of Socialism to psychology was the subject which first attracted Mr. Rennolls’s none too definite criticism, though his intervention has provided us with a sample of working-class mind that is, unfortunately, all too numerous. He scorns and overlooks the obvious truths of Socialism, whether concrete facts or general statements. The latter he stigmatises as abstractions. I pointed out in my first reply that Mr. Rennolls did not define “abstractions” for us according to his conception of the word, therefore I refrained from replying to his charge. Now that we know from Mr. Rennolls himself that any general statement is an abstraction, I have only to point out that all such general statements contained in our Declaration of Principles are deduced from concrete facts and placed in that form in order to give expression to general or abstract truths. If this is not scientific, logical, or practical ; or if the principles are not correctly deduced, if there is not sufficient evidence to justify them, if they are too sweeping or not broad enough, it was, and still is, open for Mr. Rennolls to show.

In my first reply I also referred to my critic’s slipshod methods of reading and quoting, and proved conclusively that he had been guilty of misquoting. He ignores the charge and commits the same offence once more, when he pays that I challenged him to prove that abstractions exist in the S.P.G.B. Had I known at the time that according to him an abstraction was a generalisation arrived at by surveying a number of concrete facts upon which it was based, and the truth of which could be proved by both the inductive and the deductive method ; had I known this and known also that Mr. Rennolls held such generalisations in contempt—irrespective of their truth—I should not have “passed over” his “discovery of abstractions” without showing that such “abstractions” are necessary to any organisation and to a working-class party are absolutely essential.

Again, my critic put the question : “What would be done to-morrow morning if all the people were Socialists ?” and says that I answered it by saying “capture the political machine.” Good advice to the working class, but it was not written in answer to his question, the absurdity of which he is still unable to see. “Why should we not,” he says, “consider ourselves in the light of everyone being like us? To ‘suppose’ or ‘if’ that is quite in order.” Of course it is—for the dreamer. If Mr. Rennolls likes to spend his time imagining situations like that contained in his question he is free to do so ; but the only practical thing for the Socialist is to make Socialists—until Socialists are in a majority over all other parties ; until their representatives dominate the Parliamentary, urban and rural councils, judiciary, etc. That time will come long before Mr. Rennolls’s night of Socialists ; it may even come before he realises that his question is one that does not apply, that the situation he envisages cannot possibly arise, still, for his sake, let us hope not. 

“Timing the thing,” he says, “leaves ‘F.F.’ and I take it the S.P.G.B. stranded.” The position is the reverse : the S.P.G.B. makes a definite statement with regard to time—when a majority of the electorate are Socialists. But Mr. Rennolls would wait until the whole of the working class are Socialists. Why, he does not say, and this omission is all the more surprising seeing that the success of his plan only depends on the conversion of the “shopmen.”

Mr. Rennolls is quite sure of his plan, quite sure that the shopman is the keystone of the system, and equally sure that he would give the goods away instead of selling them. But he does not tell us what would happen when the shopman had parted with all his goods and applied to the capitalist for more. Would the latter give the goods instead of selling them ? Would he allow them to be taken ? Or would he call on the Government to provide the physical force necessary to protect his property ? On all these questions my critic is silent. His plan is deadlocked as soon as the shopman has given away all his goods, and the class that controls the political machine locks out the workers from all the chief sources of supply—by means of the fighting forces—and starves them into submission.

“Herein,” to quote from Mr. Rennolls’s following sentence, “the least interference would be made with the existing social order.” That is quite true : it would be a case of “as you were,” and Mr. Rennolls could ask himself his previous question once more—”Why should I put off thinking out what would or should be done to give live Socialism a chance, a start,” etc. The fact that his plan had failed because its supporters came up against physical force, which was controlled through the political machine by the capitalist class, might cause him to take the political machine into consideration. Without respecting it, he might still recognise that it was the source of power, and the simplest, easiest, and most direct way to overcome capitalist opposition to Socialism is to control it.

The political machine can only be controlled through representatives or delegates. But Mr. Rennolls jeers at the idea of being represented.. He calls it a “miracle,” and says, “you set about the job yourself. And so on, and so on. Any Socialist can work it out for himself.” Well, so he can, in fact the question of representation is so simple that it does not require working out. A concrete example is before every Socialist (and incidentally before Mr. Rennolls as well), which proves without the shadow of a doubt its inestimable value. The capitalist class by means of representation controls the political machine, and through it subjects the whole working class to its rule. Here is a practical illustration of the value of representation. If the master class find in that method all that is necessary to retain their supremacy—everything else being added unto them as a consequence—surely the working class cannot afford to ignore it.

Let Mr. Rennolls think it over instead of dreaming about “nights of gladness” when all will be Socialists, to wake up in the morning ; and get on with the game old job ; when all the shopmen will “give their goods away,” when none of us will work for the capitalist” bounders for five minutes,” when “F.F.” will get some “notion of the whereabouts” of his arguments, when “live Socialism” will get a start, when you set about the job of representing yourself, and all the other absurdities that are roosting in his brain to the exclusion of rational and consecutive thought.

To sum up, all Mr. Rennolls’s bombastic jeers, anent the “dependable elixir of wisdom,” the “sacerdotal arrangement of the revolutionary diary,” and the “doctrinaire state of mind,” fall flat, because he absolutely fails to show that our declaration of principles are not genuine, scientific generalisations. Those epithets would more aptly fit his own confident but confused state of mind. His dream of the benevolent shopman, is Utopian and impossible. His imaginative conception of a working class entirely Socialist and Socialism still awaiting establishment is childishly absurd. His careless assumption that “you” can always represent “yourself” shows that he has yet to learn the first principles of organisation. His contempt for political action is not based on reason or argument, and therefore stamps him as an Anarchist. He would preach discontent, but can present no feasible or scientific method by which the working class can achieve its emancipation.

F. Foan

The Passing Show: The Psychologist (1962)

The Passing Show Column from the September 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Psychologist

 

Psychology has the answer to all the world’s problems. If only we all became psychologists, if only we all studied psychology and learned to understand the hidden springs of each other’s actions, then the difficulties and injustices of society would all melt away.

No doubt psychology has its part to play in the modern world, at least under capitalism. Certainly many individuals have been and can be helped by psychiatric treatment. But, wars, exploitation, poverty, and unemployment, arise not from any defects in man which could be cured by psychology; they arise from capitalism, and the resulting break-up of society into irreconcilable classes.

If you don’t believe that, you may care to reflect on conditions in what is perhaps the only country in the world which has a psychologist at the head of affairs. It is the near-Fascist republic of South Africa. Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister, is a former Professor of Applied Psychology at Stellenbosch University. But the people of South Africa are not any better off for that. Dr. Verwoerd is the representative of the ruling landed and farming class of South Africa, and he and his Government run the country in the interests of that class. The fact that he is also one of the country’s leading psychologists makes no difference whatever to conditions in South Africa.

