8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

1/8

Internal Journalthe S.P.G.B. of6d.No. 20,

Get

MAY, 1954

CYBERNECTICSANDAt all times in history people have tendedterm the most recent machines. or devices.

utomatic. We hear much in the Press ofe future of atomic (or nuclear) power. andttle of the probably more important appli-ation of atomic physics to the field of con-ol units. Just as the methods of productionased on the classical knowledge of electricityermed scientific management. belt systems,tc.-utilised also the mechanics that was theasic scientific knowledge of the previousethod of production. so automatic controlnits utilise classical electricity and mechanics,nd electronics in addition.Here we describe the physical principles

f cybernetics, and a variety of applicationsf these principles.HAT IS CYBERNETICS?This term. introduced by Norbert Wiener.

ignifies the art of pilot, or steersman, and itthe study of " messages of control."We usually think only of messages being

ent from one person to another. This needot be the case at all. If. being lazy. I wisho avoid getting out of bed in the morning.press a button which turns on the heat.

loses the window. and starts an electriceating unit under the coffee pot. I am send-g messages to all these pieces of apparatus.on the other hand, the electric egg boiler

tarts a whistle going after a number ofinutes. it is sending mea message. If theermostat records that the room is too warm.nd turns off the oil burner. the message maye said to be a method of control of the oilurner. Control, in other words, is nothingut the sending of messages which effectivelyhange the behaviour of the recipient.HAT IS FEEDBACK?The control of a machine on the basis ofe difference between its actual perform-nce and its expected performance, is knownfeedback.For example, if we are running an ele-

ator. it is not enough to open the outsideoor merely when we calculate that the ele-

s h o , u b d ' be alongside that door. The

release for the door must be dependent on lhefact that the elevator is at the doorway;otherwise. if anything has hindered it thepassenger might step into an empty shaft.There are other cases where feedback is

even more essential. For example, a gun-pointer takes information from his instrumentsof observation. and conveys it to the gun, sothat the latter will point in such a directionthat the missile will pass through the movingtarget at a given time. Now. the 'gun itselfmust he used under all conditions of weather.In some of these the grease is warm. and thegun swings easily and rapidly. while in othersit is frozen or mixed with sand. and soresponds more slowly .. The error of the gun-pointer .will be decreased if. when it tendsto lag. it is given an extra push. Thereforeto obtain as uniform a performance as possiblea control feedback element is used. This" reads" ~he lag of the gun behind thedesired position. and gives it an appropriate" push " if it lags. .Something very similar to this occurs inhuman action. If I pick up a pencil, I do

not will to move any specific muscles. I cuminto action a certain feedback mechanism;namely a reflex in which the amount bywhich I have yet failed to pick up the pencilis turned into a new and increased order tothe Jagging muscles, whichever they may be.In this way. a fairly uniform voluntary com-mand will enable the same task to be per-formed from widely varying initial positions,and irrespective of the decrease of contrac-tion due to fatigue of the muscles. Similarly,when I drive a car, I do not follow out aseries of commands dependent simply on amental image-of the road and the task I amdoing. If I find the car swerving too muchto the left. that causes me to turn it to theright, and vice versa. This depends on theactual performance of the car. and not simplyon the road; and allows me to drive 'withnearly equal efficiency a light Austin or aheavy truck. without having formed separatehabits for the driving of each.The governor, which regulated the speed

s CIETYon WaU' s sleam engine (i 788) was an earlyapplication of feedback. This governor wasneeded to stop the engine from running wildwhen its load was removed. If it starts torun wild, or "overrev." the weights of thisgovernor move upward and outward fromcentrifugal action and operate a lever whichcuts off some of the steam, and so the engineslows down again.WHAT is ELECTRONICS)It is broadly speaking the branch of elec-

trical science dealing with the characteristicsof electrons.Electronic devices depend for their design

