8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

1/8

Internal Journal ofthe S.P .G .B . 6d.No. 19 APRIL, 1954

RELIGION IN THE S.S.One has come to .expect the S.S. to be

rather' dull, but at least it always used toput forward the Socialist case. Since lastAugust, however, a series which does not dothis has been running in its pages.

Articles in the S.S. which do not put for-ward the Socialist case may be quite, accept-able if they do not actively contradict thatcase and are scientifically accurate. But thesearticles bristle with gross inaccuracies andmisstatements, such as to lower the standardof the 5.S. in the eyes of any intelligentreader.

The author starts off by asking thequestion '.' What Is Religion?" and com-menting: "Most people think they knowwhat religion is, but nearly everybody hasdifferent ideas. . . . "

However, he doesn't tell us what it is him-self. He says he is going to tell us; he says:"Religion, then can be said to consist offive things .... " but the five things he givesus are only his chapter-headings, and arequite worthless as explanations. Any Socialistanswer to the question would explain' religionby reference to its change and developmentwith changing society, not by a series of ab-stract headings-"I. Belief in God or gods.2. Belief in Miracles. 3. Belief in Life afterDeath. 4. Belief in the Efficacy of Prayer.5. Belief in Holy or Inspired Books."

These are five particular aspects ofreligion-one could select any number ofothers-v-which arise in various forms in re-sponse to the needs of society at differenttimes and places. Marx himself (e.g. in the" Introduction to a Critique of Hegel's Philo-sophy of Law") consistently adopts thisdynamic and historical viewpoint. Thesearticles, on the other hand, give a completelystatic analysis. They adopt a uniformly un-historical ___:_nd therefore unsocialist -approach.

If these articles were accurate and well-written in other ways, the author and theEditorial Committee might be forgiven for

publishing non-socialist matter. But evenaccepting the static position put forward, thereare shocking errors of fact and interpretationsuch as to damage the value of the S.S. asa propaganda medium. Here are three orfour of them , gathered from a plentifulselection.

I. "All the arguments for God yetlaunched fall into five categories .... " Sosays our author, and promptly leaves out theOntological Proof, perhaps the most famousone of all. He also leaves out Revela-t ion, which is certainly the most-often-quoted" proof." Worst of all, he never examinesthe term " God" to distinguish the numerouspossible interpretations of it, ranging all theway from an extra-powerful man to an un-knowable Absolute.

2. "'Materialists have consistently claimedthat matter always existed and always willexist, because you can neither make nordestroy matter. . . . " Well, well. 50 allthe physicists are wrong. They say that allelementary particles are capable of beingcreated and destroyed, given suitable condi-tions, and that some of them-neutrons andmesons-s-even destroy themselves in a freestate, Wrong again, Comrade Jarvis.

3. "In other parts of the world whereprimitive people had lived in comparativeisolation and had not been contaminated bymissionaries, many of them remainedagnostic." The first definition of Agnosticismgiven in my dictionary is this-" The doc-trine that neither the nature nor the existenceof God }10r the ultimate character of the uni-verse is knowable." How an illiteratesavage can get ideas like this, God onlyknows! Nor can one understand how asocialist can spout this nonsense-and beallowed to get away with it in the Party'sofficial organ. It is on a par with ComradeOfford's assertion that the people of Chinahave no religion, but have a dialectical out-look instead!

4. "No doubt the only knowledge som~

of the first priests had was that they knewthat there was by bluff prestige and powerto be obtained from the god business.Savages and primitive man were verycredulous. . Apart hom the badwriting itself, this rationalist claptrap has noplace in a socialist paper. The" first priests "were god-kings, or (later) derived their statusfrom a god-king. A king of this kind deriveshis magical powers not from his cunning inimposing himself on a credulous populace,but, as Caudwell very well puts it, " becausehis role, forced on him by the division oflabour, makes him in fact custodian of thosesupra-individual forces which arise fromdivision of labour and the association ofmen." (F uiiher S tud ies in a DJ)i,ng C ullure,p.36).

The lowest ebb of Jarvis' articles isreached in the section on the Bible. Hisniggling cri ticisms, abstract in the worst sense,ignore all the Biblical criticism and counter-criticism of the last hundred years, andappear to have been written off the cuff, as

.one might expatiate to a crony in the cafe.His arguments come nowhere near thepositions actually held by educated Christ iansto-day. They only touch the most superficialassumptions 0 . those few who take the Biblequite literally. The thinking Christian (andsurely no other would start reading the5.S.?) tends more and more to agree withSantayanal--" The idea that religion con-tains a literal, not a symbolic, representationof truth and life is simply an impossible idea.Whoever maintains it has not come withinthe region of profitable philosophising on thesubject. "

The amazing side to the whole businessis that seven instalments of this epic haveappeared-and more to come, comrades,more to come-when the whole thing reallycame to an end soon after it began.. At theend of the second instalment, Comrade Jarvissaid the materialist " is content with the fact(or rests on the basis) that one can neithermake nor destroy matter, so therefore has no

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

2/8

26 FORUMneed to look into the pros and cons aboutGod, but lets hin sleep undisturbed exceptfor the enquiries of the secularists, free-thinkers, rationalist} and the like," Yet aftermaking this seemingly conc ..LI':ive ~lJ.te'TlCl't,on he goes for another five issues, and theend still not in sight!