Mosley

Whatever may be the right way to deal with Mosley, to go along to his meetings and knock him down is merely foolishness. Firstly, it gives him and his party country-wide publicity in press, radio and television. Secondly, it is resorting to the very weapon—violence—that Fascists and Nazis prefer above all others. Violence is what they plan for, what they train for, what they hope for. To reduce political argument to the level of people knocking each other down in the street is to descend to methods which the Fascists and Nazis would probably use better than any others. As for Socialism, violence is totally irrelevant, even if there were no other objection to it; for the establishment of Socialism depends on an educated working class, which really understands what goes on in the world. Our weapons are argument, knowledge, and reason. Anyone with an understanding of the Socialist case would have no difficulty in pricking Mosley’s bubble.

Race-hatred

Equally irrelevant is the measure now proposed by some MPs of all three large parties to ban incitement to race-hatred. Acts of Parliament cannot kill ideas. If the ruling class of this country decided to bring in the Fascist form of capitalism, or a near-totalitarian system such as our rulers introduced in the last war, no Act of Parliament could stop them. It has been said before, but it will bear repeating, that the only sure safeguard against Fascism is the establishment of Socialism.

In fact, many of those now agitating for a Bill “against race-hatred” were in the forefront of affairs in the last war, writing articles and making speeches which had the single aim of inciting race-hatred against the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. If such a law as they now propose had been in existence from 1939 to 1945, they themselves would have been its most frequent transgressors. And in any future war, whether “conventional” or nuclear, we shall (if there is time) have to listen to the usual flood of propaganda inciting race-hatred against the Russians, or whoever the “enemy” happens to be. And any law there may be which makes incitement to race-hatred illegal will either be repealed or ignored by our rulers.

Militarism

This war-time propaganda is, of course, intended for us, the workers, only; it is hard to believe that the ruling classes of the world fool themselves. For example, the Anglo-American line in the last war was that the Germans and the Japanese were incurably militaristic, that they loved uniforms, drilling, and fighting, and that they rushed into the army at the least opportunity. This, we were told, was one of the “real reasons” for the war. At the end of the last war, the American ruling class insisted, as it had to do if it was to be consistent, that the Japanese should adopt a constitution which renounced totally and for ever any armed forces. But, of course, the realities of capitalism soon caught up with America. Within a few years the American capitalists saw that their next enemy would probably be Russia, and that Japan was almost certain to be America’s ally in that war. So, against strong Japanese opposition, the Americans themselves insisted on Japan renouncing its American-sponsored constitution, and setting up again a strong army, navy and air force.

Endanger the alliance

This, of course, is now history. But exactly the same thing is currently happening with those other “incurable militarists,” the Germans. The German capitalist class has made immense profits since the war, helped by the fact that they have not had to pay very much out on armaments. The German rulers feared attack only from Russia; such an attack, they thought, was almost impossible because the United States would immediately counter-attack with atom-bombs. But the American capitalists have been getting increasingly unhappy about having to shoulder the burden of Germany’s arms-spending as well as their own. Germany already has 350,000 men under arms, and has been persuaded to try to raise this figure to 500,000; but now the Americans are urging Germany to increase the Bundeswehr to a strength of 700,000. This suggestion, however, is very unpopular in German official circles. The German ruling class would much rather go on keeping its large profits and letting the Americans find most of the money for the arms build-up against Russia. In particular, they are relying on the American H-bombs in any future war. In a recent television broadcast, Herr Strauss, the west German Defence Minister, criticized the idea that Western Europe could rely on conventional weapons alone, and said that the theory that the United States would use its nuclear weapons only if American territory were attacked was false. But what he said next showed that he really meant he hoped it was false: “If this were the official view in Washington,” he said, “it would endanger the (Nato) alliance.”

So the present position is that the German ruling class is doing its best to avoid having to build up its armed forces, while America is doing its best to persuade it to do just that. It all seems a very long way from the propaganda we had thrust down our throats in the last war.

Alwyn Edgar

A feeble criticism of Marx (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Modern criticism of Marx tends to crystalise itself into the concession that Marx discovered but unfortunately over-emphasised certain important truths about the nature of social development. Thus do his capitalist critics damn him with a faint praise. Mr. Christopher Hollis, broadcasting “On the Merits and Defects of Karl Marx” (Listener, 4/9/47) offered a slight variation of the theme by at least appearing to praise him with rather more than faint damns. Apart from that his treatment of Marx has no further claim to originality.

Marx himself, sensitive to the fact that his analysis of existing social forms demanded some insight, into his historical method, presupposed in the preface, to “Capital,” people who were willing to learn something new and therefore think for themselves. Viewing his motley crowd of critics by and large, might suggest that this presupposition erred on the side of over-optimism. Indeed many of Marx’s critics have resolutely refused to take him neat. Instead they have preferred to swallow him heavily diluted with secondhand versions and hear-say of others. The sharpness and flexibility of Marx’s method must, however, be judged by the way Marx himself used it. The fact that certain people have criticised Marx without troubling to discover what can be learned from Marx himself has not prevented them from offering their own versions “of what Marx really meant” or should have meant. It did not, of course, prevent Mr. Hollis.

Calling Marx’s Historical Materialism crude economic determinism he nevertheless conceded that economic circumstances have a great influence on men’s views and conduct. “It is a naive and adolescent crudity that they are the sole influence,” he added. It is more naively adolescent for Mr. Hollis to attempt to foist on Marx a view he never held and the fallacy of which he himself exposed. Education, philosophy, religion, law, and political struggles, as Marx revealed, in their action and reaction on each other, played an important part by in turn modifying and influencing the main trend of economic development. What Marx did say was that the key to the whole social picture was to be found in the economic relations under which men live, for it is this which constitutes the most important influence over men’s lives and through their lives their ideas, institutions, and general cultural activities.

For Marx all social development is historically conditioned. That men make history is central then to his doctrine. Not out of any old circumstances it is true but out of the material conditions they find to hand ; again for Marx the vital difference between a colony of bees, or an organisation of ants lies in the fact that men’s historically determined social behaviour is consciously formulated for given purposes and directed towards given ends. Mr. Hollis could even learn that Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism is not only a way of understanding history but through that understanding a way of helping to make it.

According to Mr. Hollis Marx’s economic determinism merely formulated the fact that human nature had been predominantly ruled by greed throughout history. To expect human nature to change, except by the most gradual evolution, was from the standpoint of Marx’s own logic and materialistic thesis, utterly irrational. Socialism being ruled by a spirit of love and service was therefore impossible. Capitalism may pass, said Mr. Hollis, indeed it is reasonable to think so, but on the day of its overthrow the new Socialists and Communists speaking the language of the classless society will establish themselves as a new governing class.