on a knowledge of these characteristics. Someimportant electronic devices are; the ther-mionic valves found in radio sets; the cathoderay tube, which is the viewing screen ofpresent-day home television sets; the photo-electric cell or photo-cell. which is used insome types of photographic exposure meters ;the germanium transistor; the klystron tube.etc.The photo-cell is often called a magic eyebecause when' light falls on it it produces anelectric current, which may be used to oper-ate an indicating device. The sense of sightis used very frequently for testing productsand processes in industry. and the photo-cell.in conjunction with amplifiers. relays andrecorders, is suitable to replace human beingsfor such work.Photo-cells have already proved suitable

for grading and sorting commodities like rice,beans and cigars, detecting and rejecting tinswith labels missing, "reading" a drawing.and controlling a tool in engraving processes,The biggest potentialities, however, lie in theirapplication to the basic production processesof metallurgy and engineering. such asreversing the rollers in steam rolling mills orremoving metal bars from the furnace at agiven temperature. An inspecting machine forcamshafts has heenreported in the U.S.A.to use this device. and enables four men todo the work previously requiring eighteen. Aneven more spectacular machine reported in

The opinions expressed in this journal are those of the individual contributors, and are notto be taken as the official views of the party

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

2/8

34 FORUM f " l a y , 1954recent years is the photo-electric lathe, .inwhich a photo-cell .. reads" the blue 'printand " controls" the actions of tools on one,or more, lathes accordingly.Feedback mechanisms may be of a purely

mechanical type, but research in World WarII has led to the formulation of generalprinciples whereby automatic mechanisms ofvery varied types, employing electrol1Jc. feed-back circuits, can be readily designed." George," the automatic pilot, which keepsan aircraft. or auidcd missile, flying en aconstant he'ading~ depends on such a circuit.During World War II a weapon was

developed that showed vividly the po.tentlal-ities of electronic feedback. The machme em-bodied radar to follow the movements of anaeroplane, fed this information into an elec-tronic brain which then computed, or pre-dicted, the position of that aeroplane a shorttime hence, and then the anti-aircraft gunpointed to this predicted positi~n and firedat the appropriate time automatically.ELECTRONIC BRAINSThese are calculating machines that em-

body feedback circuits. The digital t>:pecalculating machines in use today are supplied

the data for calculations from two setsof punched tapes. On one tape the actualquantities (numbers) to be used in the calcu-lation are given symbolically, as a 'pattern ofholes, while the other tape is marked withthe processing instructions, such as " add thenumbers," .. multiply them together," or"divide them," for example. When suppliedwith the two tapes and switched on, thesecomplicated machines perform these sums vel:yquickly. ENIAC, which is an Electrol1lcNumerical Integrator and Calculator, Willmake 5,000 additions in a single second!So the use of such machines allows calcu-

lations to be made which would never becompleted soon enough to be of any use, ifperformed by human calculators. Theelectronic predictor mentioned in the previoussection is a good example. Also, the calcu-lation of the result of the last presidentialelection inthe U.S.A. was made correctly byan electronic brain called UNIVAC, takingonly 40 minutes on a task which would havetaken a team of Einsteins about six months.':'In recent years the development of dec-

'*" The factual basis of this calculation was an orgyof 'statistics of past elections, described as follows byAlistair Cooke. ."They gave him the returns 0, the, 3,000 coun,tlesin this cou nt.rv for every election stnce 1920; 1l1t{1other cells they: poured statistics of the way p reviou selections 'had gone at different stages or elect 1011night. They fed him horrible casseroles, r~llxtu.res ofold comparisons between party representation 111 theSenate, say . with the p?,puJar vote of the ?lcluresiden t ial wtnners , and tncky contrasts between t,hehabits of the Electoral Colleve and the voting habitsof 100 regions of the United States."-po 79?, HThe Listene-r;" 13.11.5~.The difference between the result predicted by thismachine, and th e actual result was less than 1% (4votes in a total of 500)

