8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

1/8

Internal Party Journal of the S.P.G.B.JULY 1953 SIXPEXCE

MUST WE PROSECUTE TH -E

\ spectre is haunting the April FORUM_host. of .Utopianism. A contributionled " People of the World-Unite" rattlesbones of Robert Owen before us. Inticle advocating" revolutionary" changesr D. of P., we are offered, as a substituteDas Kapital", the "New View of Society".same standpoint as that which Marxised in this third and tenth "Theses onrbach " is propounded as being more up-te than the "legacies from other organ-n s and past conditions" which allegedlytute the present socialist case. There is,ingly, no necessity for tall, (or action)class-struggle on the political field. Allis needed is to' 'become class-conscious,

" simply means seeing that there are twoin Society whose interests are opposed,that so long as Capitalism lasts there wiIIclass struggle". Having adopted thisTATOR'S VIEW of class-struggle, oneer capitalist of worker) may "tower"Society and do sterling duty as the"educatOor" himse:lf.volutionary socialists, on the other hand,!l-ethe grandstand of the ivory tower forolitical arena in order to end class strugglesuccessful prosecution of the last classRealising that men are born intoas a going concern, 'it does not surprisethat men are either capitalists or workers .e plexus of social relationships whichte capitalism a man has no chO'ice~ust belong to either the capitalist or thelass. The, revolutionary, therefore,am condemn the individual capitalist forone of t..he privileged minority. Ratherhe condemn the social relationships whichthat a mail must belong either toxploited many or the favoured few. Thusim of the revolutionary is not to' abolish!Jfists-but capitalist society; not "t..heof antagonisms ",,_but the revolution-of social relationships.e basic capitalist relationshipswhich must-'~;'}..e=:. is the relationship of emnlover to. cl lari 1 rv 1

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

2/8

FORUM-----------.----- Ju ly 1953

OUR ATTITUDE TO C 'LASSESomrades Richmond, Lock, and Russellbetween them opposed most of, th,

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

3/8

M

*

l you must ee the difficulties this.. Engels was a member of the capitalist_;=- ." e lm; consciousness was obviouslythan I belong to the capitalist class".many workers who are conscious-'-=y belong to the working class, but they=e: socialists. That is why I insist that:=r:n 'class consciousness' (which should_used apart from 'socialist ') denotes-~""DERSTANDING of Capitalism, whicha desire for Socialism.fCl sorry that Lock finds my explanatione ba ic attraction of Socialism reads likeday-SchooI message. It doesn't particu-matter why Lock or I think we want:iaIism. The attraction is basic because itmething that nothing except Socialism can.g; and because it is part of the object that

soc' alists share. There is nothing except. ism that will enable us to live withoutantagonisms and in social harmony. Itue that Socialism is the only way in whiching class poverty can be ended. But istrue that it is the only way in which'" or I can end our present poverty position.ock, through no fault of his own, hadgh money to relieve him from the necessityfor his living, would he give upg a socialist because he would be on theht end" of the antagonism?amendments to the D. of P. were notorder to make our propaganda unselec-, The D. of P .. is the basis of member-and should be an accurate expression ofholds us together. At present, I think

ould be-generally agreed that the basis ofership is knowledge. As far as I know,Party rule excludes members of the capit-class from the Party, which does notthe way in which members get theirThat I S the principle at stake.

RUSSELLdid not say that "legacies from othernisations and past conditions" constitutepresent socialist case. It is just that" thepast weighs like an Alp upon the brainthe living" . Nor is there any apparentection between my standpoint and thatMarx criticised in his 3rd and 10thon Feuerbach, Here are the theses;

IIIThe materialistic doctrine concerning theangi_ng of circumstances and educationrgers that circumstances are changed byen and that the-educator himself must be:::.ucated. This doctrine has therefore toiride society into t:wo parts, one of whichsupe .or to sociefy.Tae coincidence of the changing of ClT-and of human activity or self-can only be comprehended and

rationally understood as revolutionarypractice.

XThe standpoint of the old type ofmaterialism is civil society, the standpointof the new materialism is human society or

social humanity.It is most unfair of Russell to imply that ~think there is " no necessity for talk (or action)about class struggle on the political field".{he Party's view, to which I subscribe, is quiteclear on this. Weare out to. abolish the" antagonism of interests, manifesting itself asa c!ass struggle". Call it "successful prose-cution of the last class struggle" if you must-so long as you mean by that the ending ofclasses.I do not deny that Russell "Can claim that

the Party supports HIS view, since on p.14of Principles and Policy we read that classstruggle "is a 'struggle on the one side' tomaintain and on the other side to abolish asocial system". However, I take it that in'; ,ULVi we are not so much concerned withthe authority behind statements as with theircorrespondence with facts.The class struggle and the socialist move-ments are NOT identical nor is the latter themere political expression of the former. Theclass struggle is fought out in the arena ofCapitalism. The working class, by definition,can never successfully prosecute' the classstruggle-they can only end it. What they