There is one reference to Marx, and one

reference to economics, - in the en tire opus.These are the only two '.conces5:011~Dade tothe socialist outlook in what has so farappeared. Even if the followil~g instalment {s)are packed with socialist meat, th.its cUIan unconscionable deal of rationalist mish-mash.

Surely a socialist paper should only con--------.:.-----

April, 1954tain art icles which a t least make a rea -enableattempt at being socialist? Or even if theyare not directly social ist, surely their standardsof accuracy and scholarship should be suchas not to disgrace a paper devoted to scien-.tine socialism? What is the policy of theEditorial Committee?

J. c. Rowan.

THE WORLD FOR' THE WORKERSSo the Editorial Committee of FORUM

considers my article published in the rebruaryissue objectionable. I am not surprised. Inote that the Editorial Committee has neverconsidered any other article published inFORUM objectionable, not even when thewriter is opposing the Declaration of Prin-ciples of the Party of which is a member.It possibly can, be explained by the fact thatthe Editorial Committee disagrees with theD. of P. At least one. member does,namely S. R. Parker.

In April 1953 an article was publishedin FORUM (in error without the signature"S.R.P.") entitled" People of the World-Unite". In a paragraph under the head-ing "Amend the D. of P." the authorstated "It may be noticed that what I amsaying in this article conflicts with certainphrases in the Party's Declaration of Prin-ciples. In order that readers may be ableto make comparisons, I suggest a number ofamendments." The writer of the article thenproposed to amend half the D. of P. inorder to make it fit his case. He called hisamendments "revolutionary" changes.

I was amazed that any member of theParty could hold such ideas which were somuch in conflict with the Party's case thatthe member concerned wanted to amend halfthe D. of P. I wrote an article in reply,published in June.

S. R. Parker, making a reply in the Julyissue, stated "My amendments to the D. of P.were not in order to make our propagandaunselective." The truth of this can been seenin the fact that the words "working class"appear 1n nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the D. of P.,and in each case S. R. Parker proposeddeleting them.

Because of pressure on space, a numberof articles received have unavoidably had tobe left over until next month.

Despite the facts shown that S. R. Parkeris opposed to much of the D. of P., despitethe fact that he himself proposed amendinghalf the D. of P., the Editorial Committeenow in all innocence requests facts whichled me to make the accusation that there areindividuals in the Party who are opposed tothe D. of P. and who have differences withthe Party on fundamental aspects of its case.There are none so blind as those who don'twant to see.

In December 1953 an article appearedover the initials A.A.N. Now this articleconfirmed up to the hilt my opinion that therewere individuals in the Par-ty who differedwith the Party on fundamental aspects of itscase. I think, for the benefit of the EditorialCommittee of FORUM, we had better havea look at the D. of P.I have my combined membership card andrule book in front of me. The first wordsare " The World for the Workers". It isobvious from A.A.N.'s article that he objectsto that. No doubt he would like it to read"The World for all Human Beings".Rule 1 makes it clear that any person desiringmembership must accept the Principles of theParty. On the object, namely Socialism,there is no disagreement, provided we keepto the brief statement given in all Partyliterature except FORUM. But how muchof the D. of P. does A.A. N. accept?

When one reads through the D. of P. andthe elaboration given in our pamphlet no. 12(which I consider the finest pamphlet theParty has produced) it is difficult to harmo-nize any of A.A.N.'s ideas with the viewsof the Party. As an example would A.A.N.agree with this statement: "The classstruggle finds its highest expression in themovement for the overthrow of the capitalistsystem of s@ciety"? That is the Party'sview, but A.A.N. states in DecemberFORUM "that the SPGB should not

participate in the class struggle".It is needless to dwell on no. 5 of the

D. of P.-both S. R. Parker and AAN.make it abundantly clear that they disagreewith it. It is absurd to think the EditorialCommittee of FORUM doesn't know this;however it keeps respectfully silent.

No. 6 states in brief that the workingclass must organise consciously and poli tical lyto capture political power, with the object ofusing it as the means of dispossessing thecapitalist class. It is clear that once wecapture political power the capitalist class willbe dispossessed. What chance have they toresist? The powers of state are in the handsof the working class. The state is notabolished-it dies out after Socialism hasbeen established. Itis not a case of morallypersuading the capitalist class to give up itsownership of the means and instruments ofwealth production.

The capture of state power by the workingclass, the transformation of the means andinstruments of wealth production and distri-bution into common property, means that theproduction of commodities is done away with.By this act the working class frees the meansof production from the character of capital.But in doing this it abolishes i,tself as a class;it abolishes all class distinctions and antagon-isms. When the means of life are commonproperty class society ceases to exist. Butthis remains a dream until we capture statepower, hence lIO. 6 of the D. of P. Onceagain, it is apparent from their articles thatboth S. R. Parker and AAN. disagree withthe above statement, which is part of theParty's case.

Since I wrote the article published inFebruary, A. Turner has placed in writingsome of his opinions. Up till now most ofwhat I knew regarding his views has beenhearsay. But it appears that his views alsodisagree with 5, 6, 7 ancl 8 of the D. of P.In order to clarify his position, he puts for-ward a number of propositions. The first

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

3/8

pril 1954 FORUM 27entence of no. 20 reads: "A socialistarty cannot aim at gaining control of theovernmental machinery." This is in epposi-on to the sixth principle of the SPGBdealt with above). A. T urner states12): "A socialist party is not a classr group party: it is not a capitalist classarty, nor is it a working class party."oposition no. 14 begins" A socialist party

oes not appeal to any class or group asch." Is this true?The SPGB has a pamphhlet entitled

To whom is it addressed? Therst sentence in the pamphlet says: "Theseords are addressed to the members of theorking class."