tronic brains has led to heated discussions ofthe question "Can Machines Think?" It isdear that a machine can only solve aproblem, or control a process, if it h~s first,been adjusted (or taught) to do 30. 10 thatextent it can think. It cannot enjoy a goodjoke, fall in love, or even dream o f that datetonight; though it can simulate the ~ea.ctlOnsof a human being. In that sense. It IS notoriginal. But the capitalist does not employhis workers to do that either; he employsthem to carry out a number of instructions,just as a machine does. In fact the machineis the perfect worker-the answer to acapitalist 's prayer!USE IN WARThe uses of feedback in gun laying and inthe radar controlled gun have already beenmentioned. However, it is in the field of air-craft, or missiles, that these devices will maketheir main impact on warfare.During the first world war experiments on

remote radio control of aircraft were madesuccessfully. In the years that followed afew radio-controlled aircraft were used as tar-gets for gunnery practice. The D.H. QueenBeeraircraft was a British example. In thesecond world war guided aircraft, controlledfrom a nearby piloted aircraft, were used bythe Germans as a sort of aerial torpedo.Today, to combat Jet aircraft that fly atgreat heights, at speeds approaching the speedof sound (and so are largely immune to thesimple anti-aircraft guns) missiles are bemgdeveloped which in the first stages of flightmay be guided, and then steer themselvesonto the bombing plane. Duncan Sandys, theMinister of Supply, has already stated thatrockets capable of flying at speeds over2,000 m.p.h, have been built. (P ic tu re Post ,22nd November, '52). An offensive weaponto counter such defences is a guided, bomb-carrying rocket of the V.2 type. Resea:'ch onsuch weapons is being carried on in theU.S.A. we know. It is unlikely that it is theonly country where such work is being done.Social Effects .

It is hoped to discuss these in a furtherarticle.

S ome Boo ks on th is SubjectThe Human Use of Human B ein gs by Tor-bert \Viener (The Riverside Press, Cam-bridge, Mass, U.S.A, 1950).Automation by John Diebold (Van Nostrand

1951).Sections inProfile of Science by Ritchie Calder (Allen

and Unwin, 1951).It's Bound to Hap'pen by A. M. Low(Burke Pub. Co., 1950).M en, M achines and H isio(j) by S. Lilley(Cobbett Press, 1948).

Correspondence and articles shourd besent to FORUM, S.P.G B., 52, ClaphamHigh St., London, S.W. 4. Subscr+pt ic ns12 months, tj6d, 6 months 3/9d. ChO?quesand P.O.'s should be made, payable to:

E. Lake, S.p.G.B.

CORRESPONDEN:ETo the Editors.Re A. T urriers leiter published in theMarch issue of s s Forum", Iwish to state:

I. Regarding abuse-That in myopinion those who oppose the D. ofP. and remain members of the Partyare the people who are abusing theParty.2. When members use the Party'spremises and Party publications tooppose the Party's case, I do notconsider this to be useful to the Party.Irepeat, opposition should come fromoutside the Party. We are not adebating society or a discussion groupbut a political party with a purpose.3. Acceptance of the D. of P. mustremain the basis for membership ofthe Party.4. Does A. T urner admit that he ISopposed to the D. of P.?D. W. LOCK

Dear Comrades,Iwant to protest most strongly about theEditorial colum n w hich appeared in theFebruary .. Forum".Ihave no specific axe to grind 11 1 thismatter, as I disagree with Lock's article,although not necessarily for the same reasonsas those of the writer of the Editorial. Iam,for the moment, concerned with the principleinvolved.What is the purpose of the Editorial

Committee 0f .. Forum "? Actually, theyare not an .. Editorial Committee" in anyaccepted sense. " Forum" itself has noviews and consequently one of the mostimportant tasks of most Editorial Committees--to put across the paper's opinion one wayor another-does not exist for the J.P.].Committee.The" Forum" Editorial Committee edita controversial journa], i.e. they correct spel-

ling, type out articles, add up the numbers ofwords, reject obscene or libellous matter andarrange the order and appearance of thecontributions.That is more or less all.As.a Committee they are, or should be,

impartial about the controversial views expres-sed in the paper. As a Committee theyshould under no circumstances express a view.Obviously, there is nothing to stop the indi-vidual members of the Committee writing to

