Letter: Socialism & Religion (1976)

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

Socialism & Religion

It does not necessarily follow that a religious person cannot take an active part in the abolition of the capitalist system of society. The belief in any view of the immortality of the soul does not spring from any particular mode of production. Such beliefs can be used for the good or the ill of man, just as a razor can be used for shaving or cutting one’s throat (or some other one’s). It is sheer super-optimism to believe that in a reasonable given time the majority of the world’s workers will discard their religious beliefs in favour of a materialistic outlook on life and death.

It is in the manner in which religion is used that it becomes the opium of the people. So I cannot see what prevents a religious person advocating and working for the abolition of the exploitation of man by man in the economic field.

Please note: You can cut this short letter if you wish. If you do so, it will be interesting to see which parts you censor.

Ron Smith

Dundee

Reply:

That religion is “the opium of the people” is only part of the Socialist case against it. Underlying all religious belief is idealism — the assumption that ideas have an existence of their own and can be the operative force in changing society “for the good or the ill of man”, as you say.

Scientific materialism rejects this belief. The drive to Socialism is not a pursuit of ideas, but the expression of a class interest. Revolutionary social changes in the past have been brought about (and resisted) by classes seeking the fulfilment of their material interests. People holding religious or otherwise idealist views have, therefore, an obstruction to their understanding of society: contrary to what you say, it does necessarily follow “that a religious person cannot take an active part in the abolition of the capitalist system”.

You tell us it is mistaken to expect that the majority of the world’s workers will reject religion and see things materialistically. Look round. The capitalist system itself requires materialist thinking and is helping to effect the conversion. A poll reported in the Guardian on 14th October 1974 concluded that only 33 per cent, of young people today believe in God or an after-life.

As regards your ending: don’t be childish. Letters are shortened for space reasons, not censorship. If other letters on these pages had not been reduced in length yours might not appear, and vice versa.

Editors

In brief (1975)

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

In brief

G. Cowan (London W.9) and D. Edwards (Wakefield): See article “What are You Doing About It” in this issue.

R. Smith (Dundee): Your letter only goes again over the ground of the previous ones, and we leave readers to consider them and our replies. However, we would add that we cannot possibly give an undertaking to publish letters in full. If we did not edit many of them, only one or two could be published in each issue. It is open to any correspondent to stipulate “In full or not at all”.

J. W. Pitt (Worthing) and E. Wheeler (Rayleigh): Many thanks for your letters of appreciation.

Winifred Mawson (Horsham): A full reply to your question will appear in the next issue. Also P. Sliwinski (Newcastle), I. Hunt (London W.l.) and J. J. Sternbach (U.S.A.)

Letter: Truths and Facts (1958)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Truths and Facts

If the writer of the article “Get it Straight in 1958” did not imply what I stated in my letter, would the Editorial Committee please explain to me the purpose of the writer using a geometrical proposition in his article at all, as I cannot see any sense of the writer stating a self-evident geometrical truth in his article, which no one would care to challenge, if it were not related to the whole essence of his argument. For he writes quite clearly, this: “Everyone knows the shortest distance between two points is a straight line: a simple, unanswerable, self-evident proposition. Who, then, could fail to think and act on it? Now this statement would be meaningless if it were not related to the cardinal point in the writer's argument, as I claimed it was. And this point was the analogy between a geometrical truth, and an historical fact. For in relation to the given geometrical proposition he adds this: “Well in the manner of getting Socialism almost everybody acted otherwise." I take the statement to mean, that the intention of the writer was to make crystal clear the stupidity of people who don't fail to accept and act upon the stated geometrical proposition, but fail to accept and act upon the stated historical proposition of a straight line to Socialism. However, if the cardinal point of the writer was that of dealing with people who already accepted the essence of the Socialist idea, but thought that the reformist way would lead to Socialism, I would certainly not have challenged the article, nor, I'm sure, would have the writer brought forward, a geometrical proposition into his article just for to let us know about this simple truth. I claim that the geometrical proposition was related to the essence of his argument, from the simple fact that he begins his article by stating this proposition, and also ends his article by stating it. The Editorial Committee claim that it was pointless for me to state that the passions and actions of men in history has nothing in common with the abstract truths of mathematics, and they would have been to some extent correct in saying this, if my statement had not been related to the writer of the article who made this false analogy. Therefore, my point is this: What is true and clear in the realm of thought is only abstract truths, and that these truths have in general nothing to do with history, for the simple reason being that history is not moved by them. If it were, there would be no history. The facts of history are the passions of men in action, had it been otherwise there would have been no problems to solve in history.

R. Smith (Dundee).

Reply:

Our correspondent, in his first letter (March, Socialist Standard) criticised the article on the assumption that it had been directed to the position of non-Socialists. We pointed out that this was not so. Our correspondent returns to this point and we repeat that he is mistaken. The evidence is to be found in the article itself. In the first paragraph was the key reference, which was to “the matter of getting Socialism.” It should be obvious that non-Socialists could not be concerned with the method of achieving Socialism. But that was not all. The article went on to specify the people with which it was concerned, i.e., “men and women who had the Socialist idea"; and again, “They really did aim at Socialism.” Consequently, all of our correspondent's remarks, based on his wrong assumption, are irrelevant.

As regards history being the outcome of men's passions and actions we would point out that those who “had the Socialist idea” and who rejected the direct road to Socialism did not do so because of their own “passions.” but because they thought about the matter and decided in favour of the roundabout reformist way because of their view about the political ignorance of the mass of the workers.

