Letter: Class and Ideology (1977)

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

Class and Ideology

You accused Harold Walsby of holding that the working class is "mentally inferior”. Challenged to support this you produce statements that the working class does not understand or accept Socialism. But in order to show that Walsby held them to be mentally inferior you have to show him saying or implying that some other group is mentally superior to it. You have failed to support your accusation.

You describe as "absurd” my statement that “in acceptance or rejection of Socialism there is no significant difference between workers and capitalists”. My evidence is that although the majority of capitalists do not accept Socialism, a tiny majority do accept it. Similarly with the workers. Although the overwhelming majority of workers do not accept it, a tiny minority do, and show this by belonging to the SPGB.

It will be more fruitful to try and get to the root of the difference between Walsby and the SP. It is not the case that the working class accepts Socialism and the capitalist class opposes it. Class position does not correspond with acceptance or rejection of Socialism, and is not coming to do so. What does determine it? The ideology of the person concerned. All of us begin life with the same ideology. Some of us move on to a more sophisticated one, some of those to a more sophisticated one still, and so on. The result is the existence of a number of ideological groups forming, very roughly, a pyramid. The SPGB is the political expression of an ideology very close to the top of the pyramid, an ideology, therefore, with a very small group attached to it.

If a person possessing this ideology hears the Socialist case, he will probably accept it. A person possessing any other ideology will reject the case; it does not "fit” his ideology. This is why, whenever an SP branch is started in a "new” town it usually reaches a size comparable with that of established branches and then stops growing; all the people of the appropriate ideology in that area have been "collected”. Over seventy years the SP has proven that it is impossible to get a majority of Socialists. Walsby’s theory explains why this is, and opens the way, through recognition of the ideological structure of present society, to solution of our main social problems.

Geo. W. Walford

London N1.

Reply:

You acknowledge that Walsby held that the majority of workers would never understand Socialism, but object to our identifying this with the view that they are “mentally inferior”; we must show what other group he compared them with, you say. From Walsby’s writings, let us take the original quotation used in our January article: “an established fact—namely, that the average human intelligence is on the decline”, followed by a sentence accusing the SPGB of vacillating over "whether the workers have or have not the intelligence to establish Socialism”. "Decline” can only mean that the workers at a given time are inferior to a previous generation.

In your own statements, comparisons implying superiority and inferiority are made repeatedly. For example, the “more sophisticated ideology” and the "more sophisticated one still” which "some of us”—but not "the overwhelming majority of workers”—hold. You kindly place the SPGB “close to the top of the pyramid”, with the mass of the workers a long way down below. We do not think you are handicapped by language here: it would be possible to speak of a different ideology and a still more different one, and to use another geometrical shape if that was all you meant.

You misrepresent our answer to you on workers and capitalists. We pointed out (a) that most workers have not heard the Socialist case at all, and (b) that something more than minimal exposure to it is required as grounds for saying they have heard it and reject it. You accept that workers and capitalists are separate classes, but treat it statically; what is not mentioned in any of your three letters, although it was the starting-point of the article you criticized, is the class struggle.

None of us disputes "the existence in society of a number of ideological groups”. Where do they come from? The socialist case is that they arc produced by the class structure of society. A person raised in poverty has different assumptions and attitudes from those of a luxuriously-nurtured person. Of course further experience affects his attitudes; but that also is derived from a class-divided society. A capitalist may, as you suggest, accept Socialism as a system of ideas. That does not make him any less a capitalist, obliged to put his material interests before the “more sophisticated ideology” he may have acquired. (There are exceptional cases.)

The founders of the SPGB knew from earlier experience that the task they undertook was likely to be a slow one; other people, then and since, have understood Socialism but been unwilling to work for it for precisely that reason. Your thesis that a Party branch soaks up "all the people of the appropriate ideology” in its area is quite fantastic. Our branches, whether in suburbs or cities, would be pleased to have a situation in which this was tested—it would mean everyone had heard and considered the SPGB.

The remedy offered by Walsby and his followers for social problems consists of domination over the masses by intellectuals. We give three quotations.

Thus, in basing his ideas of achieving a scientifically controlled society upon an unconsciously motivated assumption—the mass-rationality assumption—the scientific intellectual is wasting much of his political time and energy. It is this assumption (with its associated repressed material) which today largely befogs the minds of those scientists—and others—who are striving for a society in which sub-atomic energy is no longer used for the destruction of man, but for his benefit and well-being.