Marx’s belief in the coming of Socialism, was, according to Mr. Hollis, the rewriting of his ancient Jewish ancestral creed, Marx being the son of a Jew who became baptised in the Christian faith, Marx himself the inheritor of generations of Jewish faith translated the coming of the Lord in terms of the coming Communist revolution. Other “psychologists” have also explained Marx’s theories in terms of personal motivation. With that delightful lack of agreement and refreshing inconsistency which characterises “the finding” of these mind experts they have arrived at different conclusions to those of Mr. Hollis. Thus Marx’s theories of social revolution have been rationalised, as a desire to be revenged on his father for turning a Christian; the result of an ineradicable inferiority complex ; and even as a bye-product of an unhealthy liver. Doubtless a perverse ingenuity could think up a, dozen more reasons equally good—or bad. We for our part confess our utter inability to attempt an objective assessment of a many ideas in terms of subjective personal motivation. Generally speaking, such is the vast range of human motives that they are mostly too complex and obscure for people themselves to be really clear about them. For us the only satisfactory criterion of a man’s ideas is whether it is a more, or less objective representation of the processes he seeks to explain. Mr. Hollis’ attempts to deal with Marx’s theories from this aspect were, however, singularly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Hollis even described Marxism among other things as a psychology. Although he added “there is no psychologist today who would accept Marxian Psychology.” He thought that in the realm of psychological motivation there was infinitely more truth in Adler’s lust of power theory than in Marx’s crude economic determinism. Not only Marx himself but also his theories are shifted by Mr. Hollis into the realm of “psychological motivation.” The results of Mr. Hollis’ efforts in so doing are sensational. For if we are to believe Mr. Hollis it is not Marx’s view that it is the historical development of social productive forces which put men’s social needs and economic interests in a definite social cast but rather it is certain fixed and inflexible psychological attributes which bring about the social superstructure necessary for their expression. Mr. Hollis, with a wave of his psychological wand, is thus able to turn Marx the materialist into Marx the idealist. For Marx, if we are to believe Mr. Hollis, merely regarded historic social changes as but the derivative and outcome of a state of mind, albeit a greedy state of mind. Social productive relations are not then the prior and indispensible conditions for men’s existence but some ghostly process tacked on as it were to their immutable economic behaviour. All of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that Marxism is but the affirmation of the subjectivist claim that nothing exists but thinking makes it so. Mr. Hollis is probably unaware of the fact that it was Marx who with objective criticism and scientific acumen scourged those idealistic thinkers, such as Stirner, Bentham, etc., who held such notions! Incidentally, although innocently, Marx also scourged the idealistic Mr. Hollis.

Marx, however, denied that men’s economic interests and needs were to be found by an abstract psychological study of men’s minds; any more than they can be found in a physiological study of their bodies. Such interests are not psychologically derived but socially conditioned. More specifically, men’s social interests and economic exigencies have their origin not in the consciousness or unconsciousness of individuals but in the role these individuals play as members of a social group or class, in the organisation of production. Whether a man is born into that social group which makes him slave owner or slave, feudal lord or serf, employer or wage earner, depends not on his good or bad intent but on a set of productive relations indispensable to his existence and independent of his will. A mode of production based then on private property relationships, expresses the way different classes stand to each other in the division of wealth and the manner and extent in which the total social product is divided between them. In a society such as Capitalism the continued social well-being of the class who own the means of wealth production is dependent on the exploited class who are non-owners. It is true that hero and there an individual succeeds in changing his independent status, but for the overwhelming majority of the dependent class their social and economic conditions are given. Consequently their position of social servitude cannot be changed without revolutionising the productive relationships which make this servitude indispensable for the exploiters The interests of an individual are then but the expression of the common interests of his class. Whatever incidental differences may arise between members of the same social group they are subordinated and subservient to those common benefits that serve their class needs.

In the same way the conflict of class interests is never a conflict which originates and centres around abstractions like “human greed” and “lust for power.” These class conflicts themselves have their objective source in the antagonistic character of social relations based on class ownership of the means of living. The solution for the resolving of these class conflicts likewise is not the outcome of arbitrary choice or ethical preference. On the contrary it is the conscious realisation of concrete class needs made possible by the objective opportunities provided by the development of the social forces within present day society. For it is only when social production is freed from the restraint of private ownership which gives power over the lives of the many and hampers their- free development can a state of affairs—common ownership of the means of living—provide the social basis on which “the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all.” Which shows how much or how little Mr. Hollis understood of the subject he so kindly undertook to explain.

Nevertheless, Mr. Hollis assured his listeners that Capitalism was passing away. While Mr. Hollis was reticent about the shape of things to come he was at least emphatic that the shape would not be Socialism. Sombrely his political horoscope pointed instead to the emergence of a new ruling class. From his statement that the new Society was in its birth pangs we may deduce the fact that the exploited section will continue to be the working class. The economic function of the working class is, of course, to produce surplus value, i.e. the difference in value over and above the cost of their own subsistence and the value of the total product they produce. The appropriators will then be Mr. Hollis’ “new ruling class” who will monopolise the means of living. But it is this method of exploitation based upon the conversion of the dispossessed labourers’ working energies into a commodity and a section who appropriate their unpaid labour which is the starting point and distinctive feature of Capitalism as an historic mode of production. Nothing in essentials will be changed in Mr. Hollis’ “new society.” For a new ruling class to come into existence it must presuppose an entirely new set of economic conditions having entirely different social aims and economic objectives. To call managers, functionaries, bureaucrats, etc., operating and monopolising the means of production under the aegis of the State, a new ruling class is a misnomer. As appropriators of surplus value they would merely be fulfilling the same economic function as the entrepreneur and private corporations they had replaced. The method of exploitation would still exist in the form of capital and wealth accumulation ; or more strictly capital accumulation by the process of seeking, as far as possible, the expansion of surplus value, would be the dominant economic aim and objective. What distinguishes a ruling class is not a particular set of personalities who make up its ranks but the particular way a ruling class, by ownership of wealth resources, appropriates the labour of others. Mr. Hollis’ new ruling class would then be merely different individuals of the old ruling class. In the same way as the former Nazi leaders by forced purchases, appropriation and penetration into large scale industry did not, as some have fondly imagined, form the, nucleus of a new ruling class, but as recipients of surplus value, became part of the German Capitalist class.

It is also an illusion held by Burnham and other supporters of the so-called “managerial revolution” that State intervention weakens and finally destroys the basis of Capitalism. What, in actual fact, does happen is that with the monopolistic growth of modern Capitalism the political functions of the State become more and more integrated into the economic functions of capital. The purpose of political controls is then to ensure as far as possible the smooth running of the various branches of Capitalist production ; the easing of the friction between various sections of the Capitalist class; and the regularising and spreading over of some part of the capital resources of the ruling class in the main field of Capitalist production. State intervention, so far from weakening Capitalism, attempts to strengthen and preserve it in the interests of the Capitalist class as a whole. Even where a considerable measure of State control of industry has been carried out it merely means that the appropriation of surplus value is carried out by the State on behalf of collectivised capital. That is why Mr. Burnham, in his desperate attempt to find a new economic basis for his Managerial Society, merely discovered the novelty of another name for a form of highly developed State Capitalism.

Mr. Hollis also tried to foist on Marx an economic breakdown theory. He said Marx held that only by loans to undeveloped countries was Capitalism able to stave off the breakdown due to its inability to generate sufficient purchasing power ; finally, however, collapse would come. Nowhere did Marx put forward such a doctrine.

Mr. Hollis also thought that the increase of the wealth of the poor was a denial of Marx’s forecast about the development of Capitalism. To talk of the increase of the wealth of the poor is a comical phrase, like talking about the increased health of the permanently diseased. He argued that the worker’s standard of living has increased incomparably more than in all previous recorded history. Yet, strangely enough, never, perhaps, has history recorded such vast inequalities of income on the scale obtaining in Capitalism. What is true is that in spite of the incomparable increase in producing wealth in ever vaster quantities the poverty of the great majority in Capitalism is not merely a logical deduction from Marx’s theories but a physical and social fact.