The point that is important, and that the article dealt with, was whether they were right or wrong in thinking that progress to Socialism could be made that way. We contend that experience has shown them to be wrong, thus confirming the view of the S.P.G.B. at the time.

Editorial Committee.

Letters: Religion and Socialism (1957)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Views put in letters in the correspondence column do not necessarily represent the Party's attitude).

Religion and Socialism.

If the existence of religion is not enough proof for God's existence, does Mr. Jarvis hope to find any more powerful evidence than this? If so, I would like to hear it. Mr. Jarvis's own proposition, that religion could not exist without a belief in God proves this right up to the hilt. For the logic of this proposition could only mean that a belief in God determines the existence of God and religion, for without this belief neither God nor religion would exist. Now when Mr. Jarvis asked his religious opponent for further proof of God's existence, than his own boomerang proposition, I claimed he was talking in riddles. And now he asks me: “What's wrong with this?" I answer: “The logic of your own proposition." It is true that the belief in Socialism does not prove that Socialism exists, but who said it did? Socialist Parties could exist knowing full well that a Socialist society did not exist, but a God-religion could not exist while knowing full well that God did not exist. Therefore, from this it would be true to say that the Socialist believes in a society that does not exist, while the religious man, on the contrary (if belonging to the Christian or Islam religion), must believe in a God who does exist. Socialists believe that man must go through a purgatory of historical periods before he can finally reach his salvation, while the religious man believes that men could be saved in any historical period, if they carry out the will of God.

R. Smith.

Dundee

It is a sheer waste of time to discuss religion, as there are so many facets to the subject. One man says that Jesus was a poor man and condemned the rich, but the churches seem to have made a good business out of it, especially in our own time, when it is investing its assets in stocks and shares on the Stock Exchange.

I would like to know what is the value of his religious experience to us. As far as I can ascertain it consists of a confusion of ideas, much of which is illusion and wish fulfilment. Millions of people have such delusions, he says, and that may well be the case.

Surely our task is not to concentrate on dispelling illusions, but in spreading a knowledge of Socialism, for light dispels darkness, and both ignorance and illusions will fade away when enlightenment is achieved. How many people now believe that the world was created four thousand years ago, or that it is flat, and down below there is hell and up in the sky, somewhere, there is a heaven. Very few now, so why worry about illusions. Spread Socialism.

I. Flower,

Battersea.

In his letter answering John Wyatt and R. Smith on “Socialism versus Religion," H. Jarvis makes a number "of telling points, but his reference to ". . . the pacifism of the New Testament" needs some elaboration.

True, Socialists are not pacifists; that is they do not “turn the other cheek" when the employer attempts a wage reduction, neither do they tell workers to "resist not evil." But Socialists are opposed to war and violence —all wars! But what of the alleged “pacifism" of the New Testament?

Much is made by Christian pacifists of the alleged sayings of Jesus concerning the love of enemies and the blessing of peacemakers, but little or nothing is said about those sayings attributed to Jesus which are the complete opposite of these sayings, such as:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke XIX, 27.)

* * *

“ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt, x, 34.)

* * *

“ Suppose ye that 1 come to give peace on earth? 1 tell you, Nay; but rather division.** (Luke XII, 51.)

* * *

“And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy." (Luke XXII, 36.)

* * *

And was there not war in heaven, when "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon." (Revelation, XII, 7). And have not the Christians been fighting each other, and supporting their masters' wars ever since?

So much for Christian pacifism!

Yours fraternally,

“PEN."

The Editor.

Dear Sir,—Being a subscriber to Socialist Standard, I must comment on articles in the June 1957 issue on pages 86-7.

I am a Catholic and have long been a believer in Socialism. I will remain both, despite Comrade Jarvis and others of his ilk who will confuse religious with economic and political problems.

Established Socialism would, I believe, constitute that Kingdom. He spoke of and showed us how to achieve. The lessons of His crucifixion and "popping back to life again" need not be gone into here.

To say He is admired as a “great man" is so much bull-dust. In the eyes of the world He was a weakling as a man. As St. Paul puts it: “The weakness of man is the strength of God." He condemned the "great man" idea as much as you. Such "great man" egotism as Comrade Jarvis showed in trying to make an enemy of a friendly Mr. Barr, was absent from His character. He was a friend to all and loved all, even His murderers. A lesson to be learned and an example to be followed by Socialists, Catholics, and all who hope for a better way of life.

The greatest, in my opinion, of the Holy Fathers, who, incidentally, was a father and never denied it, speaks of the ideal of owning all things in common and explains why it cannot be as yet. Namely, St. Augustine in “City of God.”

Finally, please convey comradely greetings’ to Comrade Jarvis, who, despite his total ignorance of Christianity and its message, is no doubt a good and honest worker for the common cause of humanity, albeit in vain.

Yours sincerely,

C. W. Reilly.

Harbord, 

N.S.W., Australia.

Dear Sir,—I don't know where your correspondent, Henry Myers, gets his information from, but the plain records of the Gospels state that Christ was hounded to death by the chief priests and scribes of that time. (Mark, 14-1). They paid Judas, a disciple of Christ, to betray him, and he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Being occupied by the Romans, the scribes and chief priests had to hand Christ over to the occupying power. But the Roman Governors, Herod and Pilate, both saw that they were dealing with an innocent man and attempted to free him. The people, however, whipped into a frenzy by the church authorities, declared that Christ was not the long expected Messiah, and clamoured for his death. Can any story be plainer?