prosecute successfully is the struggle for Soc-ialism, but this is a struggle against ignorance,not against capitalists.Why .does Russell insist "not the ending ofantagomsms-but the revolutionisingof socialrelationships "? Surely the position is thatthe social relationships will be revolutionisedfrom those of mutually antagonistic owner andnon-owner tOohose where such ownership andconsequent antagonisms will not exist.He takes "committed to preserve theirsystem" to mean that the capitalist class can-

not abdicate. Neither can the working class.A capitalist is no more. bound to supportCapitalism than a worker, and there are nological grounds for treating the capitalist'sopposition to Socialism different from theworker's.Russell says that individual capitalists withsocialist understanding "must assist in theprosecution of the class struggle ON THESIDE OF THE WORKING CLASS" andthat outside the S.P.G.B. "the rest of theworking class as individuals take their placein the class struggle on the side of the capitalistclass". A little thought will show how absurdthis is. A capitalist, as capitalist, can neverchange sides. If he happens to be a socialistand he employs people, then there is stilI anantagonism of interests. Similarly, non-socialistworkers don't fight the class struggle on thepolitical field on the side of the capitalist class.

The simple position is that AlL '" .~on one side of the economic as s ::::-L;.2 .,--ALL capitalists on the other. _\ 5 ~2: --sending (political) of class struggle, -- ~that membership of either class is irrele = - . . : : .I suggested modifying clause 5 of the = :J

P. because I agree with Russell that i;:_-register the fact that it is futile to aj ~ _(members of) the ruling class. Russel' ~-=-in the red herring of the Utopian so::i2..._;;-"appealing to the ruling dass to use ---power", but it is obvious that I didn't =~that. How can we justify the assertion = =it is futile to appeal to (i.e. hopeless to es::c-=-understanding of capitalists when we ;:-_some have been socialists?There is, of course, no basis forassertion that I see in class struggleantagonism of individual capitalist ana - =dividual worker . And why refuse to disczsswhat the working class may regard as its 2 . : : : : : . - :

Surely any discussion about what the \Tor;=:class IS should not over look the fact that ~~-are people-and people do have aims. -

* *The clash of opmion on this subject ha snot been without value, and I summarise yconclusions as follows:

1. The class struggle is the inevitable produof class society, and is fought over divisior;of wealth, condition of employment, eI ~within that society.2. As a result of dissatisfaction with classsociety, and in particular with the failureof the subject class successfully to prosecutethe class struggle, there arises a movemen-to abolish it and to establish in its placeclassless society.

3. This socialist movement is something morethan a form of class struggle, since its aimsinclude the ending of class struggle.4. In the very process of ending this struggle,the socialist gives expression to the highestaim of the subject class, which is anequalitarian society.5. NOoindividual within class-divided societvis incapable of participating on equal termwith all others in the socialist movement.since Socialism constitutes the emancipa-tion of the whole of society from its presentnarrow conditions.

, S.R.P.

Correspondence anda,~I.C;_les shoutd besent to FORUM, S.p.G,B:, 52, ClaphamHigh St., London, S.W. 4. Subscriptions12 months, 7/6d, 6 months 3/9d. Chequesand 1".0.'5 should be made payable to r-

E. lake,S.P.G.B.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

4/8

FORUM

G. IDLBINGER.

THE ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIALIST IDEASeating with Turner's article on selec-_ ('\iarch FORUM), Hayden denies thatialism is a way of living. He tells us thatis a way of thinking about the problemssociety, especially poverty, and advocatingsolution the transformation of capitalist::err to a communal one". A a definitionociaiism, this is deficient in two ways. Itnor make it clear that Socialism is aof society (in its human aspect, a wayiving); and its use of such terms as " think-and "advocating" makes it into anectual rather than a practical proposition.of people outside the 'Socialist move-could claim to be thinking about theIems of society and advocating a corn-

al one (e.g. Anarchists).'" 'ayden did not complete the sentence:cialism is a way 'Of living ... ". Turnerd " living harmoniously with all people".Turner states, there are no groups of people,or present, who, living under a propertyme, have not been antagonistic to' eachr ".ere, in my opinon, is the very kingpin ofargument-absence of harmonious.relation-. This absence is not confined to angonism between capitalists and workerse. There are groups of workers antagon-to other groups of workers; groups oftalists antagonistic to' other groups oftalists, .a system of society can be established tosh these antagonisms, to abolish devastat-wars-in the modern world, wars are nocters: of social status-then what is leftake Capitalism more attractive to thetalists except "excessive luxury"? It is-ed that they will be reluctant, under anyto give this up. Yet what elsecessive luxury but an attempt to' keep up

a competitive standard? It is considered" thething" to lunch at Claridges, to go to Ascot,to drink numerous bottles of champagne untilthe early hours of the morning. But the peoplewho pass their lives in this way are generallyno happier nor more integrated human beingsthan the rest of the population.'. -.It is extremely doubtful whether their accessto material wealth and their ability to commandthe services of others, makes up for theirvirtual exclusion from productive activity.Thus we read (People, 5.4.53) of ex-KingFarouk who, according to a member of hisentourage, was "bored stiff" in Rome, andso leff for a holiday on the french Riviera.Farouk's man added: "He didn't know whatto dowith himself. Time was heavy on hishands". The incidence of melancholia andsuicide is highest among those who have neverworked. And judging by my observations of" social gatherings" over the past twenty yearsor more, I should say that boredom is muchmore in evidence than happiness .:Why cannot capitalists be convinced that"all will gain"? After all, members of thecapitalist class have contributed in no smallway to the growth of ideas of a future har-monious society. Maybe some were' "utopian";nevertheless they must have had some measureof understanding of the basis of property