("Atoms and Ideology” by Harold Walsby, in The New Age of Atomics)

Is the great mass of mankind through its inherent incapacity for scientific thought and understanding, doomed to eternal suffering?. . Concomitant with the rational superiority of these politically more enlightened people goes their inevitable numerical inferiority. Yet, year in and year out, with admirable though blind optimism and appalling ignorance as to the nature and structure of political development, they go on, fighting among themselves and vainly appealing to the masses with the same arguments and upon the same subject-matter which was instrumental in their own 'conversion.

(Understanding the Mass Mind, by Richard Tatham)

No longer are we confined to announcements as to how people ought to think, or as to the attitude they must adopt if civilisation is to be saved . . . not until this relationship between the intellectual and the mass is understood and accepted—and who is to do this if not the intellectuals? — will it become possible to control the development of society.

(The Intellectual and the People)

That takes us back to Plato, and men cast in higher moulds.

Editors.

Letter: Is Socialist Propaganda futile? (1945)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Editor, “Socialist Standard,” 

Dear Sir,

The Socialist Standard for September, 1944, declares, “If the workers in the different countries clearly understood their own class interests, they would act unitedly to rid the world of the capitalist system and introduce Socialism” (p. 65).

The Socialist Standard for September, 1921, criticising Sir William Joynson Hicks states : “If is a very useful word and many an argument has been balanced on it by word conjurors … it would be better for the knightly champion to erect his defence of the capitalist system on a more substantial basis” (p. 3).

To suggest you relate these two statements is not, I feel, an unfitting start to a reply to your article, “Old Fallacies Refurbished” (S.S., February, 1945), in which you refer extensively to my pamphlet, “Science, Politics and the Masses.”

My pamphlet entertains the possibility that the majority will never think scientifically about politics. Your review affirms at some length that this idea is not new. You claim to be scientific. Since when has scientific method involved evading the issue? Nowhere did the pamphlet assert the idea was new. In fact, it explicitly stated otherwise (v. reference to Le Bon, p. 13). What it did suggest was they might be valid.

You disagree. You think the majority can “learn.” Your article repeatedly so asserts. Since when, though has unsupported assertion been part of scientific method? Science is concerned not with mere reiteration, but with evidence Only once does your article offer this:

“If evidence is needed to show that the workers do possess capacity to understand and act—even if at present it is in a limited sphere—their achievement in building up the trade union movement provides that evidence.”

But does it follow that because workers form unions they can achieve “socialist understanding”? Let us see. In 1904 the S.P.G.B. appealed to the workers (including. one assumes, trade unionists) to bring a “speedy” end to capitalism. Since then, by thousands of public speeches and debates; by hundreds of thousands of leaflets, periodicals and pamphlets, and by countless private arguments and discussions, the S.P.G.B. case has been put to trade unionists—either implicitly (by appeals to the workers generally) or explicitly (e.g. the Socialist Standard, for September, 1921, states on page 2 : “To any trade unionist who reads this article we Socialists say : Understand your class position as a wage slave. . . . ”

With what result? In 1927 the Socialist Standard September, p. 13), said of trade unions, “even when their intention is good, they frequently dissipate their strength or allow themselves to be side tracked.” In May, 1932, it declared : “We regard Trade Unions as insufficient in any case and, in so far as they are composed of non-Socialists, their actions are frequently found to be reactionary, both upon the industrial and political fields” (p. 137). In September, 1944 (p. 65), it observed: “International trade union and Labour conferences rarely exhibit a genuine international working class outlook . . . the irreconcilable nationalistic and capitalistic views of the delegates. . . .”

Relevant, too, is this statement attributed to the American Federation, of Labour delegate at the General Council of the International Federation of Trade Unions :

“Mr. Watt went further and declared boldly that the A.F. of L. believed in private enterprise and would have nothing to do with Socialism.” (News Chronicle, February, 3, 1945).

Moreover, those of the British trade unionists who do claim to be Socialist seem imbued with that conception of Socialism which the S.P.G.B. so consistently brands as capitalism, i.e., “state,” or “national” ownership. No wonder then the party has admitted :

“Also, in recent years, the Trade Unions and the Trades Union Congress have been to an increasing extent drawn into the administration of capitalism (“Questions of the Day,” 1942 edition, p. 24.—my italics).

Nearly half a century the S.P.G.B. has striven : close on 500 issues of the Socialist Standard, 10,000 copies of “Questions of the Day” (first edition) and 20,000 of “Socialism” sold by 1933—to instance but two pamphlets; 3,000 hand bills and 1,000 Socialist Standard distributed at a single meeting (S.S. Feb., 1930, p. 89); “On May-Day, in Hyde Park, thousands of workers thronged our meetings ” (S.S., Feb., 1941, p. 21); 170,000 leaflets distributed for the 1931 election (S.S., November, 1931, p. 47).