As for Mr. Myers’ contention that Christ’s last words: “Why hast Thou forsaken me?” are blasphemous, is just plain silly—besides being in bad taste, as these were the words of a dying man.

By the way, if Mr. Myers will consult a dictionary (as well as the New Testament), he will find that the word “ambiguous” means having two meanings—not necessarily untruthful.

Yours truly,

Geoffrey Sharpe,

S.E.3.

P.S.—May I add a word in favour of your correspondent, Mr. John Wyatt, who stated that the New Testament could be found to support a better economic system than our present one?

Other Letters.

Letters are in hand from C. Luff, Canada; R. L. Rhodes, Trowbridge; and D. Anderson, Glasgow.

Editorial Committee

Letter: 'Workers living like lords today' (1996)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Workers living like lords today' 

Dear Editors,

Pieter Lawrence in his article "Capitalism is Obsolete" (August Socialist Standard) tells us that it would be foolish to deny that at one time the capitalist system was a progressive development of society.

But he does not tell us when it ceased to be a progressive development of society, that is, when it became obsolete.

For instance, does he believe that the capitalist system was obsolete at the time Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, and. therefore, ripe for being replaced by a socialist system?

If so he must be extremely naive, because capitalism at that time was only in its early stages of progressive development.

And that was 148 years ago when Marx thought capitalism was no longer progressive, and advocated its overthrow.

But what was missing was his class-conscious proletariat to do that. Why? Because capitalistic economic conditions did not produce it, that's why.

And capitalism is still with us today without any class-conscious proletariat to overthrow it.

And the workers are living like lords today compared to the workers at Marx's time.

They have motor cars, bathrooms in their houses, TV, holidays with pay, income support if unemployed, a longer span of life than in the past, home helps, and many more goodies under capitalism.

So the workers do not think capitalism is obsolete, and they have no desire to get rid of it.

They never ever had, and probably they never ever will.

R. Smith, 

Dundee

Reply:

Thank you for your letter, for which we feel the word complacent might well have been invented. You appear to agree that the emergence of capitalism was a progressive development of society. Though it was still based on exploitation, the escape from serfdom and other forms of feudal bondage brought greater freedoms for the producers. This included the ability to sell their labour in the labour markets, and within limits this gave workers more say in their conditions of life. This became stronger when eventually workers were able to form trade unions.

Then as capitalism developed workers were able to win the vote and other democratic rights. This was of vital importance because it became possible for workers to get control of the state and change society. None of this was possible under feudalism.

Also, capitalism is a more dynamic system because it brought about technical advance, communications of every kind and rapid development of the means of production. Through higher productivity it increased the amount of goods and services allowing workers to negotiate more for their own consumption. This is the source of the increased living standards to which you refer.

But you ignore the feet that goods and services are only produced by labour; when workers get more it is still only part of the extra wealth which they alone have produced. The rest is taken by the capitalists in line with their class role as economic parasites. Your letter also ignores the conditions of millions of families who suffer the insecurities, anxieties, problems and stress of life under the modern market system. You could ask one of the families which has been kicked out of their home under re-possession if they feel they are "living like lords”. None of this is necessary.

The increased powers of production which have been developed has widened the gap between what could be produced for needs and what is actually produced for profit under the money-grubbing, class-riven system of capitalism. It now operates as a barrier against the use of productive powers for the benefit of all people. This is one of the reasons why it is now an obsolete system.

You ask when did it become obsolete? Rather than argue about a precise date it would be more useful to say what the conditions for the establishment of socialism should be. Because wage workers are the only class with an interest in establishing socialism and because this must be democratic, it follows that they should be in the majority.

Applying this to Marx’s time, certainly workers were in the majority in England but it is doubtful, if they were in Europe as a whole, not in France or Germany and certainly not in the world. But that situation is long gone and now, overwhelmingly, the world's population is now dominated by capitalism.

Also, the powers of production should be sufficiently developed to provide a material basis for socialism. We now have available fantastic powers of production which are distorted by waste and militarism, and crippled by the artificial scarcities of the market.

In addition we have a worldwide administration and communications which at present serve a world divided by rival capitalist states. All the conditions are ripe for sweeping way capitalism and replacing it by a system organised solely for the benefit of all people.

You make the obvious point that we do not at present have a class-conscious working class to overthrow capitalism. This is disappointing but the arguments in favour of socialism do not relate to any such disappointments nor to any time factor. They should be judged solely from whether or not they represent a true analysis of working-class problems and whether they include a policy of change which could solve them.

Whilst we take little comfort from our few numbers there is no doubt that our arguments have been vindicated time and again throughout this century. We argue from a body of knowledge which has proven powers of prediction and which can say with accuracy what is possible and what is impossible through political action. Against all the unfortunate experiments with reformism, and all the time wasted through the support of pseudo-socialists and so-called revolutionaries of every kind, the one incontrovertible fact to emerge from this experience of discontent, struggle, failure and disillusion, is that nothing short of a world-wide change from capitalism to socialism can solve the problems of society.

Editors.

Letter: How do Men Make History ? (1959)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

How do Men Make History ?

In his article entitled “An Essay on Historical Materialism” (May S.S.) E.W. tells us that genetically speaking man makes history. Now, if this be so, man must be held responsible for the history he makes, for we cannot logically compare man living in a society with a tree existing in a wood, meaning by that of course that the tree is not responsible for itself as a tree, whereas man is responsible for himself and his actions as a man. And although man did not consciously will himself into society and history, it is still nevertheless true that society and history could not operate independent of the will of man.