relationships and the consequent antagonism. of interests.ENCOURAGING PREJUDICENo.3 of our D. of P. uses the words "thisantagonism can be aboHshed" and refers todemocratic control by the WHOLE PEOPLEHayden claims that \' the Party's attitude isthat we would wish to obtain our objective bypeaceful means if we may, but by force if wemust." Those who attended the E.G meetings.when .the complaint made against Turner on

the question of violence was dealt v.irt --:_know that this is very far from being the esseFor every statement in the S.S. on the PClSa-"~use of violence to' curb a recalcitrant minoritv,there is at least another explaining that violencecan have no part in the establishment -Socialism, This is an issue which must ~_thrashed out-however it is not my maincern in this article. I am concerned m':"socialist ideas, andiparticularly with the re-judices of somecomrades about what preventsothers from accepting them.Socialism, or the ideas of a world fit i xx:human beings tn liv.e in, CAN be accepted' ;those who are wealthy. Prejudice will arise

on the question of wealth, of course-s-but thenin our propaganda .work we' meet with su l..prejudice in people from all walks of life.'" They are welcome to listen to use,but weare not likely to get a majority of them ever,at the eleventh. hour"; states Hayden. Thepoint is that people will not feel welcome tolisten to us if our propaganda is framedexclude certain groups from the possibility ofunderstanding our ideas, Even the groups towhich we appeal may, by our very selectivity,fail to grasp the universality of Socialism.A description of the world we live in to-day,and our solution to the problems that besetboth capitalist capitalists and workers, doesNOT mean an appeal to the capitalists for a"change of heart". A change of ideas inall who support CaJ2;italism is what we areafter. In no way does this invalidate ourconception of the class struggle or what itimplies. With the fruitlessness of the ideas ofco-parnership, profit sharing, incentive bonuses,etc., it is to our advantage to point out thatwe have a real solution-" a way of livingharmoniously".

MASS ATTACKPROPAGAN;DA TECHNIQUEwould like to endorse the views ofrade McGregor in his article" What Doestivity Mean?" in the May FORUMof the reasons for the depressing results':-0 years of both indoor and outdooraganda is "small scale technique" and;ha s clearly shown, our propaganda callsadical revision. '7cne hope in the near future to see an';'::e:.nent -in the S.S. along the followingThe S.P.G.B. has decided to make an"'e!:it in propaganda in the form of a

~;r:*5 all-om attack in a given area ..

where one or more big. outdoor meetings willbe held at least once a week. The nucleusof the audience. will be a minimum of fiftycomrades organised on the rota principle andpledged to be present at the start of the meet-ing to give it a strong send-off, In addition,one indoor meeting will be held each week,covering in turn every available hall in thearea and backed up .with po-sters and loud-speaker equipment.Whenever possible there will be announce-ments in the local press, supported by thepurchase of space, containing a write-up of

the subject matter that is being dealt with atthe meetings, both indoor and outdoor. Alsoa challenge to debate to all political. opponents.or anyone who would .like to try his hand atOppOSItIOn. Should the press refuse to sell usspace for this purpose, leaflets will be printed! 1 : 1 d freely distributed, mention being madethat publicity in the local press was refused.In addition to' this, the S.S. will be canvassedfrom door to door in force. Further, a fewcomrades will be stationed at well- chosen busyspots all over the area every day, selling theS.S. and other literature.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

5/8

HE BALLOT AND COMRADE CANTER

, . Ii!e to wager we would make more, in both increased membership and;::;;enr literature sales, than we have donepast fifty years. Practically everybodyarea would know of the existence of theParty, and what it stands for, longthe campaign was over. What a furoreuld produce! I visualise the air aroundpans veritably electrified with interest.S.P.G.B. would be the "talk of the town".

ITOW infectious to the surrounding areas!where you will, stop a hundred people,hem their views On the soundness of thecase, and what will be the answer inevery instance? "Never heard of thatAnd this after fifty years! Such assing state of affairs could not happen atonclusion of our high pressure drive inrea chosen for this experiment. We can-what are we waiting for? The exper-gained in the effort would be a useful

e title: "The Ballot v. Comrade Canter"to - indicate that Comrade Canter is insition to the ballot. Such a title is un-ded and unfair, since he has never repud-or denounced the ballot. The articles inUM (February and March) ignore thent points that Comrade Canter was making

e October and November issues. It wouldifficult to recognise Canter's attitude fromng the replies by Comrades H. (Harmo)ison, S.F. and G.G.e basis of Comrade Canter's analysis isthe socialist revolution is inherentlyority, conscious and political. His emphasisthe conscious majority character of thelist victory. This is what he stresses asacid test of the socialist position. Thelot " is not that test, but a mechanismloyed by the socialist majority. The soc-principle is CONSCIOUS MAJORITYn (not ballot). This is what is being lostof in this controversy.his article, Comrade Canter has madear that in his discussion concerning thehe is dealing with the cc existing ballot'binery." In his definition of the ballot, heout of his way to point out ". . . andwe do not mean QI vote, but the ballotsting under the present economic system."emphasis.) It is to "legalisms" andnstitutionalism ", as such, that Canter isThe socialist concern should not be" legalism", per se, Comrade Morrisonell aware that the socialist majority is notbv constitutional obstacles, as' he,asks whether anvone thinks that" a:onary working cla;s will have any morefor the capitalists' Constitution thanaave themselves."