Now, according to the Socialist Standard (January, 1929, p. 67), “the notion that general industrial development and economic pressure does not make the workers receptive to Socialism, is belied by the facts of daily experience” (my italics). Yet, in actual fact, “daily experience” shows the very opposite. If the S.P.G.B. doubts this, it may care to refer to the Socialist Standard.

Here one may read such admissions as: “That we are satisfied with our rate of progress we do not, for one moment, pretend,” (September, 1926, p. 13); “the mass of the people want capitalism” (May, 1927, p. 133); “membership of the party is only a tenth of the Socialist Standard circulation” (November, 1930, p. 45); “the road to Socialism is a long-one” (January, 1942, p. 3); “there is no sign at present of the workers deciding to achieve Socialism for themselves . . . the Socialist is faced with years of plodding propaganda and educational work for which no mensurable result can yet be seen” (January, 1943, pp. 4-5—my italics).

Science seeks facts. I am prepared to accept as a fact that the S.P.G.B. has one of the most;, if not the most logical of all party cases. Therefore, I suggest, the figures of its membership are important data for scientific study. Will you, then, kindly make known the year by year statistics of the party membership since 1904 (including percentage of trade union members), so they may be included with other evidence regarding the limits and possibilities of human understanding ?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Tatham.

Reply.

The gist of the argument in our correspondent’s letter is that as the S.P.G.B. is a very small organisation by comparison with the capitalist parties, notwithstanding its 40 years of propaganda, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the workers cannot understand Socialism. This fallacious reasoning was dealt with in the article referred to (February Socialist Standard) and our correspondent’s letter gives further material to re-inforce our case. In the February, S.S. we said : —

“What we are up against is not an innate incapacity to understand, but the massive and tireless machinery of capitalist propaganda, including the red herrings of the Tatham kind, but our efforts—small at present—are aided by the constant pressure of capitalism on the working class.”

Our correspondent seeks to answer this by giving figures showing the extent of S.P.G.B. propaganda—but the figures prove just the opposite of what he intended to show. Just to take one example out of the several given in his letter, there is the reference to 170,000 S.P.G.B. leaflets distributed at the 1931 General Election. At that time there were 30,000,000 electors and on a very conservative estimate the three large parties (Tory, Liberal, Labour), must have distributed between them upwards of 100 million leaflets. At least nine out of ten workers have never heard the S.P.G.B. case presented to them. Those that have heard it have done so against the background of an intensive barrage of anti-Socialist propaganda on the platform, in the newspapers, on the wireless, etc. This, says our correspondent with strange logic, indicates that the workers cannot understand the socialist case! Of course it indicates nothing of the kind.

The further important point that our correspondent overlooks is that the working class have progressed towards class consciousness and political maturity. Any Socialist propagandist who compares the reception given to the S.P.G.B. case now with the apathetic and very hostile reception of 40 or 30 years ago knows that this progress has taken place. That it does not result in a large and rapid increase in our membership is neither surprising nor disturbing; we never underestimated the power of the rich and resourceful capitalist class to delay the flood that will some day overwhelm them.

On our correspondent’s assertion that, “nowhere did the pamphlet assert the idea was new. In fact, it explicitly stated otherwise,” we offer the following extract from page 11, of his pamphlet:—

“We shall be referring here and now to Walsby’s discovery of the Demos and to his analysis of its structure and development. The limited scope of this pamphlet precludes any detailed account of the process by which he arrives at his results, though all this must sooner or later be examined if one is to have full evidence for the conclusions about to be described.” (Italics ours).

Again on the same page is a reference to Walsby’s “theories and discoveries.”

Why the claim that they are Walsby’s discoveries and results if they are Le Bon’s or someone else’s?

Incidentally, as our correspondent accepts Le Bon’s assertion that civilization has been the work of a small minority of superior intelligences and not of the mass of “inferior elements” one wonders how it was that our correspondent and his associates not long ago organised what they described as “Mass Meetings.” If it is only worth while to address “superior intelligences” what was the real purpose behind those abortive attempts to “tickle the ears of the groundlings”?

More important still is the admission in the pamphlet that we have yet to see how Walsby reached his (or Le Bon’s) conclusions, and the full evidence for them. In face of this presentation of unsupported conclusions it is strangely inconsistent for our correspondent to chide us with making unsupported assertions, even if it were true that we had done so. But our claim that where we can reach the workers with our limited resources, we can count on their capacity to understand our case is not unsupported. It is something within the experience of every S.P.G.B. propagandist and we do not need to go to Le Bon or some one else who lacks our direct experience.

Ed. Comm.