However, according to Karl Marx, this is not so, for he claimed that history is governed by laws which operate independent of the will of man. And this view of his contradicts the view of men being able to make their own history. For if history is governed by inexorable laws, man cannot will these laws out of existence and create new ones, seeing that these laws operate independent of will. But if we accepted this view we would need to believe that history willed man, instead of history being willed by man. It is true, of course, that the individual born into capitalist society did not will capitalism, but nevertheless capitalism does not operate independent of men's wills. Marx's theory of history is therefore wrong, and, in fact, a contradiction in terms, seeing that all human history is the outcome of what men willed, and not of any mysterious laws operating independent of will.

Capitalistic exploitation of the working class does not operate independent of the wills of the capitalists, but rather, on the contrary, because they consciously will to exploit the working class.

Marx thought that he discovered the key to history, but had he lived long enough he would have found out that there is no key to history at all. And in regard to the will of individuals which he did not take into consideration, he would have found out that they have not only the power to create history, but have even the power to destroy the world.

R. Smith, 

Dundee.

Reply

The writer asserts, without evidence, that Marx believed history to be an impersonal force, operating independent of men's wills. Actually, Marx said, all historical change is brought about by men’s ideas. They are not, however, just the outcome of purely mental processes but responses to a concrete social situation arising from urgent class needs and the task of actualising them. All major changes he shows are periods of intense theoretical and intellectual activity. The battle of material interests is also the battle of ideas. “History,” says Marx, “ is not something apart from men, it is the activity of man in pursuit of his ends." This makes nonsense of the writer's remarks.

The writer vaguely refers to history being willed by individuals. Historically men have willed all sorts of things but what men have striven for and what has actually transpired has so often shown great discrepancies. In social development there are no ends not willed by men but these ends are not realised merely because men willed them. Even in the contemporary situation men have sought perpetual prosperity, eternal peace, harmony between all men, etc. It is not the will that has been lacking but the conditions essential for their fulfilment.

It is true that capitalists have the power to exploit workers or, to use the writer's curious phrase, consciously will exploitation. But class ownership backed by the State power are its indispensable pre-requisites. Only when these conditions are fulfilled can the will to exploit become effective. Again the absence of certain conditions made Socialism impossible 500 years ago. Today the consequences of capitalist production not only explain why the need for Socialism arises but why the presence of certain objective conditions make it possible to will its effective realisation. What is willed must then be compatible with a discovered situation which is not willed but accepted. When it is willed must be dependent on the objective possibilities in the situation. Only in this light does the action of men become intelligible, and why the ideas of some men and groups of men have failed and others succeeded.

The writer says history has no key. In that case he himself cannot talk meanfully about it. Where facts and events are not known, where nothing is known, then we have blind determinism, where there is no knowledge of facts and processes there is no freedom. Genuine freedom like will is not something arbitrary or uncontrolled, but based on an appraisal of the objective possibilities in a given situation. Only when what is necessary is known can effective action be taken. When men do not grasp the necessities of a situation, effective action loses its freedom. It was no other than Marx and Engels who tirelessly expounded this to the working class. This is the key to Marx’s conception of social purpose. 

Ted Wilmott

Letters: Trade Unions & Jobs (1975)

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

Trade Unions & Jobs

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

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

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

P. Steed,

Tyne & Wear

Reply

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

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

Editors.

Can We Predict ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

T. J. Caulfield, 

Manchester

Reply

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

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

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

Editors.

Fair Comment

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

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

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

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

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

C. Sultan, 

Woking

The Helping Hand

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

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

George Watts,

London S.W.1

Reply

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

Editors.

Population & Plumage

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

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

J. E. Catercole,

London N.4.

Reply

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

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

Editors.

More About Art

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

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

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

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

Ron Smith,

Dundee

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors.

Women's Lib, Go Home

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

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

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

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

R. J. Todd,

London S.E.17

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Editors.

Letter: The Key to History (1959)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Sir,

E.W., in his reply to my letter, assumes that I have no evidence for claiming that Marx believed that history was governed by laws which operate independent of the will of man; but his assumption, I don't think, is based on a proper understanding of Marxism, for when we turn to the Author's Prefaces in Capital we find this written: “Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence ” On page 789 of the same book, that is (the Moore and Aveling translation Capital) there is written: “The Capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the Capitalist mode of production, produces Capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But Capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation.” Here we have Marx dealing with impersonal forces which operate independent of the wills of the Capitalists, that is, the laws inherent in Capitalist production which, according to Marx, are not willed by men.

It is true that Marx did not view history as something apart from men, but nevertheless he did not believe that men created the laws of history and directed the social movement according to their wills; for according to Marx it is impersonal forces working outside of will, consciousness and intelligence that force men to play a certain role in history. [It is true that ends are not always realized merely because men will them, but nevertheless, the motivation towards their realisation could not exist independent of their wills.] E.W. says that it is only when conditions are fulfilled can the will to exploit become effective, but he seems to forget here that these conditions for exploitation are willed by men. Capitalism no more came into existence independent of the will of men than Feudalism went out independent of their wills. E.W. talks about objective conditions, but does not state what these objective conditions are. The objective conditions of Capitalist production are created by the subjective content and can therefore only be understood and motivated through subjectivity.

However, there is nothing wrong m speaking about objective conditions relating to Capitalist production as long as this is understood. The objective conditions of industry do not come out of the blue, they are created by men. E.W. would have us believe that objective conditions arise out of unwilled activities. This is true of climate, etc., but not of things created by men.