Mr. Hollis complained that the taxation of the rich was becoming increasingly heavier. One can only say that a system of society, such as the present, where the State is compelled to spend vast resources on the upkeep of such things as armies, navies and armaments in general, can hardly constitute a satisfactory defence of capitalism. If anything it is another excellent reason why Capitalism should go.

That Mr. Hollis should read into what he calls the logic of Marx his own crudely naive and adolescent fatalism of a world in the grip of iron laws based on human greed is lamentable. What is perhaps more lamentable is that it should obtain licence to be performed publicly. Doubtless, however, the traditional “B.B.C. impartiality” is best preserved by letting its listeners hear Marx explained by non-Marxists or even anti-Marxists.

In conclusion we may add that from Mr. Hollis’ discourse on Marx we failed to discern either “the merits or defects of Karl Marx.” We did, however, in this respect discover the defects of Mr. Hollis.

Ted Wilmott

Old Tales retold (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Propagating Socialism is like spending an afternoon at a fair ground shooting clay pigeons down; you shoot them down, they place them up; you shoot them down again, up they come again. It is the same with arguments against Socialism.

The “you can’t change human nature” argument is an example. Those who put it forward usually know very little about human nature or human history, which is much the same thing. As Marx wrote in the “Poverty of Philosophy” :

“All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.” (Marxist Leninist Library Edition, p. 124.)

The characteristic traits men have expressed in societies based on private property are different from the traits expressed by men in the period termed prehistory. This period, prehistory, has formed by far the greater part of man’s existence on earth. The people who say you can’t change human nature usually give as evidence to support their belief the behaviour of politicians who are all for the working class when standing for election but when in power are different. Whatever we may think of this statement it doesn’t support their contention that human nature doesn’t change, but defeats it, as it implies that people act differently when their circumstances are altered.

Another example is the argument tendered by Mr. Winston Churchill at the Conservative rally in London, quoted in the Observer (13/6/48) : “Socialism is the philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy.”

This argument can’t hold up to a moment’s analysis. Robert Owen, the Utopian, who first coined the term Socialism, was a wealthy textile manufacturer. Frederick Engels, one of the formulators of scientific Socialist theory, was also a successful business man.

The “failure” argument is based on the false assumptions that society is alright and the trouble lies within ourselves.

Those who maintain that the trouble lies within ourselves claim their assertion has a scientific basis in the theories of the psycho-analytical school of psychologists. An essential feature of science is verification by experiment. Otto Fenickel wrote in “The Psychoanalytical Theory of Neurosis,” published by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.:

“The application of the general principles of natural science to psychology naturally presupposes the development of new methods of research that are adequate to its subject matter. Attempts to keep the mental realm outside of causal and quantitative thinking . . . thwart real insight as does also a pseudo exactness which believes it necessary to transfer the biological methods of experiment and scientific protocol to a field where these methods are not suitable (astronomy also is unable to resort to experiments and nevertheless is a natural science).” (Page 7.)

To call psycho-analysis a science before these new methods of objective verification have been discovered is to beg the question. Verification of astronomical theories is made when an eclipse or the position of some heavenly body is forecast.

What agreement is there between the various schools of psycho-analysis’? With Freud, the determining feature is sexual interests; with Adler lust for power and organ inferiority; with Jung, racial consciousness and the theory of types, extrovert and introvert. All can’t be correct.

The other assumption is that society is alright. In capitalist society there are two classes. The capitalist class who own the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth and the working class who own nothing but their labour power which they must sell in order to live. According to statistics gathered by Sir John Orr, Seebohm Rowntree and others about one-third of the population don’t receive enough to keep themselves in health. It can’t be unemployment that is the cause of their poverty, because in the years before the war about one-fifteenth of the working class were out of work. This doesn’t account for the plight of one-third of the population. Nor is their poverty caused by buying fish suppers and strong drink, as they don’t receive sufficient money it doesn’t matter how they spend it. It doesn’t make any difference which Party of capitalism is in power, whether it is Conservative, Liberal, Labour or a Coalition, the conditions remain the same.

Statistics don’t tell you anything, opponents argue; or statistics can prove anything. Well, they can’t have it both ways. The every-day business of capitalist society is carried on with the use of statistics, for example, how many special trains will be required on Derby day? How many special postmen for the Christmas week? Society is the laboratory where social statisticians verify the accuracy of their methods.

The social investigators mentioned were all staunch defenders of the capitalist order of society.

The Socialist can accept their figures and conclude from them that the poverty of the working class follows from the fact that the working class must sell their labour power to the capitalist class in order to live. Common ownership of the means of living with free access to all is the only solution to the problem.

J. T.

Letter: Manipulation and Brainwashing (1993)

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

Dear Editors,

The September Socialist Standard article "Manipulation and Brainwashing" made a good point: "the people responsible for this manipulation (of the masses| are the cadres of intellectuals serving the interests of the ruling class, who reinforce its sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life are: psychologists, economists, historians, sociologists and other people in public life".

However, I think making this point in such a few words runs the risk of putting some of the people working in those fields off the Socialist Party, who would otherwise be favourably disposed towards us.

Is it easy, in many cases, to distinguish which activities of these "cadres" are serving the interests of the ruling class and which ones are beneficial to socialist arguments? For example there are psychologists (who are integrated into the system) who have demonstrated time and again that some people behave in socially harmful ways, not because they’re "born that way" or are "bad/evil", but because obstacles to socially useful development (which proved to be insurmountable) have been placed in their way by society.

Cliff Begley,

London WC1

Socialism and Psychology. A Materialist on the Human Mind. (1917)

From the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the average man the mind is a wonderful phenomenon, something that is past his understanding. Memory, judgment, imagination, and thought are to him miracles. He makes no attempt to study them because they are of the essence of his being, which to him is an unsolvable mystery. But to the scientist the mind is no more of a mystery than are other natural phenomena quite easily understood by the average man.

The scientist is so familiar with the brain—the seat of the mind—that he can mark off to a certain extent those regions that receive the different impressions from the external world, as by sight, smell, hearing, etc. By a close study of healthy and unhealthy minds he has learned the actual regions of the brain that are responsible for memory, judgment, and reason. He can remove a portion of the brain and foretell what faculty will be affected as a consequence.

To the scientist the brain is a physiological organ which he studies in exactly the same way as he studies other organs or phenomena ; that is, by observation, hypothesis, and experiment. The hypothesis is deduced from the facts observed, and the experiment either justifies it, disproves it, or brings to light new facts which modify it.

Every organ of the body (with the exception of those atrophied through disuse) has its function. The function of the heart is circulation, that of the stomach is digestion, and those of the brain nervous co-ordination and thought. If food is lacking or poor, digestion is stopped or impaired. If blood does not flow back to the heart the function of the latter ceases. The brain, without a variety of impressions, which it receives from outside itself, would have nothing on which to think but the fact of its own existence.