The election address of C. Groves in Julybegan " Fellow Workers", and in1946 " Fellow working: men and

omen ". In February 1 950 both addresses. Young, East Ham South and. McClatchie, Paddington North) beganFellow working men and women", and in1953 W. Waters' began " F elloworkers ".The leaflet ln trod iu cing the SPG B states

The watchword of the SPGB is that theorkers have a historic mission of shouldering

the responsibility of achieving Socialism andthus enabling 'the human race to make afurther step forward in social progress". Itshould be absolutely clear that the SPGBdoes appeal to a particular class, namely theworking class. But A. T urner states "Asocialist party does not appeal to any classor group as such". Presumably, then, inhis view the SPGB is not a Socialist Party.

:{. :{. :{.

Now with regard to the EditorialCommittee of FORUM, it states in theFebruary issue "It must, with due regardto our fallibility, be said that nothing whichhas appeared so far could lead us to assertthat within the Party there are those whohold opinions which are incompatible withmembership of the Party". I have in thisarticle given some facts for the EditorialCommittee. I consider that I have provedmy case and that these individuals standcondemned by their own articles.

Even if the Editorial Committee supportstheir views and believes the Party is wrongand that the D. of P. requires drasticallyamending, that doesn't alter the fact thatthey disagree with the Party's case and areattacking it from the inside. Opposition to

the Party's case should come from outsidethe Party.

The acceptance and understanding of theD. of P. leads us to our object. Theopponents of the D. of P. put the cart beforethe horse. They take the object first, whichto them is the ideal, and endeavour to buildup to it. This is utopianism; G. Plechanolfsums them up admirably: "The Utopianis one who, starting from an abstract principle,seeks for a perfect social organisation."

The SPGB stresses in all its literature,except FORUM, the class character of theParty, and I call upon the members of theSPGB to strive to maintain it. We mustdo all we can to discourage those who donot understand the meaning of revolutionarypolitics from .attaching themselves to theSPGB. D. W. LOCK.

EDITORIAL NOTEAs Editorial Committee we do not, as

has been suggested, take sides in FORUMcontroversies, nor did we in the editorial towhich Lock refers. We consider that chargrsmade against members should be substanti-ated. So far as the Editorial Committee o fa' controversial journal has any policy, wetry to limit it to this function.

CORRESPON DENCE C on tribu tion s fo r M a 'y shou ld be sen t inby April 13th.Corrtospondence and articles shou4d bent to FORUM, S.P.G.B., 52, Claphamigh St., London, S.W. 4. Subscriptions2 months, 7/6d, 6 months 3/9d. Chequesd P.O.'s should be made payable to:

E. lake, S.P.G.B.o the Editors

After reading Lock's article (" Revision-m and Renegades in the S.P.G.B ") I amclined to agree that "there is a rottenirit making itself felt in the Party today."would, however, suggest that this rotten-

ess of spirit is being introduced by one ofe more orthodox members amongst us i.c,

It is nothing short of impudence on thert of any member to lay down rules andgulations regarding what shall be said inForum" OT at the discussion forums.either of these media was intended as aay in which members could merely re-firm the D. of P. It was largely becauseneed was expressed to discuss our D. of

. and basic attitudes that" Forum" cameto existence.We all as party members created this

Journal, but Lock now wants to remove fromthe Party those members who have utilisedthis machinery for the very purpose it wasintended. \Vhy? Presumably because theyhave reached conclusions that Lock finds un-acceptable. It would have been better ifLock had used " Forum" as it was intended,and DISCUSSED the merits of the arzu-ments and shown why he considers them un-sound or non-socialist. This he makes noattempt whatever to do.

Lock says there are members in the Partywho are opposed to the D. of P. This heconsiders undesirable because he holds theD. of P. as an essential guide to the achieve-ment of Socialism, and draws the conclusionthat because some members do not acceptthese principles in their entirety t'iey there-fore repudiate our aim-Socialism. Thisconclusion does not follow, and is not in factthe case. To the best of my knowledge,those comrades who do not wholly acceptthe D. of P. give as their principal reasonthat such acceptance is inconsistent with aclear understanding of our socialist aim.

So that the real position is as follows. Onthe one hand we have Lock and others who

maintain that an understanding and accept-ance of the D. of P. is an essential conditionfor the achievement of our aim. On the otherhand, there are those members who feel thata re-examination and modification of thoseprinciples is essential to a better understand-in g of our objective. In fact they claim, withmuch justification in my view, that it is theirvery loyalty to the socialist objective of theParty that has led them to a questioning ofthe D. of P. Far from being anti-socialist,if their claims are sound, they are adopting amore truly socialist attitude than Lock!

Now, how are we to judge the merits ofthese conflicting views unless we allow their -full and free expression in the journalorganised for this purpose .~ To this questionLock gives no answer. In fact, if we are tojudge ability by performance then Lock'sglaring inability to deal with the substance ofthe discussions to which he takes such violentemotional exception has served merely to dis-credit the ideas he would have us all accept.As this is not in the best interests of theParty I look forward to a more reasonablestatement of Lock's views in a future issue of" Forum." Joan Lester.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

4/8

28 FORUM April 1954------------

A NEW SLOGAN fOR ' ~THE S.P.G.B.The most astonishing thing about

A.A.N.'s article (2) on . Class Struggleand the S.P.C.B." is that he makes noattempt to refute indignantly what must surelybe the most damning and humiliating thingthat could be said to a socialist, namely, myoriginal contention that the ideas expressedby him, ostensibly based on socialist know-ledge and ideas, are in fact 11011- or anti-socialist.