The Judgment of Joad (1941)

From the June 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

It is most lamentable that Socialists, in their long and arduous struggle to dispel working-class political ignorance, receive hindrance rather than help from those acclaimed by many as intellectual leaders. In April’s Socialist Standard we referred to the shortcomings of Mr. George Bernard Shaw on the subject of Socialism, and now we feel impelled to pass judgment on Dr. C. E. M. Joad. Writing in’ the New Statesman and Nation, for May 3rd last, in an article, “The Wheel Comes Full Circle (II),” he observes:

“It is one of my most profoundly held convictions that the methods for the achievement of Socialism which have been fashionable during the last twenty years . . . can be productive of no good thing.”

He accordingly welcomes the “renewed intrusion of ethical concepts into political and more particularly into socialist, political thinking,” and one of his conclusions is that “there is a definite relation between Socialism, as my generation were brought up to understand it, and the values of ethics and the virtues of Christianity.”

Let us make it clear to Dr. Joad, that if his concept of Socialism be accepted by the rest of his generation, then neither he nor they were brought up to understand it, and, as evidence, let us quote again from his article :

“In my last article I described the conceptions which have increasingly dominated Communists, and we may add Socialists—for what Socialism has there been in England during the last twenty years, save that of Communism?—in the period between the two wars. And now again there is a change. John Strachey writes a book which appeals to faith in the name of love. . .”

With absolute confidence we defy Dr. Joad, or anyone else, to prove, (a) that the Communist Party has even been Socialist; (b) that Mr. John Strachey has even been a Socialist; (c) that there has at any time been a Socialist organisation in this country other than the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Let us offer Dr. Joad further information regarding Socialism, so that he may know that the hope for humanity lies there, and there alone, and not in those doctrines he falsely conceives to be Socialist, nor yet in the Christian approach.

Dr. Joad argues that “Socialist” methods are fallacious because one cannot “be sufficiently sure one is right to justify one in the infliction of untold suffering in the present to make straight the way of the future,” and because human beings are corrupted by power. We share his aversion from the “authoritarian dogmatism” of these methods; but they have nothing to do with Socialism, neither has “the ordering and ruling of human beings.” Socialism cannot be till society consciously desires it. Violence will not achieve it, and consequently there will be no need of power to impose it.

Regarding his suggested alternative, Dr. Joad mentions without a trace of rebuke the Oxford Union tenet, that an essential condition of world reconstruction is a “return to God through organised religion.” (Italics ours.) Does he not realise that the State, instrument of man’s oppression by man, was even in early times essentially theistic, and that organised religion—including such as the Catholic overlords of Spanish workers and the Church of England landlords of London slums—is a potent factor in that oppression ? What, one may well ask, has this to do with “love, kindliness, respect for the individual” ?

Assuming Dr. Joad really means Christianity, then we may reply that while Socialism will be the practical realisation of “Love thy neighbour as thyself” (whereas capitalism is its antithesis), yet the Christian belief leads men not only to seek salvation apart from this earth, but also to feel that the patient endurance of hardship will speed that salvation. It contends, too, that if man is to have material emancipation here, it must be consequent upon his moral reform.

Particularly apposite is Dr. Joad’s comment that the record of two thousand years of ethical incentives to the betterment of society “is not encouraging.” He tries to argue away this point. Fails. Gladiatorial games and duelling have gone, yet the slaughter of man by man is surely more prevalent in the world than ever before. Wars may be condemned, but the condemnation is generally utilitarian rather than principled. No longer is there persecution for witchcraft; yet in its place we have widespread maltreatment of the workers who struggle for a better world.

Concluding his plea for ethical considerations, Dr. Joad states: “I do not think the appeal to moral values is always futile.” Let him observe that war and other capitalist evils which beset us are invariably bound up with appeals to moral values.

We strive for Socialism—common ownership and democratic control of the means of life—not because it is moral, ethical, virtuous, or seemingly eligible for any other relative abstract description, but because it is a scientifically demonstrable social and economic necessity.

Richard Tatham

Socialism—More Than Equality (1941)

From the May 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Apologists for capitalism, ever asearch for doctrinal dope to infuse new life into the doddering near-corpse of the present politico-economic set-up, will drag out some outworn theory, blow the dust off it, and present it to the public as up-to-date evidence against the socialist.

Common among these theories is one built around the suggestion that the rich may well experience as much financial difficulty as the poor.

We have, in the Daily Express for April 12th, a leader page article by Mr. Paul Holt. This deals with Mr. Donald Skilling, who at West London Police Court, admitted to earning £5 10s. weekly putting up Anderson shelters, and with the magistrate, Mr. Paul Bennett, who cried, “No wonder income tax is 10s. in the pound !”