FORUM

guide for our next attack in other areas. Noneof us knows for sure what the total results will:. We can, however, be certain that they willbe in the direction we all desire.Such a plan of campaign would be boundto arouse intense interest in quite a number of

ways, such as in sympathisers, all and sundryinterested in politics, and encouragement to allOUT comrades wherever they may be-e--espec-ially the speakers. The progress reports in the5.S. would be looked forward to and read,both near and far, with much eagerness.There must be a great number of "waverers"who try to justify their reluctance to take theplunge onthe ground that the smallness of themembership, after fifty years of plodding, isconclusive proof that there is no hope of seeingSocialism realised in their lifetime. They, withothers, would be keenly watching progress.Such a campaign, as suggested, would most

-.--. . .---.The ballot (meaning the vote) may take onmany forms. What specific forms it takes willbe determined by the particular circumstancesexisting at the time. We cannot tell historywhat special measures it must take in thefuture. What Comrade Canter takes issue withis telling the as-yet non-existing conscious

socialist majority, now, what it must do, Howdoes anyone know, in advance, the detailedmeasures of the future? This much is sure,a socialist majority will know what to do andwill do what it finds to be necessary.The following are but speculations as towhat forms the ballot may take: Gallup Polls,Wildfire fervour spreading rapidly; marchingfeet, general strike by socialists, boycottingelections because of special circumstance=-whoknows? None of these are essential or integralto socialist princples, but are merely illustrativeof possible forms that may be assumed by theballot. History answers this question, not us.After the fashion of a third degree, pressureis put on to compel the use of crystal balls, andthe crucial question is asked: "Supposingthe majority are compelled to use violence?"How are you supposed to answer that question?One answer might be: "Then, that is the stepthat is taken." Should some strange quirk ofpeculiar, unforeseeable events compel the soc-ialist majority to utilize violence, how can we,in advance, say" No! "? However, this muchwe can say, in advance-the majority has noneed for violence.Suffice it to say that socialists are opposedto violence and its advocacy. What is mani-festly unwarranted is the charge that resultsfrom the reply to the above question: "Ha!

certainly put us on the map for all me = . = _c .; ea chosen. The press would find it: 'c::-.tiflicult to avoid giving the drive some fu:rd~publicity, however small. I consider 15';;_spent in this way, would give much b e u E -value than as a free gift of a forfeited deposiztor a few weeks' concentrated effort W f : - e =everybody is " talking and comparitively ie=listening. Further, in my opinion, no constir-uency should' be contested until a campaignof this description has preceded it, monthsbeforehand. ,.I suggest that. comrades could do mt: . : :=:worse than cardully to re-read and digest wharMcGregor wrote on this matter in the . 1 2 . .FORUM, especially the latter section. I ealso be interesting to have the views of othercomrades on the merits or demerits of MassAttack Propaganda Technique .

W.H. (Bournemouth)

Ha! See. We have members in the Partywho believe in violence and minority action."

W.S.P. ON THE ISSUEIn the 1951 W.S.P. Conference held inDetroit, the following motion, that stirred upa hornet's nest, was carried:" Under capitalism, where the' State machin-ery is in the hands of the capitalist class, theballot can be used for the purpose of measur-ing the developing socialist consciousness ofthe working class, When this consciousnessreaches a majority stage, the ballot can becomethe revolutionary weapon for the introductionof socialism. If, at the time the socialistmajority is obtained, material conditions pre-clude the use of the ballot, then this majoritywill use whatever other means are at hand tointroduce socialism."It is not correct that the Party membershipviews "Comrade Canter's" stand as a viola-tion of socialist principles. This can be seenfrom the three relevant referenda on this issuepassed after the 1952 Conference held inBoston a year later.

1. A Party referendum endorsed the " Intro-ducing. the World Socialist Party" leaflet.It contains the following statement: "TheWorld Socialist Party holds that the ballotpresents the most practical and possible ' W a yfor the uiorhers to' obtain political potoer.Hcwever-as a minority party, the WorldSocialist Party does not, nor should not, laydown the exact steps 'q y which the majotjfyonce is+becomes socialist, will introducesocialism." (emphasis mine.)

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

6/8

FORUM Ju ly 195 3_Party referendum endorsed the followingrztement : "The W.S.P. advocates use of

to obtain socialism, but does notreclude any other democratic mea'ns used, [h e conscious majority at the time ofe revolution." (emphasis' mine.)