A.A. N.' s expressed attitude to the classstruggle, and his interpretation of it, areessentially anti-socialist. This' is the criticismthat A.A.N. and his supporters must dealwith. Springing directly out of this expressedattitude, a fierce controversy has arisen amongmembers over' the role of the class strugglein the achievement of socialism. Witness, forinstance, Comrade Turner's point 14(" Forum" Feb.) : "A Socialist Party doesnot appeal to any class or group as such."

It is no exaggeration to say that this view-point constitutes a suf-ficient departure fromthe viewpoint of other party members to referto it as a split. In fact, if it is held, as Iand (I believe) many others do, that this isan anti-socialist approach, then we can agreethat the matter is sufficiently important to bethrashed out.

As I see it, the acid test of whether thispoint of view is in line with the aims andobject of the .s.P.G.B. is as follows. \Vouldan applicant for membership be admitted ifhe were to disagree with the D. of P. andits implication that the first a nd fo re mo st aimof the socialist revolution will be to strip thecapitalist class of the source of its power,wealth and privilege, namely, of its owner-ship of the means of wealth production?

1 think it would be easier, at the moment,for a camel to go through the eye D f a smallneedle than for such an applicant to becomea member. If, however, the stage is everreached when such an attitude becomes per-missible in the S.P.C.B. it would be timefor me to make a move.

As it is, I think it is AA.N. and thoseholding his viewpoint who should make themove out of the party. Probably I shall bepounced upon and told that this is no t thepoint of view held and expressed by A.A.N.Let us see, then.

Quote (1) "What reasoning brings theS.P.G.B. to hate one class more than the

other when ne ithe r c lass has soc ia lism as itsinterest?" (my italics).

Nos. 3. 4. 7 and, by clear implication,No. 5 of our D. of P. speak quite distinctlyof "the emancipation of the working class."Is it, then, in the interests of the workingclass to be emancipated or is this just anempty, meaningless phrase, " signifyingnothing" ?

If the former be true then the workingclass has got socialism in its interest. On theother hand, if the latter is correct Vie mayas well scrap the whole lot, for the whole ofthe D. of P. rests on the assumption-and,moreover, the powerful protagonism-c-of thesocialist revolution effecting the emancipationof the working class.

It can, no doubt, be argued in return thatNo. 4 principle goes on to say that this will"involve the emancipation of all mankindwithout distinction of race or sex." Cer-tainly this latter part is not free from ambi-guity, but it does no t go on to include '" orclass," which would suggest that the capitalistclass, too, would be emancipated.

The conclusion to be drawn hom this isthat socialism is in the interests of the workingclass, since it involves its emancipation fromwage-slavery, and is against the interest ofthe capitalist class, since it involves an endto it s power, privilege and dorninancy.

STRUGGLE FOR SOCIALISMQuote (2) "The struggle between

classes is NOT one for socialism."Presumably the struggle he refers to is the

one for higher wages, better conditions, etc.A little careful thought will show, however,that this is not a homogeneous, overall clear-cut struggle between the two classes, but isa continuous, shifting conflict between vanousdiffering sections of these classes.

I n fact, sections of the capitalist groupmore than welcome a manifestation of strugglefor higher wages where ,it suits their interests.For instance, the struggle of ] apanese workersfor higher wages is viewed with benevolentinterest by certain sections of the British rulingclique, as witness the favourable comment inThe Fime: editorial (12.2.54).

These instances could be shown to applyboth to the ruling class and to the workingclass. As A.A.N. himself points out, .. theworking class is not a united body, but a

category of people with a wide diversity o.feconomic interests .... Within the .s.P.G.B.al! such classifications vanish." Prec i se ly . Itis only in the struggle for socialism that th eworking class becomes united in its aims andobjective.

The key word is struggle. The struggle"

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

5/8

pril 1954 2 9

ON WORKERS AND CAPIT.AlISTS

ry in comparison from about 5 to 15 or

But, whereas there is little or no unity ofterests among the capitalists (dog eat dog;g fish swallows small fish, etc.) there isrtainly one amongst the workers, albeit theye mostly unaware of it. The favourableluence on sections of workers agitating fory increases when some other section forcesrise . in pay is well-known and proved.

kewise, when - some workers succeed inecting an improvement in their workingnditions the example is not lost on others,d so on. The whole struggle-ridden history

the working class tells of this unity of

Could anything be more miserably anti-rking class than A.A.N.'s remarks on thisject - .. because predominantly bothpitalists and workers) have the same idea :f-interest and the seeking of power andvilege at ,~he expense of other individuals

groups.What gibberish nonsense is this! How ituld warm the heart of the worst kind ofdle-class philistine, and what a bitterw to our constantly reiterated assertion thatrk (even under capitalism) is a funda-ntal social impulse. What an appallingorance A.A.N. displays of the bitter

As a Socialist Ido not hate the capitalistss or individual capitalists. To my mindh an approach would be an unscientificAs Iam a worker Iam opposed to therests of the capitalist class. This carriesh it no moral judgments on individuals-y on the system.Iam a worker and because of that Iamocialist for, as Isee it, the only solutionworking-class problems is to abolishitalism. By that Imean to establish

Ishould have thought the lastement was unnecessary hut Comraderner apparently thinks there is some differ-e between abolishing capitalism andblishing socialism. Idon't know whatrade T urner thinks could be established,r than socialism, when capitalism is

We as a Party have analysed working-s problems a:t great length and in greatil and we have come to the conclusionthey cannot be solved within capitalism.

is therefore in the interests of the workings to establish socialism.