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

3/8

----~- ---- --_-

ay 1954the journal expressing their own views, so

as the members sign their own namesi. or write under a pseudonym).In the February "Forum" the Committeected outside their authority, in my opinion,If the member who wrote the article felt sotrongly, why didn't he write to " Forum"

his own name? Does the Committeehink that in the case of Lock's article theeaders are incapable of reaching a verdict

-, lMany articles in " Forum" are" emotional

nd without argument". Is the Editorialommittee in future going to point this out tos on every occasion?I am not attributing malice or any un-orthy motives to the writer of the Editorialin question. He made a mistake and onehich he should under no circumstances makeagam. Some members may think my point asmall one to warrant "his rather long letterbut I am concerned for the future of" Forum ", as Ihink it a journal that servesa useful purpose, and the quickest way tokill the paper is for the Editorial to adoptiews.

Fraternally,Lisa Bryan.

GETT ING THE PAR TYA B A D N A M E

A writer sent an article to the Socialisttandard. The manuscript hegan:"This writer enjoyed his visit to the

evangelist crusade at Harringay. He listenedto Billy Graham, the newest Americanrevival preacher, he saw three hundred people, saved,' he sang the hymns louder than any-ne else, and he went home feeling that sinhad a lot to be said for it."The article was received, was edited, wasIt began:"This writer enjoyed his visit to the

vangelist crusade at Harringay. He listenedo Billy Graham, the newest Americanevival preacher, and he went home feelinghat sin had a lot to he said for it."The story probably has a moral, only theriter can't think wat it is. But he's sure its too good to keep to himself.

*Why, of course-I've got it! "Group

nterests" at work! Help! Tony, quick!he tuneless H and the cacophonous McC,eething with envy because Ccan sing,plying, the insidious gag . . . Help! C.

FORUM 3 5

CAPITALISM AND HEALTHCcmrade "BOll, in criticising my lecture GYl

" Capitalism and Health", displays intellec-tual dishonesty unworthy of c . member of theparty. At first Iintended to ignore his longharangue ill the January" Forum" -for whocould not write a criticism of another'slecture, selecting points to suit his purpose andavoiding those which have. been raised at thelecture? .I was careful to quote authentic figure!;

when I claimed that immunisation W

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

4/8

36 FORUM M ay. 1954

NATURE OF THE SOCIALISTREVOLUTION

6. flfie :Ideo-lo.gical 9letfectio-n (co.ntinued)THE

The spectre of Communism still haunts theSocialist movement. We have put our handthrough the ghost of "natural superiority"and emancipated ourselves from dependenceon .. leaders," yet because, so far, we haveequated independence with political hostility,we remain only the Quaker, Channel-cushioned, variety of proletarian Communism.The crux of our dilemma is that we still bearthe imprint of the past revolutions in whichVie were cradled. In the act of establishingSocialist political independence we haveaccepted also the Communist strategy ofpolitical participation, and in the course offifty years determination to wage war on allother political parties we have come to acceptthe revolutionary attitude as meaning anti-reformism, and revolution as the mere nega-tion of all that is. In establishing Socialistpolitical independence we preserve ourfamiliar kinship with those whom we oppose,as being reformist, notwithstanding that revo-lution is the one thing that can't be sold fromthe hustings, because politics is essentiallyand necessarily reformist. (But because ourmovement is dedicated to the concept, how-ever rudimentary, of a new society, it con-tains the possibility, and the necessity, ofachieving independence from politics and ofraising revolution-activity to a level qualita-tively different from that of Communism.)Moreover, in establishing Socialist politicali11ldependence, we have deemed this to be thesign that the " material conditions are ripe,"and the Socialist Idea therefore complete.Thus the political independence of the Partyhas become the social independence of theSocialist Idea, outside social and historicalchange, a separate power in itself, creatinghistory in opposition to history, and reducingthe revolution to the nonsense of a single'!political act, thus repelling the intuitive senseof men and ensuring our impotence as revolu-tionary agents by insisting that until that singleact history stands still.As historical materialists we dare not deny