The physical make-up of the individual, together with his environment, is the material on which the brain functions, and, apart from the mere physiological process, weaves that intangible thing, the mind. But the minds of no two living beings are exactly alike ; moreover, the mind of every individual undergoes change with his growth. His material surroundings, his physical and social environment, in their perpetual panorama of transformation, changes his mind from the unconscious ego of the embyronic stage up to that degree of intelligence and culture made possible by the stage of social development reached.

The mind is built up by a multitude of impressions and ideas imprinted upon the brain by the material world with which it comes into contact through the senses. It cannot pick and choose the materials for its own construction. It is in no sense free because its material surroundings, its social status, and its inherited constitution determine its line of development. Spiritual fakirs advise the workers to dwell on the glories of a future state ; but that is asking them to dream of a life worth living and disregard the possibilities of the only life they will ever know. It is no consolation to be able to dream of heavenly or earthly paradises in the midst of conditions that seem worse by contrast each time we awake. The evangelist from the South Wales coal pit may break out into exotic perspiration in his efforts to conjure up in his mind the spirit forms that priestly suggestion has convinced him make spirit music in the ethereal blue. But when he comes out of his trance, like a toper out of his bleary sleep, the sordid conditions of his existence reassert themselves, and his mind is once more an agglomeration of the details of mine and slum, where all his time is spent. Even in its ecstatic flight his mind is not free : he only visualised the hypnotic suggestion of his master’s tool.

We are told that there is a far wider difference between a prominent scientist and the lowest savage than there is between the last named and the highest of the animals. But the scientist owes his mental superiority to society. The material comforts and necessities of his everyday life, together with the materials that form the subject of his investigation and experiment, and which give him the opportunity for mental development, are all supplied by the working class. It is an open question whether a colossal intellect is worth striving for, but either way the worker gets no opportunity to reach it. A fully developed mind is as far beyond his attainment as a well-nourished body. But the lack of opportunity to emulate the intellectual achievements of Darwin or Huxley is a flippant irony that shows up fantastically on a background of tragedy.

For while the worker supplies the materials for the mental development of the scientist, and the whole of the ruling class with wealth that permits them to revel in a cultured and sensuous mentality, his mind, besides being imprisoned in an environment of endless toil and want, is stunted for lack of mental food, and artificially twisted into a shape that coincides with capitalist interests, by a huge army of religious fakirs and tricksters. A rational mental development is beyond the reach of the vast majority of the workers, and a healthy, vigorous mind is a comparative rarity.

Take the case of the machine-minder, or the worker constantly performing one operation in a series necessary to the production of an article. Thousands of times in a day he will press a lever or turn a crank, always with the same result as regards the industrial process ; always the same impression stamped on his brain. By constant repetition he works automatically, becoming every day more machine-like in his movements and thoughts. Tiring his mind daily without developing it, he becomes incapable of reason or consecutive thought. His mind, dominated by the machine, has taken over its qualities and become part of the industrial process that pours all wealth into the lap of the ruling class and leaves him—who once possessed a human mind with endless possibilities of development—a skull with vacant eyes staring outwards, and a vibrant clang repeating itself incessantly inside. He is without even a desire for change because it might make thought necessary, and thought is painful to the undeveloped mind.

To the reader it may appeal that an extreme case has been chosen and the most made of it, and that the vast majority of workers are in infinitely better. But is it so?  A little observation among friends and acquaintances will quickly show the material that enters into the average worker’s mind. His conversation is the key to his mind. What is his most serious topic of conversation ? Work. Not one in a hundred can talk intelligently on any other subject. Neither is it work in general that is talked about, but only the experiences and troubles of the individual. Whether he is in the factory or the tap-room the one thing that sways and dominates his mind is his job, the inability of his foreman, the jealousy of his mates, or his own quickness or ingenuity. Work is the all-absorbing topic of the bulk of the workers ; behind all this talk is the working-class mind, fed and trained in the dust and toil of the factory on everything that is mean and sordid that the meanest of all possible systems could generate.

The capitalist politician, self-satisfied and oily, boasts of the privileges and benefits conferred on mankind by modern civilisation. His thoughts are for his own class only. With every want satisfied, their lives a ceaseless round of pleasure, the system, for them, is perfect while it lasts. But for the working class there is nothing but toil and poverty under the system. Unemployment and insecurity produce in their minds that worst of all fears, the dread of hunger for themselves and those dependent upon them

The environment, of the worker being mean and slavish, his brain—a mere sensitive plate—is stamped with those qualities. The physiological problem for the Socialist is, therefore : How to induce the toiler to think for himself on the all-important question, ‘”Socialism versus Capitalism,” while his environment is all the while degrading and weakening his mind. The only solution to this problem is a Socialist party alive to its task and becoming ever stronger as a result of its gradual and steady accomplishment. The working class must affect its own emancipation ; it is, therefore, to the working class that the Socialist Party brings its message.

Knowing, as we do, the apathy and lack of real knowledge that characterises the wage-slaves, we realise that the Socialist position must be clear and easily understood. Confusion must be avoided like the pestilence. The object must be clearly defined, and the reasons, historical and economic, that justify it stated with precision. Only when the worker has understood these can he say with truth that his brain functions in his own interest and is no longer a mere adjunct to the factory, the mine, and the land.

When the Socialist Object has been reached, and these things are owned in common, instead of being the be-all and end-all of the worker’s physiological existence they will be relegated to their proper sphere. They will be used to satisfy our everyday wants instead of being dissipated for capitalist profits. They need no longer dominate, enslave and degrade the mind of a single human being, because, with modern methods and machinery the major portion of our time can be spent in congenial surroundings, in environment that will stimulate the brain, engendering healthy thoughts and a mind serene and dignified.

F. Foan

How we live and how we might live (concluded) (2025)

From the May 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued from last month)

In a voluntary society without a monetary incentive, who would choose to do the dirty work? Wouldn’t people avoid it (surely that’s human nature)? And wouldn’t that have serious consequences for society?

Talk to an apologist for capitalism and you will almost certainly be told at some point that the system’s competitive private property structure is well adapted to meet the demands of ‘human nature’. According to capitalist apologists our ‘nature’ is self-interested and competitive. How do they know this? Well, they say, look around at the way people actually do behave. Competitive and self-interested behaviour is to be found everywhere. As socialists, we have no disagreement with that. In property-based societies like our own, selfish and competitive behaviour is ubiquitous.

But does that define our ‘nature’? In reality, we know this simple model of ‘human nature’ leaves a lot out. We can begin by drawing our apologist’s attention to Douglas Adams’s parable of the puddle: one rainy morning a puddle wakes up in a large pothole. It scans the world around it and is delighted to discover that the pothole is exactly the right shape to accommodate it, and the same is true for its companion puddles and their potholes. The puddle therefore concludes that the world has been designed specifically for the needs of puddles. We can apply this analogy to our current society and ask whether capitalism’s private property system has been designed to accommodate an intrinsically selfish and competitive ‘human nature’ as the capitalist apologist claims, or, on the contrary, whether the competitive and selfish behaviour we see around us, is a learned strategy for surviving in capitalism.