E.W. says that the absence of certain conditions made Socialism impossible 500 years ago, and that the presence of certain objective conditions make it possible today, but he seems to forget that the presence of certain objective conditions today make world destruction more of a possibility than the establishment of Socialism, and in that respect these objective conditions, which we have today for the realisation of Socialism, are worse than the objective conditions of 500 years ago; for, although it may not have been possible to realise Socialism at that time, it was at least impossible for them to realise the possibility of world destruction. However, seeing that E.W. believes that there is a key to history, he will no doubt believe that all the destructive objective conditions of today will, in the end, bring men nearer to the realisation of Socialism. But then again, this view is not founded on fact, but only belief which is opposed to facts as they stand today.

R. Smith

Dundee.

Reply:

If Mr. Smith believes that history is the outcome of the projection of the wills of individuals, how explain the fact that men’s historical activities have developed along definite lines, expressed in particular and class relations—Slavery—Feudalism—Capitalism? Mr. Smith himself offers neither evidence nor explanation for his views. Social classes are not created by the wills of individuals, they are the outcome of prior economic development. The way wealth is organised and distributed between classes—the social relation of production—is dependent on a given stage of social development. The fact that at different times, men have found themselves, slave owner or slave, feudal lord or serf, employer or employee, expresses a definite historic mode of production, independent of the wills of those who participate in it and regardless of their good or bad intent. Different men are born in different social situations, hence unwilled by them. It is the degree of ’economic development corresponding to a given social situation which provides the objective possibilities for individuals having common economic aims, i.e., class aims, to further their interests. The material basis for existence and its degree of economic development in which men find themselves are the indispensable conditions for the continuance and furtherance of their productive activities. The material basis for mens existence is not, as Mr. Smith imagines, the creation of men’s subjective processes i.e., their personal wishes, wills or desires; Individuals did not will themselves to become feudal lords no more than serfs willed serfdom. Nor did the bourgeois who for centuries were weaker than the feudal lords suddenly vanquish Feudalism by merely willing it out of existence.

Mr. Smith offers two quotes from Capital, neither of which gives support to his assertion that Marx held history to be an impersonal process. is method of quoting leaves much to be desired. The first quote —"which treats of social movements, governed by laws independent of human will or consciousness ” are not Marx words, but those of a reviewer of Capital, describing what he believed to be Marx's historical method. Nevertheless, it is a fact that laws which are expressions (often approximate) of objective regularities discoverable in events do not depend on our will or consciousness or the law of gravity, etc., although by understanding them, they can be used in practical life. Again, the law of value which regulates present exchange relations is not dependent on the will or consciousness of the Capitalist. It is true the Capitalist via exploitation wills to expand his capital. If he did not attempt to do both these things he would cease to be a Capitalist. Thus the Capitalist “will” moves within the bounds of iron compulsions.

In Mr. Smith's second quote, Marx is pointing out that small scattered private property is transformed into large-scale Capitalist property and this in turn would be transformed into common property as inexorably as a law of nature. Marx showed that the economic development which dissolved Feudalism and with it petty private production inevitably led to Capitalism. No historian has been able to show that there could have been any major social alternative to Capitalism. Yet so far as men being puppets of an impersonal economic process, it was this economic development, culminating in Capitalism, which gave rise to an unparalled scope and intensity for men's activities, although it was class activities for class ends.

Again, Capitalism produces the will for Socialism and the economic conditions for making it effective, just as Capitalism alone makes it possible to devastate the world with the hydrogen bomb. That is why Socialism and the hydrogen bomb were impossible 500 years ago. As Mr. Smith unwittingly admits this was because the objective conditions were different then. Socialism is the only alternative to Capitalism and it is this path which the working class must take if they are to achieve their class emancipation. Such is the nature of historic inevitability.

How little this second quote of Mr. Smith's has to do with fatalism is seen by the fact that the quote is lifted from a whole passage in which Marx makes human effort and moral indignation indispensable features of the social revolution.

Marx not only said men make history he exemplified it in his own actions. Again, his works Class Struggles and 18th Brumaire are brilliant illustrations of his dictum. What Mr. Smith should have done was to show through Marx's voluminous works where he even once said, “ men do not make history.” But this Mr. Smith cannot do.

Ted Wilmott

Letters: Religion and Socialism (1957)

Letters to the Editors from the August 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Northfleet, Kent.

The Editorial Committee.

Dear Sirs,—I have been a reader of your journal for nearly two years now, and I am always delighted by the vigorous articles in it

I am in basic disagreement with your analysis of the world’s problems. I don’t think that merely a change in system will solve them. You assume that everybody will be perfectly selfless and take no advantage of their freedom to take just what they like, with no regard to their real needs. You may dispense with money and all the trappings of the capitalist system, but you have not changed human beings at all. The world is in the state it is because people are naturally sinful and greedy. Everybody is sinful to some degree, both capitalists and workers. You must change people, not the system. 

Yours faithfully,

Edward T. Cross.

★ ★ ★

Windermere, Westmorland. 

The Editor, The Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,—If the debate "Socialism Versus Religion" in your last issue was fairly reported, it was a farcical affair. I wonder if, in the first place, whether it was really necessary. Is Socialism then at odds with religion? To many of us it is the practical application of religious philosophy. Some churches might have been at odds, or still might be; but if the New Testament is read aright one can find very much to support Socialism, and nothing at all to oppose it on any count. Was Jesus born privileged? Did he live in opulence? Was he given a grand state funeral? He was born in a stable, lived in poverty, and suffered a state execution. He condemned the rich in no uncertain manner, and preached equality with and responsibility to one’s neighbour.