continuous social change--fundamentally. Sowith the reason that finds reasons we find thatwhatever happens, nothing happens-funda-mentally. Since 1904 all that has happenedadds up to nothing-fundamentally. Cor-porative State, Welfare State, New Deal,Nazism, Titoism, Russian, Chinese, Indian

and African revolutions-c--these have motion,but no direction, for they are capitalism-fundamentally. The new industrial revolutionof spaceships and atoms, 'of plastics, cyber-netics and electronic brains, and the newindustrial, political and international integra-tions which accompany them-the mindstaggers at the dizzy speed with which, to-day, nothing happens (fundamentally).When T orricelli first demonstrated that

mercury in a vacuum tube would rise only toa height of 33 inches, leaving the vacuumabove it empty, the Paduan professors refusedto accept the evidence of their sense, for"nature ahh"ars a vacuum." Wher~upoJ1T orricelli drew the sardonic conclusion that" nature evidently abhors a vacuum up to 33inches." In our turn we must conclude thatsocial evolution is continuous up to 1904.

POT AND KETTLELike good Communists, we use our thin

materialism for exposing class interests, andhave come to regard class struggle as theengine of' social change. Dominating ourminds is not the material, artifactual, social-productive determination of class relationships,but the class (and therefore id eoio gical)determination of social change. It is the(class) Idea which for us is the dynamic ofhistory. For us, historical-materialist, thesocial productive forces no longer evolve andchange society in the process: only the Ideamoves. For us, historical-materialist, it movesin spite of and in o,p'f.w site direction to thematerial forces of capitalism. Like goodCommunists, the Labour Theory of Value isunderstood by us only as a theory of exploita-tion, and we do not wish to know that itexplains capital's inhering necessity to socialiseitself. Like good Communists, we are COIl-cerned with capital only as political mailer,and dare not see it as social motion. Indeed,we are opposed to it, as resolutely as the Popewas once opposed to the motion of the earth,and the suggestion that we might usefullydiscern Socialist direction in the growth ofCapitalism is conceived as reformism. Howelse can it be conceived when revolution ISconceived as anti-reformism?The more outrageous idealism (as I see

,it) which has emerged in recent discussions;the claim that there are no laws of social

development, and that the Socialist idea canbe communicated to anyone anywhere (irres-pective of social conditions) and anywhen(independent of history)-this idealism is notso much a departure from our position as anextension of it. Our Communist politicalidealism leaves us wide open to attack by ourAnarchist idealists. So long as the revolu-tionary pot insists, as an instrument of classstruggle, that the Socialist idea is the dynamicof social change, the revolutionary kettle canreply, as an instrument of utopian Socialism, -with the Idea-at-Large, undetermined bymaterial social process. And because thisanarchism is just one half of our idealistbackside, it makes the same objection, fromthe other side, to the suggestion thatCapitalism (and therefore Socialism)evolves: we must not concede that Capitalismitself moves, for then we should be com-yelled to support its movement, and cease tobe revolutionary.Since Copernicus, science has not felt it

necessary to support or oppose terrestialmotion: it interprets, and by interpreting,creates. But social science is the last to beconscripted for capitalist production, and ourcollege is s611 the Labour Chapel. OurSocialism is still little more than Communistopposition to exploitation leavened by a stillAnarchist vision of classless society. Becauseour political independence was historicallycondemned to emerge first, not as inde-pendence from politics, but as competitionwith all other political parties, "revolution-ary " has continued to mean "anti-reformist," our Socialist propaganda hasremained only universal opposition, and ourSocialism-creative influence negatived b y ourown nihilism. "We welcome opposition "--for fi fty years our stock-in-trade: in anotherfifty our epitaph?

THE D. OF PNo. It is not a long time, as time goes.