Wide range of capacities

If we look at human behaviour with a more inclusive eye, we can see that even in a capitalist society, people’s behaviour is not solely competitive and selfish, but is often deeply co-operative and generous. Modern capitalism itself consists of huge businesses which employ thousands of people all co-operating together. In our domestic lives, family members support each other, they help out friends with time and money, and they give generously to charitable causes at home and abroad. Donald Trump’s withdrawal of USAID, for example, while applauded by his ideological supporters, has also generated a large backlash as evidence builds of the deadly effects of withdrawal on the populations USAID previously supported.

Human beings are capable of self-interested and competitive behaviour, and also co-operation, kindness and generosity. Rather than ‘human nature’, it would be more accurate to speak of a wide range of ‘human capacities’. We then have to ask what determines which of our capacities predominates in an individual or in a particular society, and under what circumstances. Research in social psychology points to the fact that though we have a capacity for both co-operation and competition, both are socially learned behaviours. If a society is organised on the basis of property relations that isolate individuals and set them in competition with one another, then the best way for its members to survive in such a system will be to behave competitively. If society is organised to produce what we need co-operatively and without private ownership or the profit motive, then this is how things get done, and everyone learns and values much more co-operative behaviour.

At this point our apologist will still insist that even if we have a wide range of capacities, without externally imposed incentives like money wages, individuals will ‘naturally’ gravitate to doing pleasant or interesting tasks and to avoid unpleasant ones. If you ask most people would they rather do something they enjoy than something they don’t, we can probably guess the answer. But dirty work is not necessarily unenjoyable. Many people in the UK and elsewhere do dirty jobs for low wages. It is also the case that all actions have consequences. And those consequences may in themselves be pleasant or unpleasant. Very often actions we find pleasant to do have unpleasant consequences that we want to avoid and vice versa. Humans are not robots, but conscious beings that can estimate consequences and judge how they act on that basis.

Psychological needs

According to research in social psychology, humans have three psychological needs which motivate us strongly to act. We have a need for ‘relatedness’ with our fellows, a need for autonomy and a need to obtain mastery over our environment.

Relatedness: Human beings have never lived isolated lives. We are social creatures and we seek to act and live our lives in collaboration with others. Moreover, we commit ourselves to looking after those we identify and bond with. In capitalist society where the property-based employer-employee relationship divides us economically and forces us to compete, we do not go to work to provide for society in general, but for a wage in order to support ourselves and our families. Our ability to expend time and resources to care for others outside our narrow circle of family and friends is necessarily limited, and if it cuts into the time available for employment, comes at a cost to ourselves. In a socialist society of common ownership and free access, productive activity is not carried on directly to meet our own needs. Our needs are met freely, and we freely give our time to meet the needs of the community of which we are a part. In such a society the circle of those we act for and identify with widens dramatically. And because we have free access to the things we need, the time we give to others never affects our entitlement.

Autonomy: We are motivated to seek relatedness, but we are also motivated to seek personal autonomy, the ability within society to freely make our own choices and decisions. Autonomy is different from ‘independence’ which is a powerful buzz-word in capitalist apologetics. ‘Independence’ has to do with not relying on others. This means that autonomy, the freedom to choose, is compatible with our human need for relatedness, but independence is not. Although capitalist ideology often likes to deny it, our lives are wholly dependent on others, from our first breath to our last. Human beings as we know from experience have a capacity to dominate others. But we also have a powerful drive: a capacity to resist domination. We do not feel comfortable when others exercise power over our lives. People can only dominate us, however, if our society is organised in ways that allow some individuals to stand in the way of our access to the means of life, as occurs in capitalism’s wages system. Dominance hierarchies of this kind limit our freedom and control. A voluntarist society like socialism which is organised without a dominance hierarchy allows us much more autonomy (freedom) and relatedness.

Mastery: Human beings in general are strongly motivated to seek mastery. It may be that we want to become a better guitarist, to produce better carpentry joints, to write better poetry, to bake fancier breads, to become a better astronomer, to invent new technologies. Our drive to achieve mastery in our skills and knowledge often provides good illustrations of the activity/consequence relation discussed earlier. In order to achieve mastery of the guitar for instance, many people are prepared to put themselves through hundreds of hours of a monotonous and often frustrating learning process while painfully developing the calluses on their fingertips which allow them to play their chosen instrument. Satisfaction may be the end goal of our activity, but it may not at all be a feature of the activity itself.

Extrinsic motivators like money tend to suppress our intrinsic motivations for relatedness, autonomy and mastery. In a voluntaristic socialist society without dependence on an employer, we become free to make our own decisions about how we act and how we develop our skills. Without the blinkers of the wages system, which subordinates our actions to a narrow self-interest, we develop a much broader concept of our mutual interdependence. To the extent that some work, therefore, remains ‘dirty’, our much-extended sociability and a shared identity allows us to find value and meaning in contributing to the communal process of meeting our collective needs. And because we have much extended choice, there is also much we can do to eliminate ‘dirty’ work altogether or to make it more attractive.

Questions to ask

1. Is the ‘dirty’ activity necessary? Maybe we are happy to live with the consequences of not doing it. The consequences of certain mining activities for precious jewels, for instance, we might choose to live without.

2. If we can’t live with the consequences, is the work really that unpleasant? We often exaggerate how unpleasant some work is. Many people happily do work that others find ‘dirty’. The dirtiness of ‘dirty’ work is often an exaggerated response to a society that identifies ‘cleanliness’ with status so that we respond to this kind of work with exaggerated disgust. Some people find pleasure in hard physical work, even if it is in ‘dirty’ conditions.

3. If we cannot live with the consequences of not doing the work, and the work is genuinely unpleasant, can we do it a different way? In a socialist society, providing for human need means looking after ourselves in all our roles including that of producers.

3a) Can we make the work ‘cleaner’? A significant amount of ‘dirty work’ in capitalism is only dirty because it is more profitable to organise it that way than to clean it up.

3b) Can we mechanise the work, wholly or partly?

3c) Can we make it pleasanter, by providing, for instance, a better environment, better tools or better protective equipment?

3d) Can we share ‘dirty work’ around more, so that no one does it as a full-time occupation unless they want to?

3e) Can we make the task more sociable, obtaining satisfaction through working together as part of a self-managing team for a common social goal.

3f) Can we find resources and means of having fun while doing it? This may seem like a flippant suggestion, but, if so, ask yourself why? Human beings are a playful species. Under capitalism’s system of employment, time and productivity mean money for the capitalist, so we are taught to be serious in our jobs, to work hard, and to keep our heads down. In socialism, we decide how to balance the effort or unpleasantness of production against how much we think we need.

3g) Can we make the work creative or instructive so that those doing it can advance their knowledge and skills?

Capitalism or socialism?

So, what conclusions have we drawn in this series of articles? We have argued that capitalism is a system based on the employer/employee property relationship which isolates individuals economically from one another and forces them to compete at all levels of society, and that competition frequently spills over into all kinds of conflict, from domestic disputes to gigantic, mechanised world wars. It is the source of poverty, climate crisis, pollution and loss of species diversity.

Socialism, by contrast, is a system of free access, free association and common ownership of the means of production by the whole of society. It extinguishes the profit motive and wasteful competition, undercuts the private ownership of capital and releases a vast amount of labour power tied up, for instance, in the management of capitalism’s monetary system. It undercuts the motivation for greedy behaviour, turns work into productive activity, and laziness into leisure. It also eliminates the need for extrinsic incentives such as money and provides genuinely human motivations like relatedness, autonomy and mastery.