_-\Party referendum endorsed the followingstatement: "We advocate use of the ballot2S a means of obtaining socialism, and any-one who advocates violence as the meansto achieve the socialist victory cannot bea member of the World Socialist Party."hus we see that Canter has not been mis-senting the W.S.P. position. It takes someof the imagination to interpret thesereferenda motions as being minority,nce, Trotzkyite or anti-Socialist Com-n Parties" 'views:t is quite significant that after receiving theand 1952 W.S.P. Conference Reports and"Introducing the World Socialist Party"ler, not a single member of a companionor any of the companion parties felt theto raise questions about the "anti-socialist"yelapments in the W.S.P. There was noanche of protests.

,-en though the various . companiones of socialism are autonomous, can youimagine there being any silence if the.P. had appeared to make a basic changetheir sociailst principles? Fancy, if theP. started advocating reforms, national-united front, labour (union) politicalon, great leaders, etc., what a barrage ofers would have, swamped us!t was not' until letters were sent abroad bye W.S.P. members voicing, their apprehen-s, that we received any expressions of dis-ements from some comrades in companionIam quite sure that I, myself, wouldreactedagainst the alleged Canter viewssaw rhem presented in the manner theye in the letters. I am fully aware that therades writing abroad were seriously con-ed because of their fears and thus, unwit-were slanting their emphases in such athat the wrong impression was created.fact, it is wrong to refer to "Canter's views"hough the referenda of the W;S.P. did notrt his views.ne thing stands out. N 0' socialist shouldany qualms concerning" Canter's views"in their context and on their own merits.

CRITICISMS OF "CANTER'SVIEWS"tis perfectly understandable that comrades:ome concerned when' they believe that theatific socialist organisation is in' danger ofming itself into anon-, oraiiti-socialistThe critics of Canter fear that Canter'smay be construed as supporting minority

violence actions.",J} be observed that the case against::.rer is largely based either on inferencesfrom his staternetns o - r interpretations

~ views, This attitude on "Canter'sis based on the fallacy of refusing to' with Canter's points but, instead, to reason

from fears and implications. Though thesefears are sincere, they are unfounded.To illustrate the matter: Canter's case re-

volves around limitation of approaching theballot question as a rigid, mechanical, "existingballot machinery" problem. The $6 4 question:"What alternative is there to the ballot?"arises from ignoring his plea to examine thisballot question as part of the process of thesocialist victory. If the critics looked at thisproblem (dialectically and materialistically) asbeing in a state of flux, this question wouldlose its meaning: However, the question wouldbe pertinent in dealing- with advocates ofviolence or minority action, but has no appli-, cation to Canter, whose stand as outlined aboveis never dealt with.It is not Comrade Canter's fault that heraised technical questions concerning differ-

ences .bewteen the British Parliament and theU.S. Congress. The "literal" and "mechanical"approach to the ballot leads to-just such "prob-lems". Iam well aware that Canter's criticsare not really concerned about such technical" difficulties" .. In their replies they recognisethe essential and fundamental thing is theconscious majority. After all, this is the basicprinciple.

NOr wonder that S.F. and G.G. (MarchFORUM) lay such stress on "unsupple facts".There never was onunsupple: fact. As social-ists, we see things in motion. It is a fallacyto 100'k on ballot as a "fact" instead of as theresolute determination of a socialist majority.This also may explain the dependence of thecritics upon quotes and references for theirviews.Talk of alternative forms of ballot can only.be grasped by these critics as opposition toballot. The alternatives are NOT either ballotor violence and minority-they are variousforms of ballot (vote). . 'When I project myself into. the growingsocialist movement, I get a different picturethan Canter. His may prove correct and mineprove wrong-but there is no quarrel amongsocialist that the process is conscious-socialist-majority-political in nature. For example, asdistinguished from Canter, Ido not visualisethe. capitalist state- removing a significant soc-ialist movement off the ballot; I do not thinkthat capitalist control of state machinery canignore a growing sentiment. Ibelieve all sortsof concessions will be made to powerful social-ist convictions. r anticipate that a 20% socialistelectorate calls for far different behaviour bythe capitalists than the current .0001 % . (Ican even conceive-but do not expect-ahistoric situation developing by which' the'Republicans or Tories might become the actualmechanism for introducing socialism.) Con-fronted with a socialist majority, Ican only

visualise the ruling Class submitting to theinevitable. Is my speculation socialist andCanter's anti-socialist, or is it the reverse?Isn't it just as likely that neither is the criterionof being a socialist?All kinds of inferences can be drawn fromalmost any statement. An analysis is not re-

pudiated because of possible inferences. Tocall Canter's and Trotzkyist views similar onbasis of a quote from the Trotzkyist pamphlet""In Defence of Socialism", is a case of pseudo-logic. On such reasoning, Comrade Morrison'sviews could be called similar to those of thesame pamphlet, as he himself quotes favour-ably from it. Actually, in this whole issue, itappears that the rigidity and mechanical natureof their ballot stand causes the critics to bequite metaphysical. v- "Canter's position cannot be confused withthe Trotzkyites by any stretch of the imag-ination. His crystal-clear analysis of thevanguard concept, of the capitalist nature ofthe Soviet Union, of the immediate demandprogrammes, etc., demonstrate the inaccuracyof that charge. The articles, signed by thepen-name "Karl Frederick" in the WesternSocialist repudiate any such accusation,