Our obsession with opposition is only acradle mark. Militant opposition to the uni-verse is the first squawking of the newly born.The Mayflower set sail in 1904, its Declara-tion of Independence nailed aloft, but weremain offshore, facing shore. Pioneers all,the pioneers once stood, and having acceptedwe have refused to budge an inch from where

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

5/8

~1ay 1954apitalism as completed and the Socialistidea as complete, we have not conceived itnecessary to enrich or enlarge our under-standing of our Principles. \flith the Com-munist Manifesto. the D. of P. stands as alandmark in the history of the Socialistmovement, a brilliantly economical summaryof its time, and sung with a resonance thatrings like bells through half a hundred years.It is not the stature of the Principles whichfalls short, but ours who wear them as atalisman, an octave of gods known by nameor number, or hold them as a shield againstall comers, or fling them as a gauntlet inopposition to the world, or see them as amonument instead o f a signpost, or use themas an anchor to a dol lshouse political plat-form instead of as a compass to discover andproclaim the movement of society towardsSocialism, thus shortening the birthpangs,To ease the revolutionary socialist idea

from its Communist political cocoon, in whichit remains mere sterile anti-reformism, is atthe same time to rescue its humanism fromutopia. For a purely logical description offuture society is no improvement 011 a patho-

37logical description of the present one, andonly by construing Socialist society from themovement of history (and therefore ofCapitalism) can it rise from the level o f beinganyone's present wish and therefore nobodyspresent concern. To be revolutionary is to bematerialist-historically aware o f the generalcharacter of rnenwithin the multifariousnessof human conduct, and materialist . .historicallyaware of the general drive o f history withinthe welter of events, and therefore the inheringnecessity of capital to socialise itself. Thesethings provide the rationale for Socialism, andgive the " historical necessity for Socialism"its necessity. Outside of this materialist dis-cipline, the discussion of Socialist society isutopian, and allows the pioneers among uswho have stopped dead in their tracks to say" your guess is as good as mine, and 1'm ;10tguessing." \Vithout discussion of Socialistsociety we cannot kindle the' belly-fires ofhuman indignation which is the drive of socialrevolt, nor light a torch to see by. Onlywithin this socially disciplined discussion ofsocialist society can we give articulation andfocus to the needs of men as animals and asconditioned by existing productive forces.

Only thus can we enter on the blank chequethe figures which men will endorse, and pro-vide ourselves with a field of activity moreunifying, mere enduring, and more sociallyinfluential than the political confidence trickwhich has nothing to otter but a dreamwrapped up in a wet blanket.The practical possibility of doing so w i l l

be discussed in the next and last section.F. EVANS.

DE PROFUNDIS" If we can show it, (Socialism) as having

a necesity outside men's wishes, and thereforebinding on all, we make an ally of the socialinstinct. "Chap. 6-he Nature of the Socialist

Revolution-Evans.Oh Evans, Pantheistic scribe,So intellectual, erudite,Descendant of the Stoic tribe,Does Nature fight the workers' fight?There was a purpose after all,Before the birds and fishes:And this the Answer to IT alI-Necessi ty outside men' s wishes.

P. McHale.

SOCIALISM AND RELIGIONFollowing close upon his physical needs,

the metaphysical needs of man are deeplyrooted in the human race; the temples,churches, pagodas and mosques in every landtestify to the metaphysical needs of man.Man is the only animal that wonders at

its own existence, and also the only animalthat carries about with him in his abstractconceptions the certainty of his death,although this troubles him only when hebrings it to his imagination. The very factthat all men must die has been, and willalways be of deep concern to all men underall isms, creeds, and doctrines. All religiousteachings are principally directed to this end,and are thus primarily the antidote to thecertainty of death, which reflective reasonproduces out of its own means.I f life 'were endless and painless there

would be no religious or philosophical systemsof thought, for it is most certainly due to thefact that there is death and suffering in theworld that men take the trouble to try andunderstand the riddle of the world.We must bear in mind that suffering never

began with the introduction of Capitalism,or will it end under Socialism. The problemf suffering goes much deeper than economics,for one has also a biological factor to con-ider, and also a sexual one.