In the past the church was condemned by Socialists because it condoned the evil order of things. But must religion be condemned for the sins of the church? Jesus did not belong to any church, and was in fact arrested and executed for his opposition to the state church.

In the second place, I cannot for the life of me see how on earth a Christian can produce "evidence" of the existence of God; or how anything like a group that calls itself the “Catholic Evidence Guild" can exist for that purpose. How can a sighted man produce evidence of the existence of light to a man totally blind from birth? Especially if the blind man does not want to believe in its existence anyway? Evidence of the existence of God is everywhere, even in the innermost conscience of Comrade Jarvis; but no one can make anyone else accept that evidence if he does not want to do. A true Tory would not accept the fact of bad working and living conditions among workers in a particular industry as “evidence” of the evils of capitalism. Nor can a materialist accept life, beauty, nature, the testimony of millions who have felt “religious experience” as evidence of the existence of God. He has not the eyes to see.

One need not believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, or the divinity of Jesus to find God. Nor need one necessarily attend a church.

One thing is certain: if religion is a delusion, then it is a strange delusion, because millions have been persecuted and have been put to death because of it, and have faced death bravely and happily. If religion is delusion, then Socialism is delusion—life itself is delusion!

There are many thousands of Socialists who are Socialists because of, not in spite of, their religion. They may not broadcast the fact, because religion is a very personal possession and it cannot be adequately expressed in words. Words are for material things.

Yours sincerely,

John Wyatt.

★ ★ ★

Dundee, Scotland.

To the Editor.

Religion and Socialism.

In a report of a debate on Socialism versus Religion that appeared in the June issue of the Socialist Standard, Mr. Jarvis, who represented the Socialist case against religion, said: “There can be no religion without God, although there can be religious ritual and paraphernalia without God.” Now if there is any logic in the first part of this statement, I take it to be this: the existence of religion presupposes a belief in the existence of God, one could not exist without the other. If this is true, then Mr. Jarvis must be talking in riddles when he asks his opponent for proof of the existence of God, as he has already given proof by his own statement that religion could not exist without God. And from this logic I take it, seeing that the Christian religion and the religion of Islam exists, so then must God. But if God does not exist at all, which, of course, is the Socialist view, how does Mr. Jarvis reconcile this view with his own statement that religion would not exist without God?

R. Smith.

Letters: Pendulums & Dynamos (1975)

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

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

Pendulums & Dynamos

For many years now I’ve heard the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s case, but it is still hard to determine whether the Socialist pendulum swings on the importance of the economic factor or on the political factor in society.

To hear one Socialist speaker, one begins to think that the dynamo of the socialist case is the understanding of the wage-labour, value, price and profit relation, while one can think the dynamo of the Socialist case is its object—namely Socialism (common ownership, production for use etc.) (idealism).

One minute we are told that capitalism exists because people vote for some respective party, i.e. Labour. Liberal or Conservative while the next minute we are told capitalism exists because the majority of people support the institutions of capitalism—money, buying, selling, wages and profit-making, by actively taking part in actions associated with such institutions on the domestic and industrial front.

I await your reply.

R. Ramshaw

Manchester.

Reply:

Without the development of a potential for adequately meeting the needs of a world community Socialism could not be possible. This might be called the economic factor, and is, in our opinion, already here.

What has not yet developed is the Socialist majority, understanding their class position under capitalism, and ready and willing to undertake the transformation of society from capitalism to Socialism. This is the political factor. In its absence capitalism will continue to exist because workers, lacking the necessary Socialist knowledge, will continue to support political parties dedicated to the continuance of present day society.

Both factors are equally important for in the absence of either Socialism is not possible.

Editors.

Progress and Leadership

I admire and support the beliefs and objectives of the SPGB to a great extent, but I remain unconvinced about certain points.

Firstly the practicality of achieving Socialism. The Party has existed for 70 years but has made little progress in that time, and it is rare to meet anyone who has even heard of you. The capitalist media will always be unwilling to give airing to your views, and I cannot believe that a handful of members will be able to spread the Socialist word to any significant extent in a society dominated by capitalist education and culture. How can you break this situation and persuade a majority to vote for you?

Secondly, you seem to spend a great deal of time criticising the so-called Communist countries of the world, but surely you must admit that the standard of life for the vast majority of people in Russia, Eastern Europe, and China has been made infinitely better since the respective Revolutions, compared with their conditions previously. Despite the shortcomings of Communist regimes, their planned economies have enabled the basic needs of the working class to be rationally met, their material standard of life successfully improved, and social services provided on a large scale. How many generations more would these people have had to live in misery if these revolutions had not occurred?

All this leads to the question: is it not better in practice that an enlightened minority take action on behalf of the majority of oppressed people, rather than face the almost insuperable, and extremely lengthy, task of persuading the majority to vote for Socialism?

F. Ansell, 

Leeds.

Reply:

We are only too well aware that progress towards the establishment of Socialism is slow. Nevertheless progress is being made. We know of no short-cut around the necessary task of agitation and education for Socialism.

Capitalist propaganda cannot remove the problems suffered by the working class; neither can it solve the basic contradictions within society. In their efforts to solve the problems and contradictions the workers must eventually turn to Socialism as the only solution. Since the SPGB was formed we have seen a seemingly endless array of attempts at alleviating the problems thrown up by capitalism, and we have seen them fail as they must. If all those who in the past said, as you do, that they “admire and support” our objectives had joined with us in our task of making Socialists that task would have been made easier. Unfortunately such workers still persist in futile reformism, or in advocating minority action by “enlightened” leaders.