CONCLUSIONSThere is a reason why neithedthe Declara-

tion of Principles nor the W.S.P. Applicationfor Membership blank have never containedany- specific statement or question on the" ballot". They refere to' many items, suchas: class struggle, emancipation, organise con-sciously and politically, leadership, religion,Russia, etc. These two Party forms are basicgeneralisations.. They constitute, our generalview of the historic scene and historic process.'Our major emphases are on the processesand not on mechanisms and details. The ballotis a correct and sound symbol of our wholecase. The ballot symbolises the conscious,majority political nature of the socialist revol-ution. If viewed scientifically, it reveals thedemocratic nature of .the socialist victory.Again, let us stress that the socialist principleis conscious, majority, political action, that is

.he process of the socialist revolution. Theballot (by itself) is not a principle but merelya mechanical device. Ifwe consider the ballot,per se, as a socialist principle, we becomeessentially sectarian rather than scientific,\Ve have always refused to' be too specificconcerning future details and developments.Whilst we speculate on the' future, we stressthe general nature of future growth and change.We have always pointed out that there needbe no fears about what a socialist consciousmajority will do. They will take those stepsthey find necessary, not what we tell themto do.In spite of all' the fuss and fury, there isreally no fundamental quarrel. All concernedin this controversy (Canter, Morrison, S.F.,G.G., etc.) agree on the fundamental charac-teristic of the socialist revolution as beingconscious, majority and political. This is whatmarks us off [rom all other alleged socialistorganisations.The vital thing I S THE REVOLUTION-

ARY, SCIENTIFIC; SOCIALIST VIEW-POINT we all have in ccrnmcn. This is thebinding force that welds us into a cohesiveintegrated whole. IRAE.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

7/8

1953 FORUM 55

RAB IN WONDERLANDlli Comrade Rab's contribution to thet controversy, we now have not onlyrade Canter's erroneous views on thect of the weapon of emancipation-wehave Comrade Rab's erroneous views onrade Canter's erroneous views. Perhapsmost amusing aspect of Comrade. Rab'snce of Canter is that everyone concernedding Canter) regards the controversy as adamental quarrel "-everyone, that is,the exception of Rab, who is the only onesufficient understanding of what goes one minds of those, including this writer,are engaged in the controversy, to recog-that there are" no fundamental" differ-s l Let us look briefly at some ofRab's

e ballot, he contends, is not the acid teste socialist position. The ballot is " but aanism employed by the socialist majority.socialist principle is conscious majority(not ballot)."s an answer to my challenge ('third degree'alls it) to come forward with some alterna-means that a "conscious majority" canto attain control and introduce socialism,rade Rab proposes such expedients as:llup Polls, Wildfire fervour spreadingly, marching feet, general strike by soc-

boycotting elections because of somecircumstance," and comments on thiso knows? None of these are essential orral to socialist principles but are merelyrative of possible forms that may beID1edby the ballot. History answers theions, not us."o one who has known Comrade Rab andews personally for even the period I have14 years-this type of reasoning onpart rnustcome as somewhat of a shock.to my mind, the best answers to this sortrivel when thrown at. us by our oppositionto some from this same Comrade Rab,onow appears to be "unshackled" from therional socialist attitude on such questions.deny most vehemently that I am tradition-,d over anything, but nevertheless must askthis pertinent question: DO'you nnw thinkcre wrong in the days when you handledopposition-from-without in the manner youcontend is unsound? Or perhaps you feelyou were right when you were wrong then,we are wrong. nnw in thinking we are~g:llt nnw as we and .you were then. No-cr how one looks at it, this doesn't make-~o more than does your defence of:ie Canter's views on the Ballot. I agree

< " thinking is no. violation of socialist dis-but is your reasoning really thinking?21 your alternatives, Comrade. Sup-$ 1;:':ICeTe possible to determine by means

of a Gallup Poll (something I do not agreeupon) that we have a genuine majority ofgenuine socialists in society. How can such aPoll provide the means whereby this majoritycan seize control of the state? There arecertain definite jobs to be done, How do theyget done? How can "wildfire fervour" putsocialist representatives into control of thestate machinery without utilising the" existingapparatus ", at least that part of it which isthe real means of determining the desires ofthe population? Does the comrade really be-lieve that he or anyone else can know whether"marching feet" are to. be found on theopposite extremity from socialist heads? Andwhy should amajority of socialists want to' goon a "general strike"? The object of socialistrevolution is not to see which class can outlastthe other in a strike crisis. Or is it? Andsince when do socialists "boycott" electionsunder any circumstances? When a socialist.has no. other opportunity to register his votehe still votes by marking "socialism" acrosshis ballot, or.by any other means he can employto demonstrate that he will not be satisfied withanything short of socialism. Protest votes such.as this are noticed. too, when there are enoughof them, and have been from time to timecommented upon by the press .Let us now briefly take up an excellent pieceof twisting on the part of Comrade Rab.Under the sub-heading: W.S.P.on the ISSUEhe sets down four quotations which are sup-posed, according to him, to prove that Com-rade Canter's views are not in any way con-trary to those of the party. The first one, themotion drawn u p at the 1951 Conference, was'lp:'eated in a subsequent Party Referendum,but Rab, like Canter, neglected to mentionthis fact. Perhaps he forgot,The second quotation under this heading(numbered 1) was also.voted down in the sameReferendum, yet theN.A.C., against the wishesof the Party membership, continued to distri-bute the leaflet which contained the (at that