Mr. Holt contends that to earn this wage “is no crime,” and makes out a budget to demonstrate. He further thinks that Mr. Bennett cannot find it “all bees and honey” on his £2,000 a year. He refers, too, to Mr. Hely Hutchinson, M.P., and merchant banker, who recently told the House of Commons that after meeting just claims he had 4s. each for his family.

Self-styled “Man o’ the People,” in the People for April 13th, observes: —

“We used, some of us, to talk of “Socialism in our time.” To-day, under a predominantly Conservative Government, we have stormed the barricades of money privilege and come much nearer to “equality of—financial—sacrifice” than ever before.

Will there be any rich men left among us ? Yes, but it will need a gross income of £66,000 a year to leave any taxpayer with £5,000 a year net! The colossal incomes are cut to the bone.”

Now, having reduced the Socialist to tears of pity for the luckless millionaire doomed to struggle along on his £5,000 a year, the defender of capitalism usually assails him with, “It’s all very well you grumbling about inequality, but the rich are just as badly off as you.” Then come high-sounding statements about harmony, and capital and labour going hand-in-hand, with a heigh and a ho and a heigh nonny no, sweet lovers love the spring.

This common misconception that the Socialist just aims at taking from the rich and sharing is one of the many unfortunate outcomes of the obscuring propaganda of avowedly capitalist and so-called labour institutions.

Hence, we must at all times reiterate: (1) no matter how large a man’s income, he is a worker if he is forced to sell his mental or physical energies for it; (2) it is readily appreciated that many capitalists, in the basically unnecessary fight for wealth, may to varying degrees suffer worry and inconvenience, and this applies particularly to the few capitalists who have an active role in their business. But the essential point is that they, as well as the working-class, would gain with Socialism a better, fuller life, free from economic dominance; (3) that Socialism will not bring merely a different share-out, but a much greater total wealth.

This last point merits enlargement, for with it is closely connected the utter refutation of the contention that capitalism is now necessary to progress.

It needs little effort to see that modern man finds his life so dominated by work he has little opportunity or energy for intellectual advancement, the little he does receive being almost entirely the result of capitalist training for capitalist ends.

It is not so obvious to the uninitiated that under modern capitalism, production of the material means of life is not progressing, but retrogressing. Though the rate of production consistently increases, the totality of production is with like consistency restricted.

This is done by (1) leaving unused a considerable portion of the two basic factors in wealth production—land and labour power; (2) deliberate, “legal,” large-scale destructions of goods the world over; (3) national and international agreements to restrict production of commodities below the potentiality; (4) use of labour for ends peculiar to capitalism and meeting no human need: armed forces, insurance workers, commercial travellers, banks, advertising, servants, pawnbrokers, and the printing and production of paper for putting the prices on packets of peanuts are a few examples; (5) neglect of improved scientific methods of production, e.g., in the English cotton industry, Government enquiry found only a minute fraction of the industry using any of the three developments of ring spinning, automatic looms and highspeed winding.

Well, I suppose all this is because people already have all they need ?

Oh, no. Nearly all of them are in great want.

Then, surely all those in want are organising to set things right ?

On the contrary, they’re fighting among themselves as hard as they can.

. . . and little Audrey laughed and laughed, for it was crazier than “Alice in Wonderland.”

And crazy it is, tragically so. These wealth restrictions arise because under capitalism the profit motive controls production. With Socialism will come production for human needs, banishing for ever the ghastly paradox of poverty amid plenty.

Richard Tatham

Synthetic Socialism (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Society’s emancipation from the chaos of war, want-amid-waste and mental stagnation, must await the Socialist education of the working class, for which purpose the Socialist Party of Great Britain exists. Logically expected is the colossal opposition of avowed capitalist propoganda; but what irony, what tragedy, that working-class organisations should set up a further barrier.

Such bodies not only put forward the demonstrably false idea that a revised capitalism could operate in the interests of the workers, but also perpetrate the additional and even greater crime of tagging “Socialism” to such proposals. More : despite the S.P.G.B. example of nearly thirty-eight years of political integrity, these parties manifest such inconsistencies that the worker, confused and disillusioned, loses his progressive urge, and either returns to political apathy or else goes as far as active antagonism to any movement styling itself working-class.

An outstanding instance is that of the Labour Party—non-Socialist, according to the scientific exposition of the S.P.G.B. Further misconceptions, unfortunately common, are that “Socialist” can be applicable to schemes for “public ownership” and to the regime in Soviet Russia. Particularly significant are, such statements as : —

The difference between common ownership and public ownership is metaphysical. The Post Office is an example of common ownership”.—(Mr. John Paton, Labour Party prospective Parliamentary candidate, Welwyn Garden City, February 12th, 1941.) 