We are opposed to this. The outcome of minority-led revolutions, even if ostensibly to establish Socialism, must inevitably lead to some form of capitalism. In the absence of a Socialist majority consciously understanding the implications involved in the establishment of Socialism there is nothing the leadership (no matter how enlightened) can do other than administer capitalism.

The Russian and other state-capitalist revolutions (e.g. China, Cuba etc.) have set back the Socialist movement by at least fifty years, by side-tracking workers. Only now is the realization that they have nothing to do with Socialism—something we said at the time.

The fact that living standards have improved in these countries is no reason whatsoever for advocating that system of government. Indeed the same claim could be made for avowedly capitalist governments—is this a reason for workers continuing to support them? Of course not.

Your contention that they “have enabled the basic needs of the working class to be rationally met” is unfounded. Workers in state-capitalist countries suffer from the same problems as workers here. Poverty, inadequate housing, inflation and a constant struggle to make ends meet while a privileged minority live in luxury and comfort are features of Russia and East Europe as much as Britain. The waste of armaments, the rape of the world’s resources and pollution of the environment exist in “rationally planned” Russia. Look at the facts!

State plans come unstuck with the same monotonous regularity as do private enterprise ones. The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1961) promised Russian workers that government plans would increase agricultural production by 150 per cent in ten years. This would mean that “In the first decade the Soviet Union will outstrip the United States in output of the key agricultural products per head of population.” The intervening period has seen Russians entering the world markets in order to purchase massive amounts of grain (mainly American) to feed her people. Eastern Europe has been no more successful in this respect. Food shortages are common and what is available is costing more. Indeed many East European countries are relying more and more on what is left of the private sector in agriculture by giving cash grants to stimulate production.

State capitalism retains class divisions and solves no working class problems. The only escape from exploitation and subjugation remains Socialism.

Editors.

Art & the Ruling Class

The article “Art and Civilization” claims that only the social and economic environment explain how man acquires certain aesthetic tastes and conceptions. I certainly cannot agree with this view all the way. Some people have very little taste for art at all. The vast majority of workers would be bored stiff if they were made to go into an art gallery. You just cannot explain all art through economics.

Economic phenomena and intellectual phenomena are just not one and the same thing. The ruling ideas of any age may be the ideas of the ruling class of the time, but the ruling class did not paint the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo did. Certainly he had to have the material to work with, but it was his creation. A poet must have something to work with as well, but to say Schiller would never have written Laura am Klavier if no piano and no Laura existed would be nonsense.

A windmill cannot make meal unless it is fed with grain, but it is not the grain that runs the mill, but the wind. Some people could study aesthetics from now to doomsday and never produce a work of art. Beethovens and Wagners do not grow on trees; and did they get their ideas on how to compose their music from the ruling class? Burns’ “Tam O’Shanter” could be enjoyed and appreciated in a Socialist society as well as a capitalist society.

Ron Smith,

Dundee

Reply:

You are confused as to what is meant by "the social and economic environment”. Of course large numbers of workers do not care for classical arts: the ruling class does not pay to have them educated for that.

“Aesthetic tastes” generally require some leisure and comfort, both to be formed and to be pursued. That is why they are traditionally upper-class enjoyments and are held to be the “higher” ones. On the other hand, nearly all workers use taste and discrimination in their gardens, in appreciating sports, and when possible in their work. It is also true that working-class products and enjoyments are often despised but later appropriated by “the higher culture”; for example, folk art and the silent film.

Your historical examples do not support your argument. Michelangelo, like the other artists of his time, did religious paintings because a section of the ruling class — the church — paid him to. When patronage shifted from the church to the new commercial class, artists painted them instead. The impetus to musical composition has come most strongly from technical innovation, and in that respect composers are obviously dependent on social and economic change. Your windmill analogy in fact illustrates our point; the wind is still there, but windmills are no longer required.

If the ideas embodied in Beethoven’s music — or Shakespeare’s plays or Burns’s poems — did not come from society, where did they come from? The belief that the capacity to create and appreciate art is a thing apart from social development fails to explain why Beethoven is a row to Indians and Chinese, and their music to us. Only historical materialism gives an adequate explanation of these phenomena; without it people can, as you say, “study aesthetics from now to doomsday”.

Editors.

Getting round the world 

I have been an advocate of Socialism for many years now, in pre-war days I enjoyed listening to Harry Martin on Tower Hill. There is one point on which I would like some information. How is Socialism going to be established throughout the world at the same time? Seeing that one of the fundamental aims is the abolition of money. I cannot see that it is possible to establish it in one country at a time. I should be very grateful if you could put me right on this.

R. Phillips

Reply:

We agree with your view that Socialism cannot be established in one country at a time. As capitalism is the dominant form of society today, the problem created by it are also apparent throughout the world. Members of the working class internationally are therefore having similar problems to one another. However they are constantly misled by non-revolutionary political organisations that capitalism will, at some time, begin to work in their interests.

We can see no fundamental differences in the problems facing the working class in, say, the United States, Russia or Australia, but assuming that large numbers of workers in one part of the globe began to reject the false arguments of the capitalist parties and recognised the need for Socialism ahead of other workers, there is every reason to believe that interest in their ideas would be generated in a very short space of time among members of the working class in different parts of the globe.