FORUMhistory of working-class exploitation! If itwere .not so tragic that a supposed socialistaccuses workers (its application to thecapitalist class is, of course, perfectly appro-priate) of spending their lives .. seekingpower and privilege," it would be laughableto the nth degree.Again, on this question of who does thedirty work of apologising for cap-italism-is it suggested that the vast mass of workersare concerned in it? Of course they are not.The}! are the recipients. Capitalists may notbe the brains behind capitalist propaganda,but their interests are and it is their moneywhich pays for the dirty work.

"All workers are assisting their masters tolive in luxury or relative ease. " Yes, byheavens, but what do they get for it! A.A.N.speaks of the .. atrocities that workers per"petrate against each other." Again, is thistrue of the vast majority of working people?Or is it manifested only by a few, and thenonly under the terrible pressure of battle con-ditions, performed in the interests of capitalistprofit?

To prove his points A.A. N. resorts totwisting" the facts, as witness: "Capitalism isnot the property of the capitalist class-itis the sum total of the activities of the wholeof society."

The Party has never analysed theproblems of the capitalist class verythoroughly. The capitalist has problems-yes, but is their only, solution socialism? Ithink not. Most of his problems can besolved within capitalism with a little ingenuityon his part.

The question' itself of whether thecapitalist can Of will understand and wantsocialism Iconsider ra-ther irrelevant as wecan get the majority to establish socialismwith or without them.

What interests me is the method usedc!byComrade Turner in arriving at his conclu-sions. Ibase my views and my argumentson the M.C.H. Does Comrade Turner? Ihave heard these "brotherly love andcharity" arguments before. The Catholics,who say they are opposed to capitalism,suggest that if capitalists gave workers a littlemore and workers were then satis-fied withwhat they got then everyone' would livehappily ever afterwards. This is the sort ofargument Ihave heard and rejected before.The fact that now it is used to championsomething that Iwant (socialism) does notinterest me. No doubt for the same reason

It would be interesting to know how anabstraction can be classified as property. Thesum total of the activities of the whole ofsociety goes to create quite a bit of capitalistwealth. In fact, would it be an exaggerationto say that practically all the industrial, com-mercial and financial activities are directedto the realisation and protection of rent,interest and prof t? And is it not an essentialpart of our propaganda to reveal to workersthat this is what they spend the major partof their lives doing?

Also difficult to comprehend, coming froma member of the party, are the contemptuousreferences to "the party's case." Does hereally know what that case is? And if hedoes profess to know it and disagrees withit, then his place is outside not inside ourorganisation.

,The achievement of socialism means quiteclearly the dispossession of the capitalis-t classof its ownership of the means of productionby the working class. This is what we meanby the socialist revolution. One class over-throwing the dominancy of another, If thisis not the essence and meaning of the classstruggle, then Iawait to he~r how socialismis going to be achieved without the overthrowof the capitalist class.

Judd (Lewisham)

that I agreed with the E.C. when they didn'tlet the Christian Scientist into the Party.

The worker who is not interested in theclass struggle is usually the religious one, theone who thinks that his boss does him afavour to give him a job, the one who isnot interested in national or world events atall. As one becomes a Socialist one be-comes more indifferent to the pleas of theboss about his profits and to the entreatiesof the Cha.ncellor of the Exchequer aboutour .. dollar reserves" and " overseas invest-ments." One becomes more militant indemanding higher real wages for oneself andfor other workers and at the same time avoidsanti-working-class action (such as opposit ionto coloured or foreign workers). If thishappens to the Socialist on a personal levelwhy deny this attitude when we band togetheras a Party of Socialists?

The Party, quite rightly, has never" takenpart" in industrial action in the usual way.Reason? We've got something better to do-workin~ for socialism. But why go to theother extreme and pretend no interest at allin the class struggle? L. Bryan.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

6/8

30 FORUM

CASTRATEDTurner, in his 2S principles, does notargue a positive case but expects us to argue

a negative position. He mentions in his open-ing paragraph that he wishes to avoid usinglanguage which might obscure the arguments.As there are no arguments, but merely aseries of numbered sentences, I assurr.e thattheir profundity might not survive th(; author'sattempts to explain them. Purely as a pointof interest, who are these members whobelieve that "power and privilege" willexist under socialism? This phrase occursno less than seven times.

Principle 1 states: "Socialism is in theinterests of every human being throughoutthe entire world." This is a philosophicalabstract truth, as socialism is undoubtedlya superior form of social organisation whichwill operate in the interests of all humanbeings and not just in the interest of a tinygroup of human beings. as is the case withcapitalism. From a practical point of viewthe slogan is worse than useless, as weshoulder the responsibility for showing thatcapitalism does not run in the interests of thecapitalists-a very debatable proposition,

To deal with the problems of the capitalistmakes a mockery of the class struggle andreduces our case to caricature. The FrenchRevolution was in the interests of the wholeof humanity-a historical abstract truth.The function of a Socialist Party is to provethat socialism ( common ownership) is in theinterests of a majority, a statement which isvalid and can be argued from any angle.The other position is absolutist anddanaerous as it encourages workers to sinkthei; clas; differences. The first manifesta-tion of this humanity argument is reflected inthe attitude of Turner S.R.P-, A.A.N., totrade unions. The logic of the position theyhave taken up leads them to oppose tradeunions and the struggle for higher wageswhich they must condemn as being anti-social.