“. . . there should be public ownership of the land, banks, and industry, for only then is planning in the public interest possible.”—(Mr. Pat Sloan, “Russia Has a Plan” Series, No. 1, p. 15; his black.) 

“Emergency powers to be used to take over the banks, land, transport, armaments, and other large industries in order to organise our economic life in the interests of the people.”—(People’s Convention Program, point 4.) 

“The one essential thing is that all the various forms of socialist organisation should involve the public ownership of the means of production.”—(Mr. John Strachey, “Why You Should be a Socialist,” p. 65.) 

“The Soviet Union represents planning for human welfare, on a basis of common ownership (p. 39). Socialist Planning—The U.S.S.R. (title, Chapter II)”.—(Mr. G. D. H. Cole, ” Practical Economics,” Penguin Edition.)

To the S.P.G.B. alone can the worker turn for unwavering and scientific political enlightenment. In 1917 we stated that the Russian revolution could not achieve Socialism, and thereafter have consistently indicated and explained the rise in that land of a form of State capitalism, evolutionarily consequent upon feudal backwardness. It should here be noted that rapidly increasing production, industrialisation, widely extended education, improved health services and other public welfares—claimed by pro-Soviet propagandists as evidence of Socialism—are in fact normal features of capitalist growth in many countries.

Regarding nationalisation, or public ownership, its quality is State capitalist, not Socialist; so, axiomatically, its function is not in the interests of the workers. What fundamental working-class problems were solved by, say, the German State institutions from Bismarck to the Nazis ? Turning to Great Britain, is that not equally true of such bodies as the London Passenger Transport Board ? Then, too, the conditions of Government and Municipal employees are basically typical of capitalism.

It is essential to understand that the State, often presented as being identical with society, is, on the contrary, a superstructure thrown up by society and seized upon for the purpose of rulership and exploitation.

With the advent of Socialism it will go the same way as the bow and arrow, the tinderbox, the penny-farthing, the yoyo and other things society decides it has no use for.

“Russia is Socialist!” “Public ownership is Socialist!” Oh, for William Shakespeare to pronounce: “Call any other flower a rose, and it will not smell as sweet.” Or for Donald Duck to squawk “Phooie!”

Richard Tatham

Old Fallacies Re-Furbished: Is Socialist Propaganda Futile? (1945)

Pamphlet Review from the February 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Low, the cartoonist, has two blank-faced creatures who constantly appear in his attacks on reaction, whom he calls "S'no use" and “T’aint necessary." If we may elaborate a little, they stand for all the disbelief in the practicability and desirability of trying to change the world for the better. It is obvious how these two frauds have served the purpose of the ruling class ever since there was a ruling class. What is more surprising is that they early made their entry into the ranks of large sections of the political Labour movement in the shape of arguments that it isn't possible for the workers to learn how to achieve their own emancipation; and not necessary anyway because inspired leaders would do it for them. Of course, they did not have it all their own way. Marx never doubted that the emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves, and before him William Lovett and others in the London Working Men's Association (1836) firmly held that the workers could and must trust in themselves, not in leaders. Nevertheless, the other view has persisted, though with some changes of form.

The early Fabians and the late J. R. MacDonald hardly troubled to hide their contempt for the intelligence and capacity of the working class. Hence the Fabians' lack of concern with making Socialists and the later admiration for all the dictators and contempt for democracy proclaimed by G. B. Shaw.

J. R. MacDonald, in his long forgotten confession of faith, "A Rock Ahead," published in "To-day" (March, 1887) gave the doctrine a slightly different twist. He not only despised but also feared those whom he called the "rude and uncultivated masses." He held that "Labour as such is simply useless for freeing itself"; but he was afraid that the workers might try. The revolution, he wrote, would "be directed from the study" by the "comparatively well-to-do," and the thing to be feared was the "explosive" force of the workers. "We may have to use them or we may not," he wrote, "but should the worst befall, their destructive power will be skilfully directed; it will not cause ruin but will clear a way; it will be the instrument, but not the life; the tool, but not the designer." In MacDonald's eyes Socialism was a matter of "intellectual development," and the "ignorant labourer" cannot understand it, therefore the thing to do was to confine propaganda to the intellectual minority, the few who are "thoughtful and reasonable."

Lenin and the Communists also had this concept, though with the difference that they did not fear the uprising of the non-Socialist masses. They sought to encourage it and proposed to capture the leadership and thus gain power. But still there was the contempt for the workers' understanding. Lenin said: "If Socialism can only be realised when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least 500 years." ("Ten Days that Shook the World," John Reed, page 303.) It should, however, be noticed that Lenin attributed the workers' backwardness to lack of education under capitalism, not to an innate incapacity. It has remained for later writers to go that far.