The Buddhist religion is very much con-cerned with the problem of suffering, and thebeliefs of the Buddhists are based on thefo[lowing principles:-

1 . That there is suffering. 2. Thatthere is a cause for that suffering. 3. Thatsuch a cause can be removed. 4. That thereis a way of deliverance, viz., the doctrine ofBuddha. There can be no doubt that wecan as socialists agree with the Buddhists onthree of these profound truths, that is, thefirst three. The fourth one is a truth initself, and may even be practised on a largescale under 'socialism. However, it seemsto me a very heartening aspect thai socialistscan agree on three out o f four principle" ofone of the largest religious bodies in theworld.!l seems to me rather foolish that \veshould pooh-pooh all this. Our purpose isto abolish Capitalism, not Religion, and nopolitical party or any other rort of organisa-tion, will ever succeed in that endeavour. Totry this is to be likened to Sisyphus inHomer's Odyssey who was tormented inHades, having eternally to roll a rock up ahill, from the top of which it always rollsdown again. This in my opinion is reallywhat all criticisms of religion will ever amountto, an endless and hopel~ss task which is like

trying to fill the sieves of the Danaides.It would be much wiser. when writing

articles as regards Religion, to assert where. we are in full agreement, and also where wediffer, but to write articles in such a manneras Jarvis is doing in the Socialist Standardis really extremely foolish, and will not dothe Party good, but harm.The Buddhist has 110 God or Creator, and

we are in full agreement with three of thefundamental principles of his Religion-thatis something not to be scoffed at.Ihave never read nor had in my posses-sion the pamphlet on Religion published bythe Party stating its attitude to all religions.However, in my opinion an organisation thatis to establish a new social order where suffer-ing will possibly be greatly diminished, shouldconsider the religious bodies that are pri-marily concerned with the sufferings of theHuman Race, and not attack their inmostbeliefs as nonsense and trash. DialecticallVIaterialism was not the first word, nor willit be the last word on everything.As I have said, religion will carryon under

socialism just as it did more or less underevery other 'ism, and in my opinion, all thisshould be carefully considered for the benefitof the Party and Socialism. R. SMITli.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

6/8

38 FORUM

ED ITOR IAL COMMENT

May, 1954

. We publish this month an article and aletter which object to the criticism of Lock'sarticle in the Feb. editorial. Both writersread into the criticism opinions which werenot intended.The editorial (which was the work of our

Committee, not of a member) did not approveor disapprove of the views held and expressedin the various articles by Lock. We agreethat partiality in commenting on the opinionsexpressed in FORUM should be avoided ineditorials. This has been and is our policy.Apart from this being good policy, it wouldnot be possible to have an editorial opinionon most of the issues that have been presentedin FORUM, because the individual membersof the (P.]. Committee do not hold identicalopinions on: them.The point of our criticism was to stress the

desirability of reasoned argument as opposedto abuse. It appears that we might haveoverstresed this, to the point that it mighthave seemed that we were necessarily opposedto Lock's views. If this is so, it cautionscare in the future, but not that we shouldrefrain from doing one of our jobs, that is,making what editorial comment is relative tothe publication of FORUM.We disagree that there is no scope foreditorial comment of any kind. Contributions

from other committees have been publishedunder their titles without complaint. We seeno reason why this should not be so in thecase of the committee that edits FORUM.

H. B. is critical because we said thatthere is no evidence of views being put for-ward which are incompatible with Partymembership.We still say it. For a long time in the

Party it has been the practice to permitdisagreement with the Party's policy andinterpretation of Socialism, except in writtenand spoken propaganda. It could be thatH. B. disagrees with this practice (as mightthe individual editors of FORUM), but it isa little off the mark for him to claim that whatthe Party rules, permits or approves is"incompatible with Party membership".What other evidence is needed of this practicein the Party than the existence of FORUM?