2. " Socialism means the social equality ofhumanity. . . . " \Vhat is social equalityoutside of common ownership and democratic.centro], etc.? Power and privilege cannotexist where these two factors prevail.

3, 4 and S inform us that there is aclass struggle. 6 tells us that capitalist classinterests are capitalist class interests and thatworking class interests are working class

April 1954

SOCIALISMnatural being the ideal social man.

Dealing with the question " doessocialism depend on working class under-standing?" the answer is obviously yes. Puta further question: "w-ill violence be instru-mental in the establishment of socialism?"The answer is no. Put a final question:"will violence prevent the establishment ofsocialism?" The answer is again no.Whether violence will be used during theestablishment of socialism by a disgruntledminority cannot in any way affect the mainissue, which is working-class understanding.

1 8 claims' that all people must unc'er-stand socialism prior to its establishment. Ihope I am not being unfair to T urner, butthe terms of the proposition are so vague thatthis is all I am able to deduce from it . Itmeans nothing otherwise. If my deduction iscorrect it would mean that so long as a tinygroup of capitalists, religious fanatics, andhitherto undiscovered tribes in Africa orelsewhere do not understand socialism wecannot have it. Turner 'must argue a casehere and not maintain a negative position.

Socialism can be established by amajority of the working class within therelationship of labour and capital, the domin-ant forces in society. Society today iscapitalism and vice versa. Society consti-tutes those working within a given economicframework with distinct social relations overthe social means of production. Socialism isnot the counting of heads in the world, itdoes not depend on quantity but on quality.Quality representing the socialist ideas of theworking class who alone have social respousi-bility in production. Society is an organisa-tion for production and nothing else. I amnot interested in whether the Dalai Llama orthe Pope can understand socialism. Back-ward people will see the physical benefits ofsocialism after its establishment.

In 19, Turner has balanced his statementso delicately that it is difficult to discoverwhich side of the fence he is on. Assumingthat he agrees with the D. of P. on thequestion of Parliament, is he seriouslysuggesting that members of the S.P.C.B.hold the view that the state will exist undersocialism? Is this one of the differencesTurner has with members, 0)" is i t fict ional?

interests. We are never told what theseinterests really are. Turner must not take itfor granted that we know already, in viewof the surprising allegations contained in histhesis.

7 brings in an economic .bastard under theheading "Group interests." Has TU;-:1elconsidered the possibility of people belong-ing to several social groups at the same time,i.e., Roman Catholic workers; RomanCatholic employers, competing Jewishcapitalists, international capitalists, blackcapitalists, black workers. According toTurner's own statement all these groups aremutually antagonistic to each other, but onthe other hand do not religious. groups of allkinds have something in common with eachother and the capitalists, and have a commoninterest in opposing socialism and supportingpower and privilege? Does T urner think hehas exhausted the whole field of socialgroups by mentioning four? HO"\\1 aboutFreemasons, Trade Unionists, Boy Scouts,the British Legion, not forgetting the Groupwho lay the wreath on Charles 1 's statueevery year on his anniversary. These areorganised social groups who are notantagonistic to each other.

8 and 9 are meaningless unless we are toldwhat social interests are. \Vorking-cIassinterests are human interests and the interestof the working class is socialism. The mutualantagonism referred to by T urner is from ourpoint of view on the issue of socialism in thefinal analysis, i.e., the class struggle.

No. 1 1 is meaningless. No. 12 tells usthat a Socialist Party is a Socialist Partv,13. is incorrect. It is not the existence ofproperty which gives rise to class struggles-it is ,the division of that property. Commonproperty will exist in socialist society wherethere will be no antagonisms. 1 4 and 1 S arevariat ions of 1 dealt with above.

16 reaffirms the first part of 1 and thelatter phrase " . . . can only be establishedby method. which are. in harmony withh~,man interests" would appear sheermysticism were it not for 1 7, which bringsin our old friend violence and the time-wornspeculation on its me or non-use. Thi~ isa largely academic question and does notreally relate to socialism at all (if you ex-amine it) but to some spiritual and moralquality endowed by Turner on that super-

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

7/8

April 1954 FORUM 31On the other hand, assuming that he disa-grees with the D. of P., is he suggesting thatsocialism can be established without gettingcontrol of the machinery of government?Until he is more specific there is little point inpursuing this at this stage.

21, 22, 23 and 24 appear to have beenthrown in for good measure. At best theyare a bundle of philosophical pious plati-tudes. 25 means that Socialists should advo-cate 'socialism not capitalism. Is Turnerhinting in his use of the phrase " ... or theconcntrons they may live under," thatsocialism was possible 500 or more yearsago, or is he referring to the action Socialistsshould adopt in places. like Russia, China orIndia, etc?

It seems to me that T urner will have toargue his case, not merely make statementsin numerical order and then seize on theopposition, The views themselves are theproduct of 18 months heated and largely in-conclusive discussion. The average membersmight well wonder what all the fuss is aboutbefore re - reading the Declaration ofPrinciples or something else that matters.

]. D'Arcy.

CORRESPONDENCETo the Editors.