Achille Loria, the Italian economist and self-styled Socialist, held that the final stages of revolution always had been and always would be effected through the cooperation of "disgruntled intellectuals," otherwise revolution was foredoomed to failure. (See "Karl Marx." by Loria. Foreword by E. and C. Paul, pages 22 and 28.)

Eden and Cedar Paul, who at one time were active and influential in the Communist movement, dissented from Loria's view, at least at first. They thought that in modern times "independent working-class education" had changed the situation. They wrote “The workers of the day after to-morrow need not put their trust in the frail reed of the support of the intellectuals. Once more we raise the Marxist slogan and cry. 'The emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves.' " (Page 30.)

Then they seem to have changed their opinion, for the "Plebs" "Outline of Psychology" (1923) quotes them as writing that the theory of democracy "is based upon the belief that reason is the main motive force of human action, and that men in the mass are, if properly educated, always prepared to accept programmes by reason of their justice, rationality and wisdom. It is a captivating theory . . . and the only serious objection to it is that it is not true. . . ." (Page 96.) They went on to explain that the average man is not guided by rational considerations but by "subconscious urges"; this despite their proclaimed belief in the efficacy of "independent working class education."

The writers of the "Plebs" Outline accepted and elaborated the argument. On the ground that the intelligence of human beings ranges through various levels from idiots and imbeciles up to "rare creative geniuses in science, art, and public administration," they affirmed: "There is little hope that the majority of the individuals in any nation, class or group will be capable, when a crisis arises, of intelligently deciding what is the best course of action—even when their instincts and unconscious impulses urge them towards action of some kind." They instanced as proof of this the alleged fact that in all crises "even where there is comparative unanimity as to aim (as in the late war) the dictatorship of a small minority is essential," and held that it is confirmed by "the experience of every proletarian propagandist when trying to influence his mates." (In passing, one may wonder why the individuals who hold such views about others always have no difficulty in excepting themselves from what they would appear to be claiming as a characteristic of all human beings.)

All those mentioned above, from Shaw and MacDonald to the "Plebs," have hastened to accept the necessity for "leaders" to shepherd the workers to their emancipation. "S'no use" for the workers to try to understand Socialism, it is beyond their capacity; but luckily for them "T'aint necessary," for here we are ready to provide what they lack of "mental capacity" and "knowledge bearing upon the question at issue." ("Plebs," page 137.)

Almost alone among the parties the S.P.G.B. has consistently combatted those views. Are we right in doing so? Can the majority of the workers understand our case when it is presented to them? Is our slow progress due to some innate incapacity or—as we have always contended—is it due to capitalist propaganda and to the fact that our means of spreading Socialist knowledge are restricted by our small resources and can only grow gradually? Are those people right who contend that the workers never will understand and that unless Socialism can be achieved without working class understanding, it will never be achieved at all?

The latest contribution to the "leadership " argument is a pamphlet, "Science, Politics and the Masses," by G. R. Tatham (Social Science Association, price 6d.). The first part discusses the recent tendency for scientists to interest themselves in politics; but only in order to lead up to the point that whether they do or not, it is useless for anyone to go on accepting the assumption that the mass of the people are capable of “scientific and political understanding."

Although a number of writers on psychology are quoted to support the view, the pamphlet adds little to the crudely stated opinions of MacDonald nearly 60 years ago, or to the opinions of the "Plebs" writers in 1923. What it does is to introduce us to "Walsby’s discovery of the Demos and to his analysis of its structure and development." (However, no proof is given in the pamphlet of Walsby's theory.) The theory is that the population are grouped in "ideological layers" each representing a definite level of culture and political outlook. The individuals in the lower layers (constituting the great majority) have little or no capacity for understanding a logical case, while the smaller numbers in the top layers have a more logical outlook. Tatham writes: ". . . the more logical the outlook, the fewer the people holding it " (page 12). As we may put it, "The higher you go, the fewer."

We are told that the members of the "Progressive" political bodies are drawn from the top layers and therefore it is a waste of time for them to go on appealing to the illogical masses "with the same arguments and upon the same subject-matter which was instrumental in their own conversion" (page 14).

"Progressive" is not defined in the pamphlet though it appears to include all layers above the Conservatives, nor is it stated that the aim of the writer is Socialism. We are, however, told that the "more progressive political organisations are largely agreed as to the direction that economic reorganisation must take " and reference is made to the “proposed economic change" but again it is not defined. This is important, for we cannot conceive what can be the economic change about which Socialists are in agreement with Liberals, Communists and other self-styled “progressives."