Hud.

Cash or cachet? (2024)

From the September 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the 1860s, William James, one of the founding fathers of psychology, declared that ‘the most deep-seated need in human nature is to be appreciated’. Of course, ideas about ‘human nature’ are many and varied and socialists would argue that there is actually no fixed human nature but simply ‘human behaviour’, which is highly flexible and varies enormously from place to place, person to person and time to time according to the circumstances in which human beings find themselves and the pressures and influences upon them. But whether we call it ‘human nature’ or anything else, there can be little doubt that human beings are, as William James observed, prone to caring deeply about their standing in the eyes of others, about what a recent series of BBC radio programmes called Status.

Ultra-social

The author and journalist, Carl Honoré, who presented the ‘Status’ programmes, traced this tendency to the fact that humans are a highly cooperative species (‘ultra-social’, it is often called) who, had they not been ‘wired’ to cooperate, could not have survived the various different stages of social development they have been through. He pointed in particular to the most long-lived of these stages, the hunter-gatherer one, where survival was based on close collaboration among members of the group in which they lived and where those who excelled at bringing back food to be shared by the tribe were those who would earn the most prestige or ‘status’. This, he went on, was the ultimate reward and, as a driving force, has been fundamental to all the various different forms of human society that followed. So, despite the fact that those societies – and in particular the current one, capitalism – have laid ever-increasing emphasis on competition, this has not prevented cooperation continuing alongside it and at the same time, without which in fact we could not carry on living and working together. And a crucial reason for that, according to Carl Honoré, is that we are built to care intensely about what other people think of us – even if we may not openly admit it. In fact, it is one of the key experiences creating in us feelings of what we know as ‘happiness’.

Of course, modern capitalist society, with its winner-take-all mindset, often frustrates this natural tendency to contribute to the wellbeing of others and the community and the welcome esteem and appreciation it generates for us. This was something emphasised by the programme’s presenter, when he referred to ‘the economic insecurity baked into global capitalism’ as a significant factor preventing us from fulfilling our role as social animals and preventing us from creating ‘relationships and communities that make everyone feel valued’. In capitalism we focus on making a living for ourselves, because we need to, often to the detriment of working together with others, of ‘helping the tribe’ and achieving the satisfaction that creates. Not of course that we never experience such satisfaction. Our natural ‘ultra-social’ urge to help and to be of use to our fellow humans manifests itself in all manner of small ways in our lives more or less every day, helping to offset the ‘zero-sum’ experience that capitalism tends to make of life.

Seeking happiness

In the last of his five programmes, Carl Honoré, called for ‘a political earthquake to fix an economic system that denies basic dignity to so many’ and the need ‘to build a world where everyone thrives’. These ideas sound very much like what the Socialist Party has advocated and campaigned for throughout the 120 years of its existence. He further stated that ‘the first step to settle a problem is to lay it out on the table’ and that too is precisely what we have never stopped trying to do during that period. But it is of course up to workers as a whole, including Carl Honoré, to break free from the current system, to grasp the nettle of that problem and to take the necessary democratic political action to solve it. What is certain – and emerges clearly from what the presenter lays out – is that the natural human tendency to cooperate will be a perfect instrument for the establishment and operation of a moneyless, wageless society of voluntary work and free access based on the principle of from each according to ability to each according to need. In such a society our ‘craving for status’, our desire for the approbation of others, will have full scope for satisfaction, contributing both to the wellbeing of our fellow human beings and to our own personal happiness.

Howard Moss

Letter: Anxiety (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anxiety

Though I am in complete agreement with the assessments and aims expressed in your Declaration of Principles, I do wonder if you have ever considered the possible psychological effects of living in a new, Socialist society. We often read that a working-class pools winner chooses to continue in his wage-slavery (indeed can often become anxious at the thought of guaranteed security). So do you not think that similar undesired effects could result after a transition to Socialism?

Please don’t answer this question simply by referring to the incidence of mental illness in a capitalist society. I think the question is too vital for comparisons.

P. Dodd

London E3

Reply:

This raises the fundamental question of whether conduct and attitudes which may seem an obstruction to Socialism are human nature or human behaviour. Can we all cope with freedom and security?

Human nature is the collective phrase for man’s necessary drives. Basically they are self-preservation—getting food, protection against the elements—and sex. The other item to be added is that men cannot satisfy these demands and survive except in co-operation with other men: our nature is social. Its various manifestations depend on the forms which social organization takes, and the superstructures on the base of society produce complex patterns of behaviour which can be and are mistaken (for the time being, at any rate) for human nature.

A commodity-producing society-capitalism—leads to special emphasis being put on individuality. Thus, present-day consciousness focuses on each person’s self-appreciation : his problems, wants, how the world is through his eyes, and his capacities in comparison with other individuals. It has produced a science dealing with these matters. But, as Marx pointed out: "Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”

Where does this lead us? It means that in viewing the reaction of the man who is frightened by winning the pools we must look not to human nature but to existing social relations for the reason. A class-divided society conditions everyone. Large numbers of people in the civilized world are convinced, because as members of the working class they have actually been trained along these lines, that they could not manage their lives without being given orders and that getting more than a limited amount of wealth would bring them some kind of distress. All this is human behaviour within capitalism, and there is no reason for projecting it into a classless society.

On the other hand, man’s social nature makes isolation something he fears. It is a fear played upon by a lot of advertizing, and is an obvious element in the pools-winner’s case: will he be alienated from his former associates, would he be able to fit in other surroundings and circles? Any proposed step away from known circumstances invokes the same fear.

Read Marx’s statement, and consider not hypothetical individual cases but the relations within which all individuals will exist in Socialist society. In particular, the ending of class division and the further divisions resulting from it will mean a community will exist. The individual won’t worry about security (his place in society) because that will be the common condition without the comparisons which cause anxiety. We all want to "get on well” with our fellow' men, but in a class society this urge is channelled into impressing them by position and possessions; in Socialism we shall be able to live harmoniously with one another as people.

Two other points. First, Socialists are not persons who have escaped being conditioned by the society we live in today. Class consciousness gives us awareness of it, and that provides the means to envisage a society without it. Second, a sometimes-heard objection to Socialism is that if everyone is secure we shall have a dull eventless world. On the contrary, imagine the flowering of individual abilities now suppressed, and the directing of social resources unfettered for the first time to transforming the world. Socialism means the beginning of history.

Editors.

The trouble with gods (2008)

From the January 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those fortunate enough to live in relatively secularized societies should not underestimate global power of religion.

Gods do exist, in a certain sense (I use the word “gods” as a gender-neutral term that includes goddesses). Humans create them in their own image, though without being aware of doing so. The fact that gods are male or female in itself strongly suggests that they are creatures of the human imagination. But they infest the mind as powerful, capricious and mysterious beings who demand endless worship and praise, reverence and obedience, devotion and propitiatory sacrifice. The gods in the head of the believer thwart the development of confidence, self-respect, rational enquiry and independent judgment.