Over the past few years I have beendeveloping my ideas about Sociali'Ll. I de ..cided to put my views in writing, and .heywere published in the February " Forum,"

As I stated in the introduction, I hadchosen to present my views in the form of aseries of propositions for two reasons (1)For the zreatcr convenience of the readerswho may wish to criticise them, and (2) Toprevent my using language which mightobscure the ideas I was trying to put over.

My sole purpose in writing is to presentmy ideas to others on the points of disagree-ment Ihave with some members of the Party.I have no desire to ridicule the views of thosewith whom I have disagreement, nor G O 1wish to score points.

In the March issue Coster writes anarticle under the title .. The SentimentalAnarchists." I t purports to deal with theviews I set out in my article referred toabove. I have searched Coster's article tofind out where my ideas are shown to beincorrect. All I could -discover was exag-gerated flippancy and a laboured effort toscore points. I am not prepared to enter intothis kind of vulgar word-spinning. I am sub-mitting another article next month furtherdeveloping my case.

Turner.

THE NATURE Of THESOCIALIST REVOLUTION

6 . . 5 J le ! 1 d e o . f o .f J ic a f !i leteect io.n(continued)There is a spectre haunting the Socialist

movemenll---the spectre.of Communism,The Socialist, more consciously than any,

sees political and ideological forms as ex-pressing material interests, sees the differencesbetween social systems as facets of their res-pective modes of production - materialism.The socialist, more consciously than any, isaware of change and development, has turnedhis eyes upon the whole sweep of history anddistilled a general concept of social evolution-historical materialism. Y et, historical-evo-lutionist though he is, he cannot accept thatCapitalism evolves (that is, that Socialism

. evolves), and materialist though he is, he can-not accept capital as the dynamic of his ownsociety.

r _

Large ideas (gravitation, materialism,socialism -- things like that), grow slowly,like coral reefs, the precipitate of countlesshuman acts and artifacts, and because to-day is always the summit of the pile it seemsalways that there is nothing more to add. Theorigin of t h e Party is an example of the tinystages by which the new grows from the old.The features which distinguished us in 1904from our immediate forbears were the needfor a completely independent working classparty, with a completely democratic organisa-tion, and the insistence that our sole aim andthe whole concern of our propaganda shouldbe the establishment of a new society. Butthese elements of the revolutionary idea werenot new: what was new was the integrationof them. And they were brought to a focus,not as an exercise in logic, but as part of thesocial integrations implicit in the first Indus-trial Revolution which began with Marx andended with the Party.

PRE-HISTORY OF THE PARTYUntil he was twelve, \Vill Evans had to

learn reading and writing, and his collegeeducation was continued in the Sociali,t Sun-day Schools, the Cinderella Clubs, theN.U.C., and the Labour Chapel run by theRev. John Trevor in Rusholme, or in thederelict "Casino" music hall, where meet-ing were addressed by Bruce Glasier, T o:nMann, G. B. Shaw, Leonard Hall, JohnBurns. Sometimes, bowler-hatted and Sun-

day-bested, he walked into Salford, to theS.D.F. meetings of Qnelch and Hyndman.He went to work with an older man who wasan Anarchist and debunked God. He readthe "Clarion," weekly, one penny, startedby Robert (" delegates, not leaders")Blatchford with brother Monty and Thomp-son and Fay, and who founded the first in-dependent national labour party, the LL.P.,of which William Evans (then a man of

J 9) joined the Manchester local in 1893.In 1904 he resigned, because Keir Hardie

had forced the abrogation of the .. fourthclause" (the independence clause). In 1905he came to London and found the Party he.. had been looking for all these years." Hisform "A" was accepted with the joyfulwariness of the elect, and the friendly warn-ing to listen and learn. But it was only thewords he had to learn, for his history wasthe pre-history of the Party. His pan,framed and yellow, adorns H.O. along witha hundred hardly distinguishable others, alikeas peas, for they were nurtured ill the samesocial pod.

The Party's hbre roots embrace this top-soil of the nineteenth century, but it is tap-rooted in the tenth. \X le descend from theAnglo-Saxon village moot which raised twofingers, Ollverts, in the face of Norman fief,setting the pattern of salute for Protestantand Non-conformist and Society of Friends,the pattern of conscience for Winstanley andWilkes, the patterns of trial by jury, pre-sumption of innocence, right of appeal, ruleof law, permissive legislation, local govern-ment, voluntary enlistment, free association,Habeas Corpus and Hyde Park-the pe-culiarly individualistic democracy elsewhereknown only where it was exported in theMayflower or deported from Dorset toBotany Bay.

Party democracy is the summit of a thou-sands. years of freedom from conquest withinsafe ramparts of water. It is the adjective"G.B." The distinctly revolutionary sub-stance of the S.P. is the vision of an inte-grated society, which is the integration, thesharpened focus, o r the unsteady lights ofnineteenth - century working - class revolt,whose partial articulations we know asLabourism, Anarchism, Communism,

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 19 Apr

8/8

32 FORUMBut the integration is not complete. The

part articulations overlap, but have net beenlost in a, single focus. Cast your mind, com-rade, over other members of the Po_rty. Canyou not distinguish those who are moreAnarchist hom those who are more Com-munist, or one on this issue and the otheron that -~ Have we not read in Freedomthings "good enough for the S tand and? "Haven't we often said that" all that's wrongwith the Anarchist is his anarchism"? Isn'tthe Communist (as a bloke) someone akin,with whom militance and Marxism andrevolution and class struggle are at least goodwords? Do we not expect to recruit fromthe Left Wing (and indeed do we notrecruit for it!)?