Elsewhere (page 15) Tatham tells us that “there will always be, so long as civilisation endures, conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, etc., levels of social and political understanding," and (pages 13-14) that “those people sometimes termed 'the politically unconscious'—i.e., whose interest in social and political matters is largely emotional —must at all times be in a considerable majority." If therefore the economic change that Tatham looks to is Socialism, we are asked to believe that Socialism will be achieved and will function with a majority of the population still “politically unconscious" and not interested in it. Moreover, whatever the change he envisages, he sees that his argument implies dictatorship, for he asks, “How then are we to have the proposed change and still retain the political democracy we now have?" (Page 16.)

Tatham answers the question but in a very vague way. He tells us that a few (not all) of the individuals in the top layers will make a specialised study of the nature of the political and ideological field (page 15), and that we can then look forward “to the application of scientific method . . . to the social mind, for the scientific control (i.e., self-control) of human nature" (page 16). Now what exactly does this mean? If the masses cannot understand a logical case and only a few of the few in the top layers are able to make the special study referred to, in what way can the promised application of scientific method to the social mind be described as “self control"? Does it not mean what MacDonald meant in 1887, that the cultured few should either do without the "rude and uncultivated masses" or act as the “designer" using them as “the tool"?

Against all of the advocates of clever leaders using stupid masses stands the S.P.G.B. At the formation of the Party it was frankly recognised that knowledge is necessary and that the workers as a whole lacked knowledge—but not the capacity to understand and learn. Therefore the S.P.G.B. accepted that progress must lie slow, there could be no short cuts. In the Socialist Standard for February 1905 appeared the following typical declaration: —

The ignorance of the workers in the past has enabled the capitalists to possess themselves of the political machine. The workers all unwittingly have made the rod that is now applied to their backs. But what working class ignorance has done, working class enlightenment can undo. . . . It is absolutely necessary that the workers shall see every step of the way clearly before they take it. Which may mean a slow advance, but it will certainly mean a sure advance."

When Freud and others are quoted to try to prove that only a tiny minority can ever understand logical case on social and political problems we are not impressed. Are these authorities themselves among the logical minority? If so, they ought, according to Tatham, to have slipped straight into the “progressive" political party appropriate to their layer, and ought not to have remained anti-Socialist, as many of them have. Again, if the irrationality of the majority resides in the nature of human beings as such, why does it not hold good for the select few? Are they not human beings too? And if it does not reside in the nature of human beings as such, why cannot the majority, through education, attain the degree of logical understanding already attained by the minority? In spite of the Plebs-—Tatham view of the poor results of propaganda, we of the S.P.G.B. know of no reason why other workers should not come to understand what we have come to understand. Some may develop more slowly than others, but logical understanding and action are not beyond the capacity of the majority. What we are up against is not an innate incapacity to understand, but the massive and tireless machinery of capitalist propaganda, including the red herrings of the Tatham kind, but our efforts—small at present—are aided by the constant pressure of capitalism on the working class. No capitalist propaganda can for ever prevent the workers from becoming passionately interested in the failure of the capitalist system and the need to find a way out by their own efforts.

If evidence is needed to show that the workers do possess capacity to understand and act—even if at present it is in a limited sphere—their achievement in building up the trade union movement provides that evidence. What has been done on the industrial field and much more will not in the long run be beyond working class capacity on the political field. It is bound to be a slow process, but does anyone know a quicker one? What has happened to all the short cuts promised by the Fabians, MacDonald, Lenin, the “Plebs," etc.?

Tatham and Walsby’s rehash of old theory leaves us unmoved. The slight refinements they introduce leave the theory just as unconvincing and suspect as it always was. The one difference between Lenin and this latest variation (i.e., that the workers will never understand) is not a step forward but a step back. As for the “layers" (very much like the theory propounded in 1923 by the “Plebs" group), one flaw in the argument is that the problem before us is not why does Socialist propaganda make no progress, for it obviously does make progress, though slowly. Yet surely, according to the “layer" theory. Socialist propaganda ought at its inception to have made a fairly rapid appeal to all the individuals in the appropriate layer and should then have ceased to make headway, except to the extent that the field was enlarged by individuals of a new generation in that layer. If it were true that Socialist propaganda cannot spread outside a small circle, one wonders why the capitalist class have devoted such enormous efforts to preventing it from spreading.

Again, how does the theory square with the class interests behind political parties? Is the almost universal opposition which the capitalists show towards Socialism proof that they are all in the lower layers and unable to understand a logical case? Or is not the capitalist who supports the Tory Party (“the stupid party," as its opponents often mistakenly call it) taking a logical step to defend his class and personal economic interests?

This pamphlet does no more than MacDonald and the others to convince us either that there is a majority who will never understand Socialism, or that Socialism can be brought about by an “intelligent minority," behind the backs of the working class.
Edgar Hardcastle