tme) objectionable statement. On the occasionof the Referendum following the 1952 Confer-ence, the distribution 'Of the leaflet was sanc-tioned, although it would have' been useless tovote otherwise, since it had already been widelycirculated for one to two. years.On the question of the comrade's next twoquotations there hangs an ever stranger tale~one which he also forgets to' mention. No 3was the original motion drawn up and offeredat the 1952 Conference. One of those mostbitterly opposed was Comrade Canter, whostated openly at the session that he wouldresign from the Party if this motion werepassed; and that were the majority of the

workers to' resort to violence, he would. supportit to the hilt and consider it to. be democraticactivity (see Conference Minutes). Througha parliamentary trick which went unobserved

by the chair and unchallenged from the floor,quotation.number 3 was offered as a substitutemotion and passed. It was subsequentlyapproved by the Party Referendum.Comrade Rab's final quotation was submittedas a separate referendum and passed with only3 voting against, but it was worded slightlydifferent than in Comrade Rab's article-adifference which make ALL the difference.Instead of appearing as " . . . use of the ballotas a means . . .", it read ". . . use of theballot as the means. . . " This was probablyanother slip of Comrade Rab's memory, butwhether slip or not, it is good to.keep both thecomrade and the record straight on the subject.

THE TROTZKYI1E POSITIONI do not intend to. spend any further time inanswering Comrade Rab's "answer" to myarticle on the Canter viewpoint, This hasbeen adequately covered, Anyone who wishesto know the Canter position has but to' readit in FORUM. It speaks for itself. I would,however, like to. correct a statement by Com-rade Rab concerning a " favourable reference"by me to the Trotzkyite position in my.;.'ORUM article. If the comrade will re-readthe section in question, he will see that he is

wrong. I merely stated that the position onthe prevention of the use of violence' bv thecapitalists, as laid down by Albert Gol~lmanin the pamphlet "In Defence of Socialism"was more favourable than Comrade Canter'sviews on the matter. .I did not say it was thesocialist position, as Goldman did not insiston the need .for organised Socialists in astrerigthsufficient to discourage its use. Amajoriryof-rhe groups. that Trotzkyites .seek toorganise do not necessarily have to' be socialistsand generally speaking are not.NO'r did I maintain that Comrade Canterbelongs with the Trotzkyites, even..though- Idid state, and documented it, that his views

Oil this subject were definitely those of theTrotzkyites. Such reasoning is also shared bythe Third Internationalists and many othersmall groups. My point was (and I still insistthat it is so) that we have a minority of memobers within the Party whose views do notcorrespond with ours, and this has been mainlydue to a past laxity in some oases on member-ship requirements and that the situation iSOI1eto regret and to. guard against in the futureOne more parting salvo. On the questionof the possibility of the socialist revolutionbeing accompanied by the use of violenceComrade Rabasks:"Should some strange quirk of peculiar,unforeseeable events compel the socialistmajority to' utilize violence, how can we, inadvance, say: 'No! '?"

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1953 10 Jul

8/8

FORUM

LOGIC, TR-UTH AND SOCIALISM

follows this by:However, thi much we can say, in advancemajority hae no need for violence."o ' attitude almost reminds us of theexpressed by certain advocates ofparedness " on the question of a life inhereafter. " Weare fairly certain," theyon, " that there is no God, but just in casemay be wrong we are going to take noof eternal punishment. We will notthe possibility of God's existence."for me (and, I am certain, the over-majority of scientific socialists) ]no need fo r any such "preparedness"er on the question of God, Or as is t he case

ne of the fields covered by logic is that of. According to formal logic, propositionseither be true or false, and must be eitheror false. It is therefore called a two-logic, because any proposition can onlythe value 1 (truth) or 0 (falsity). Thistype of logic used in electronic calculat- ,machines, and is obviously. quite capableealing quite well with the sort of worldmachines have to understand. It is theof the "either-or".e can get a little nearer to the real world,ever, by the use of a three-valued logic.h propositions as ': There.are.living things'viars", -Ior example, would be given aof !n this logic, as would the proposi-s " I shall get up at about 7.30 to-morrowor "This stranger is honest ".. four-valued logic has also been attempted,introduce'S ton many complexities to betly explained. The next real resting. pointmulti-valued logic.his is statistical in its outlook, and treats-cempirically. Thus the truth of the. state-t " This card which Ihave picked from anary pack of cards belongs to a red suit"value, before the card is inspected-of 0.5.er similar circumstances, the statementcard is a King" has a truth value of

this it is difficult to go, in theio;J. of exact and objective delineation ofAnd yet even this much is pitiablyquate for handling the events of the real