One of the techniques which capitalism has developed to a tremendous degree is the facility of high-speed global communications. Socialist-conscious workers would use such facilities to the full in order to propagate their ideas to workers in other countries. They will do so recognising that Socialism can only be introduced by a united international working class. They will also do so in the knowledge that the solution to capitalism’s problems is the same for themselves as for fellow workers throughout the world.

Editors.

Letters: Love on the Dole (2000)

Letters to the Editors from the February 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Love on the Dole

Dear Editors,

In his review (Socialist Standard, November) of Love on the Dole, Michael Gill alleges that the British Board of Film Censors would not allow the play to be filmed. The Board existed only to censor films once made but had no powers to prevent a film being made. In fact the film of Love on the Dole was made in 1941.

Denham Ford, 

Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex

Reply: 

You are quite right, the British Board of Film Censors has no power to prevent a film being made. However, since in practice all films shown in public places must have a certificate from the Board, it is regularly consulted by film makers before and whilst films are being made. You will find interesting details of how the process is managed, for instance, in the material for Open University Course A420, Cinema and Society: Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. It is very revealing.

And you are quite right that Love on the Dole was filmed in 1941. Ironically, the production company’s stated aim was “to show the public the true state of affairs which arose after the last war in the industrial areas and which must not be allowed to flourish when the immediate conflict is over”. So whilst, as we said in our review, the BBFC effectively “prevented this ‘very sordid story in very sordid surroundings’ from being filmed in the 1930s” (NT programme), when the Second World War began the same story was made in support of the war -Editors.

Pure chance?

Dear Editors,

I take it from your letter column (December) that you socialists are all firm believers in Dawkins’s blind watchmaker operating in evolution without any purpose at all.

That being so I wonder where you socialists draw the line between Darwin’s natural selection and human beings as producers of many civilisations in the past 6,000 years.

If human beings are a product of a blind mindless watchmaker surely you should accept this belief as being a miracle of nature even as much as the divine miracles that appear in the pages of the bible.

One could easily say that evolution from lifeless matter brought about by a blind watchmaker is a supreme miracle which one could also interpret as a miracle of matter.

As the bible is not the only book to look for miracles as evolution has plenty of them.

Nevertheless, Darwin did not explain the mutation in evolution which produced the consciousness of human beings who managed to produce civilisations.

Are we to believe civilisations are also a product of a blind watchmaker?

R. Smith, 

Dundee

Reply: 

No, human civilisations are not produced by the same blind, biological processes that led to the evolution of all the various species of life on Earth, extinct and extant, including homo sapiens. Once humans had been evolved (by the “blind watchmaker” process) then, thanks to their biologically evolved ability to think abstractly and make conscious, purposeful, decisions as well as their ability to extend their anatomy by means of tools, human evolution ceases to be biological and becomes social and cultural, reflecting the development of the tools humans make and use.

Because human action is always purposeful, an element of purpose is indeed involved in this type of evolution (but it is of course, human purpose, or rather the different purposes of different humans, not that of some supernatural, miracle-working being). However, humans do not have a complete free hand here. As one well-known 19th century materialist put it, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past” (Karl Marx). This means that the evolution of human societies is subject also to the working of objective, non-purposeful processes which can be found by study and research, but these are not at all the same as those that governed biological evolution.

And yes, the biological evolution of life, consciousness and the self-consciousness which humans alone possess can be explained without having recourse to the concept of “miracles”, i.e. the intervention of some supernatural being(s). We don’t yet know enough to state definitely how life first evolved, but we will get there eventually. For the present state of knowledge and study of this matter see the collection of articles in Skeptical Inquirer (Sep/Oct 1999) “Where Do We Come From? The Biology Of Life’s Origin”-Editors.

World solution

Dear Editors,

Whilst I do not have a problem with much of Simon Wigley’s “Open Letter to Reclaim The Streets” (Socialist Standard, January), I would be interested to understand how the statement: “we are glad to see the emergence of organisations attacking capitalism as a system rather than merely its particular evils” is compatible with Clause 7 of our party’s Declaration of Principles, namely: ” . . . the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party”?

Simply being opposed to capitalism does not make a person or an organisation socialist i.e. one seeking working class emancipation.

Being a socialist surely implies agreement with:

• Our class and economic analysis of capitalism,
• The need to replace that social system by one based on the common ownership and the democratic control of the means of production and distribution by all society,
• The need to establish socialism through democratic political action, that is, by winning control of the state apparatus.

I see no evidence from Simon Wigley’s letter that the anarchist organisations he wishes us to welcome share the conclusions which make the Socialist Party contribution to political and economic thought so distinctive and clear.

Associating ourselves, albeit fairly critically, by expressing general words of support and identifying alleged common ground with non-socialist organisations can only create confusion amongst those we are trying to win to the socialist case and thus puts back the achievement of socialism itself.

Andrew C. Northall, 

Kettering, Northants

Reply: 

We never went that far, nor meant to. We were not seeking common ground with non-socialist organisations nor saying that people should join them but welcoming the fact that some people were moving towards identifying capitalism as the cause of problems they had previously sought to deal with on a single-issue basis, and urging them to take the next step and join us in the struggle for socialism as the only practicable alternative to capitalism.

“Recognition that the global capitalist system, based on the exploitation of people and the planet for the profit of a few, is at the very root of our social and ecological troubles” (as a leaflet for J18 put it) is, as you point out, not the equivalent of socialist understanding but it is a step—indeed, an indispensable step—towards it and the more widespread it is, the easier it must be for us to put our case across. So how can we as Socialists not welcome its emergence? And where else, if not amongst such people, are we to find “those we are trying to win to the socialist case”? -Editors.