The Party is still a mixture of these dis-tinguishable components, and not yet a syn-thesis qualitatively different from them, aswater is neither oxygen nor hydrogen. \Viththe "social administration of things" wehave purged Anarchism of its anarchy-i-butstill regard the Socialist Idea as sovereign(the dynamic), which IS therefore thesovereignty of my idea, my conscience, myego. With the "social administration ofthings" we have purged- Communism ofdictatorship-but reserve the right to shoot.We oppose our own components when wemeet them separately outside our own corpus.We go gunning Anarchists with communistlaw and order, and cosh Communists withthe classless freedom in which there is no law,no compulsion, no constraint, no authority,no morals. We oppose these things with thesethings because the Socialist movement com-bines but does not yet transcend them.

INHERITED DICHOTOMYIn his own time. and on his own doorstep,

Marx had seen the fall of Feudalism andthe rise of Capitalism. He lived struggleand revolt, and trampled out the vineyardwhere the grapes of wrath are stored. Theair he breathed was still charged with thevolcanic dust of the French Revolution, andindustrial revolutionarv termors still rockedthe earth under him. Thus, in the Manifestowhich he presented to the International, theSocialist theory of history which announcesthe imminence of civilisation plays down tothe Communist political strategy which is thepattern of the bourgeois revolutions. Thegenius. of Marx gave us an integrated theory-social evolutio n (M.C.H.)-but thequality of his time saddled it also with atheory of class struggle and of political revo-lution which applies to the transference of

production property between classes, wi.h.nclass society, but not to the abrogation ofproduction property for a classless society.

We inherit this dichotomy. Thus \ eoppose the Communists, as being reformists,but accept their premises of political revolu-tion, and the motiis of power and politicswhich underwrite it. We oppose power andpolitics, yet set up shop in competition(which. in the event, brings us to the v (1geof political window dressing). \Ve oppose theLabour Party as being reformists, yet ourpropaganda turns upon poverty ancl insecur-ity, on which the reformist can out-bid usevery time and all the time. Our aim isSocialism, but the core of our message is thehellfire of increasing misery and degradationwhich is the theme, precisely, of the labour-communist revolt against absolute surplusvalue.

April 1954._-----_--------

We claim Socialist theory as a SCIence,but our own' historical-materialism i3 onlyidealism wrapped up in bread and butter.We aim to inaugurate civilisation, yet ourconcept of human needs is the barbaric notionof food, clothing and shelter. Congruentatom of a society which has polarised use andvalue, we polarise revolutionary Communismand anarchist Idealism. Congruent atom ofa society in which everything is two-facedand contradictory, we acknowledge thematerialist unity of social forms and conti-nuity of historical change (acknowledge, thatis, the organic character of society), yet in-sist on the establishment of civilisation by asurgical operation, in a theatre picketted withguns-the inorganic, unsocial, unhistoricalconcept of demolishing society and rebuildingon a cleared site.

F. Evans.(t o be cont inued)

SOCIALISTS AND THECAPITALIST CLASS

In order to clarify his position on the issue"A Working Class Party or a Party Work-ing For Socialism?" (there are some who donot see any issue at all in that title), Turnerpresents his views in no less than 25 propo-sitions. Seventeen of these are merely plati-tudes derived from the D. of P., and with'these platitudes no socialist who understandsand agrees with the Declaration would dis-agree. The remaining eight propositions,sprinkled indiscriminately among the seven-teen, can be reduced to two straightforwardstatements: -I. A Socialist Party is not a class party, as

it does not appeal to any particular class.It appeals to all mankind as humansbecause Socialism is 1 1 1 the interests ofevery human being.

2. A Socialist Party cannot aim at gettingcontrol of governmental machinery, be-cause it relies upon the socialist under-standing of the mass of people, and itcannot rely upon law and armed forcefor the introduction of Socialism.

The answer to the first statement is this:no one knows what socialism will be like and,therefore, no one can know its merits anddemerits for present-day capitalists. We onlyknow that socialism is an immediate solutionto the working-class poverty problem, andthis solution will necessarily dislodge the

capitalist class from its present privilegedposition.T urner evidently believes that wealthy

capitalists will willingly get off our backs andstand upon their own feet in return for thepromise of some hypothetical future benefitswhich he is not able to describe. There isno foundation for this belief. exceptionalcases like Engels notwithstanding. There isample evidence that workers can understandthe case for socialism just as easily ascapitalists. As the workers are in the vastmajority, the conversion of capitalists tosocialism, even if possible, is superfluous.

The answer to the second statement is this:the capitalist class also relies upon the sup-port of the mass of people. Are we nottreated to a General Election every five years,and sometimes sooner ? Yet, in spite of rely-ing upon the support of the mass. thecapitalist class, not so naive as to think thatit can convert all mankind, keeps a tightcontrol on all governmental machinery andthe armed force connected therewith--pre-sumably for the unreliable minority. .

E. Carnell.We regret that the third line of type was

omitted from col. I of page 21 in the Marchissue. It should have read: .. Workers whoare artists function primarily as workers.Capitalists who are artists function primarilyas capitalists."

Publ ished by S_PG_B., 5 2 C lapham H ig+! Stree t S W _4 & Printed by L . E Westwood Ltd .. ;T_U ,) 14 K ir>g~bu ry GrEEn Parade. "_Y\-_9