DIALECTICAL LOGICthe real world, things are never just trueimply false. Their truth value is 'contin-

0-:1 circumstances. Thus Isit in m y roomthe door closed, and' write" Theproposi-that the door is shut has the value' 1".illy enemy who pumps poison gasthroughcracks disproves my point and kills me inSuch mistakes are dangerous,the statement would be true for cat,it would be false for gases or liquids,cr_k partly true for light, which can get

with Comrade Rab, on the subject of violent(socialist) revolution. The onward surge ofhistory which has destroyed the need for aoelief in ..a supernatural power has, at the sametime and to the same extent, destroyed boththe need and the possibility of a violentsocialist revolution. H. MORRISON

Since these articles were received, thefollowing "final word" has been received fromComrade Rab (Editors) ..Comrade Morrison is correct on one itemIdid err in copying the 3d. W.S.P. referendum

in at the lower edge of the' door, .and alsothrough the keyholeAny logic, then which attempts to be purelyobjective, with no trace of subjective elementssuch as purposes, and attempts to deal withthings" as they really are in themselves" mustfall to;,.he ground. All the types of logic wehave mentioned so far suffer from this defect,though some try to escape from it by quiteelaborate means.The only type of logic which can deal withthe real world is dialectical logic. .What doesthis have to say about truth, then? IT SAYSTHAT IF A STATEMENT IS TRUE,THEN IT MUST BE FALSE. This is onlyto say, in a rather dramatic form, that anystatement is only true within limits. Takeaway those limits, and it becomes false.Now," in real life the limits are environ-mental circumstances. For example, 2 plus 2equals four is only true in day-to-day existencewhen certain environmental conditions 'are leftout of the question. Two rabbits plus tworabbits. equals four rabbits. But given time,the answer is somewhat different-perhaps 22rabbits. Two sacks of wheat plus two sacksof wheat equals four. sacks of wheat. But giventime, the sacks rot, the mice get in, and thewheat goes musty-the answer is perhaps 0

sacks of wheat. Or pouring water into a3-gallon bucket-c-two gallons plus two gallonsequals three gallons. Or joining two telephonewires tozether-c-Z decibels plus 2 decibelsequals 2.301 decibels!\\'ie know that environmental conditions arechanging and evolving all the time, withoutever reaching any permanent state of rest.Therefore the limits of any statement are alsochanging. And therefore the truth of anystatement is changing, too.Not only subjectively, then, must absolutetruth be denied, but obiectivelv as well. Thestatement that MY WINDOrrl IS OPEN isnot only (subiectivelv) true for a bluebottleand (subjectively) false for a cart-horse, but

July 195}in my article, "Comrade Canter A!"\,TJ) theBanot." This referendum did deal with - cballot as THE means and not as " a " meansItwas an inadvertent, honest mistake and wascertainly unintentional.However, in no way does it affect the theme

of my article, which pointed out that therevolutionary alternative is NOT between L IMballot and some other means of obtainingsocialism, but that there may be alternate formsthat-the ballot assumes when utilized 'by thesocialist majority. The error some comrade;make is to interpret speculations on futurepossibilities as being opposition to the ballot1. RAB

also(objectively) more or less true dependingon the season of the year, because the, woodwarp~ in the summer and it won't open sowide.THE SYLLOGISM

Having seen so much, let us go "b~ck to ourold friend the syllogism, raised from its dustybed .9 Y Horatio (FORUM, March issue).Study of the syllogism is really of very littleuse to socialists; almost the only use for it isin naming obvious fallacies in the argumentsof one's opponents, and it really .doesn't cutmuch ice with them when one does us it inthat ",ay .For-example, Horatio says: "The SocialistParty's daim that the road to Socialism isthrough Parliament is such a valid hypothesis,It follows rigorously, from the major premissthat'Sooialism is democratic; minor premiss,democracy operates through Parliament; con-clusion, therefore Socialism is Parliamentary."Now one can dismiss this, if one- has studiedthe syllogism, by naming it as an example ofthe fallacy of the undistributed middle. Butit is equally good logically, and far moreeffective, to construct an exactly similar syl-logism with different terms, to' show itsabsurdity. Thus, in rhiscase : "Horatio is amember of the S.P.G.B. Members of the

S.P.G.B. have died in the past. Therefore}Horatio has died in the past."Or again, when Horatio says: "Tor;ies andLabour are bad. Liberals are not Tory orLabour. Therefore, Vote Liberal; It.is.Good,"(His comment on this is: "Weosee, therefore,that thinkers can draw opposing conclusionsfrom the same accepted premisses.") We can'simply retort with this: "Turner and Wilmottare alive. Horatio is not Turner or Wilmott .Therefore, Bury Horatio; He 'is Dead."The study of dialectics, on the othr hand,is full-of use for socialists, since it is a-valuableweapon in the struggle against fixed ways ofthought and outdated metaphysical argument.

J . C. ROWAN.~ _:>'ieo b)' S. P .G.B .. 52 Clapham High Street. S W.4 Print edby L, E Westwood Ud .. (T.U.) 14 Kingsbury Cr eenParade, N.W.9