In this way the idea of domination and submission is imprinted in the psyche as a model for relationships between beings. That model is then readily applied to social relationships – to the relationship between man and woman, master and slave, and so on. The Moroccan scholar Fatna A. Sabbah has shown how this works in the case of Islam in her brilliant (pseudonymous) study Woman in the Muslim Unconscious (Pergamon Press, 1984), but her analysis applies equally well to the psychology of “God-fearing” Jews and Christians.

The imaginary world of the divine, in turn, draws its inspiration from the real world of human power structures. God is “king of the universe”, the archangels and angels are his ministers and officials, and the devil has the job of running the Gulag.  

My argument is that it is above all these psychological effects, and not specific religious dogmas and practices, which make god worship a bulwark of class society. That, surely, from the socialist point of view is the main trouble with gods.

Objections

It may be objected that some religious beliefs do not seem compatible with the division of society into classes. An obvious example is the idea that “we are all equal in the eyes of God.” Beliefs of this kind have, indeed, inspired peasant uprisings. “When Adam dwelled and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?” asked John Ball in the 14th century.

This objection is not completely groundless. Submission to gods does not always and automatically translate into submission to human masters. But surveying the broad sweep of history, I still think that accepting divine authority tends to predispose people to accept human authority as well.  

Another possible objection is that belief in gods predates class society. Primitive people already feared gods who embodied the uncontrollable forces of nature. People were in thrall to gods before they were in thrall to other people. And yet this made them especially vulnerable to oppression and exploitation when other conditions were in place for the transition from primitive communism to class society.

God-kings and priestly castes

Many of the earliest rulers made the most direct use of their subjects’ belief in gods by demanding that they themselves be worshipped as gods (the Roman emperors, for instance) or – more often – as descendants or earthly manifestations of gods. Egyptian pharaohs claimed descent from the creator sun-god Atum or Re. The Inca was descended from the sun god Inti, while the Aztec king represented the fire god Xiuhtecuhtli (Bruce Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations). The Shinto belief that the Japanese emperor was descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu held sway right up to 1946, when Hirohito renounced divine status.

Some religions directly support the class structure by sanctifying the entire ruling class. The best-known case is the sanctification of the priestly Brahmin caste in Hinduism, although the Indian caste system no longer corresponds precisely to the class structure. Judaism also has its “pure” priestly caste – the cohanim, who trace descent from Moses’ brother Aaron.

Still mighty foes

By and large, however, the mechanisms through which religion supports class society (capitalism) are nowadays indirect. It is still risky to challenge the powers that be, but — except in a few countries like Iran — it no longer counts as sacrilege. The image of God has even started to mutate from that of the irate patriarch to that of the “sympathetic” social worker.   

And yet in large parts of the world religion still occupies a very important place in people’s hearts and minds. Those fortunate enough to live in relatively secularized societies should not underestimate its global power. The gods remain mighty foes of their deluded human creators.

Stefan.

SPGB Discord Meetings (2020)

Party News from the November 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The following SPGB Discord Meetings from November 2020 were recorded for posterity. Sound quality varies:

• Belling the cat: Marx and Engels on the practical organization of socialism. (Speaker: Bill Martin) Link.
• Attachment Theory (Speaker: Tim Kilgallon) Part 1, Part 2.
• The new atheism (Speaker: Nigel McCullough) Part 1, Part 2.
• Bitcoin and the Dark Web (Speaker: Paul Edwards) Link. 

Animal crackers (1956)

From the September 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is psychology the bunk or am I afraid of what might turn up through delving into individuals minds? The answer depends on what psychology is and this I confess my inability to decide.

Whilst reading Reynolds News (8-4-56) I noticed an article headed “ The 'Animal Crackers’ Character Test” and sub-headed “Would You Rather Be A Fish?” This aroused immediate interest As the article was written by Dr. Brian Welbeck, Reynolds News crack psychologist (he is their only one), I anticipated a fount of information.

It appeared from the article that headmen who examine head cases find it important to determine the characters they are investigating. Incidentally, I have not got acquainted with how psychologists determine the subjects willingness and capacity to pay the bill for treatment. Neither do I know now they manage to keep this dark in view of the whole host of other characters, rent collectors, insurance agents, credit merchants, and so on, who are deeply interested in this facet of an individual's character.

Not only is it important to determine character but it should be done as simply as possible. This seems highly desirable as it cuts down work tremendously and expedites business no end. Happily this has been achieved; only two easy questions are necessary.

At this stage instructions appeared in the article. Personally I'm a guy who is always getting instructions, at school, at the Labour Exchange, in the Army, from the wife, in the factory. Indeed, it is difficult to mention where I don’t get instructions. This made things very easy for me. This is what I had to do: “Before you read any further—stop.” I did this! nothing happened. I proceed to the next word, “Look.” This I am doing I know because I can see the word, still no reaction. The next word is “listen.” This produced another blank. I try them all together simultaneously. This is difficult sitting in a chair with a paper in my hand. Still no dice. All this makes me aware of how really mysterious psychology is.

Next I have to write down my “ own ” answer to . the two easy questions. ,

The Dr. sure appreciates the uncertain world we live in. Be careful. All of us are aware of the Secret Life of Walter Mitty. Some answer other than our own may inadvertently slip in. Make sure it's your own answer and not the Admiral’s whom you don’t happen to be.

The first question is: “If you had to be an animal which animal would you choose?” My answer came fast—a human. The second question was curt and terse, no beating about the bush. “Why?” This shook my morale. Me being a wage slave, and not knowing any other animals that have, for example, dogs and wage slave dogs, I got no animals to look down on. I got out of that dilemma rapidly. I was cheating, picking the card I was not meant to choose. I tried again, “sabre toothed tiger.” Why? Because its extinct, if it wasn’t it would be very useful to chew up Capitalists with. This completes the test. Now follows the real hard work interpretation.

From a number of examples of interpretation provided I choose the first case at random that Dr. Welbeck recalls as a pale, plump, young woman. Her choice of animal was gazelle, and the reason is because they are very graceful with long beautiful legs. It transpires that this dame is very unhappy about her large cumbersome frame and wants desperately to be like Jane Russell or Marilyn Monroe. This is very shocking because I never knew that pale, plump, young women had large cumbersome frames, which goes to show how good a psychologist the Doctor is and Reynolds News is making no mistakes.

Now comes the interpretation of my own character. The first extinct animal that sprang to mind was a sabre toothed tiger. Immediately my mind projected on the nearest wall, the spectacle of the most ferocious tiger imaginable chasing bloated Capitalists in 78 carat gold limousines all over the place. This I can recommend as highly enjoyable to unhappy people like myself who are very desirous of becoming plain ordinary citizens of the world.

The real importance of my choice of animal is because it is extinct. One reason why animals become extinct is because they are separated from their sustenance. This is really what I would like to happen to the Capitalists. To see them deprived of their rent, interest, and profit, by the world’s workers taking over the livelihood the means of wealth production and distribution and making this the property of everybody or nobody and thus making everyone plain citizens of the world.

This analysis reveals that I am a very frustrated character. This I shall remain until the workers of the world allow me to assist them in the performance of the delectable task of eliminating capitalism and establishing Socialism.

The characters reading this who are not acting as willing and able physicians in removing my frustration or in curing the social ailments of the world are altogether very deplorable.

D. W.