ELL, WELL,WELL ,

\Vell now, who ever would have thoughtthis would happen? The boys on theEditorial Committee of '.' Forum" havefound a cap that fits and they have wornit. They have used their claws and showntheir teeth with a snarl. And who is respon-sible for this sad state of affairs? \Vhy, itis that terrible menace Comrade D. \V. Lock(with his bad sense of smell).If the editors are supposed to be impartially

running a controversial journal, is it not justa little strange that they should pause to makecomment on this particular article (" Revi-sionism and Renegades in the S.P.G.B."),when they have had such a fine crop o f weirdand wonderful masterpieces to choose from?As for what they have to say about Com-

rade Lock's article, it proves one of twothings. Either they don't read their ownjournal and go around the party blind anddeaf to what goes on-or they are just plaincrazy.They say "nothing which has appeared

so far could lead us to assertthat within theparty there are those 'who hold opinionswhich are incompatible with membership ofthe party' ", while on the very next pageTurner calmly tears up everything the partystands for and A. A. N. does the same ,h;ngon the preceding page.They then, with conjured innocence, ask

Comrade Lock to state the facts" which leadhim to make the accusation that there are, individuals in the party who are opposed tothe D. of P.' and who have differences withthe party on 'fundamental aspects of theparty's case' ". Their final blow, addinginsult to inj ury, is to recommend Lock'sattendance at the Saturday evening KnittingClub and Word Spinners' Retreat a: HeadOffice.

I have hitherto left "Forum" to thecontroversialists, but things seem to havereached a stage where it is necessary to spendmy two cents. If our editors want someevidence about views "incompatible withmembership of the party" here it is :

"A socialist party is not a class or groupparty; it is not a capitalist class party noris it a working class party."

(Turner, Feb. " Forum ")So, quite out of the blue, we have an

existence apart from being thrown up by them aterial conditions of class struggle.Ihope Ido not bore the more intelligentmembers when Isay that, since the workingclass is the last subject class in history, italene can dispossess the capitalist parasites(or are they going to abdicate?) Thisdispossession will be the final act of classstruggle (the act to end classes); a strugglecarried on unceasingly throughout the life ofCapitalism. The capitalist class is a reaction-ary class of plunderers: the working class isalone the revolutionary class.We have not the slighest point of contact

with workers apart from how they gain andcarryon their living. It is from an under-standing of their material conditions that weare born as a party, and our object arises notfrom any Godly concepts of mankind. \Vecannot reconcile the classes.To have nothing but contempt for the life

and struggle of the workers we speak to is afirst-class way of not making members. Nextcomes a pearl of wisdom which contrives tomix up races, families and income groupswith class divisions-this is no doubt done tomake the pill more easily swallowed.

"A socialist party does not appeal toany class or, group as such. It appeals toMANKIND', not to capitalists, nor to

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

7/8

i"lay 1954 FORUM-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39wage-workers, nor to nations, nor races,nor families, nor income groupsWe cannot salute people with" Fellow

Workers" , , ,"It is obvious that , using Turner's yardstick,e S.P.G.B., mllillot be a socialist party,ecause it does do precisely those things. whiche claims a socialist party cannot do.How does he and those who agree with

im square their statements with their con-nued membership of this non-socialist partyor is it all right with the rest o f the membersthis sort of thing is said on their behalf?If they are trying to convert us into" socia-

sts" why not work in the Labour oronservative party-they are bigger, and oneon-socialist outfit is as much part ofANKIND as' another. "Fellow Wor-en;" is. not a salutation but a form ofComrade Turner used to spend a lot of

me quite rightly explaining "there are noyal roads to Socialism- no short cuts".ut now the royal carpet is spread, and the

is via mankind.

* * *May I say at this point that I disagree withomrade Lock if he attacks the party as ahole. I only share what he says of therenegades" or controversial introverts, Ithink that some contr ibutions to "Forum"

ave been useful, notably D'Arcy's (Feb.),udd's (Jan.), and one or two others onimilar lines, which should, however, not beecessary in the S.P.G.B.

f : hope I will be forgiven for a slightigression, but A. A. N. is either unique inaving completely identical errors to Comradeurner or he has been looking over hishoulder, and S. R. P. wants to carry theonfusion into the S.S. It is amazing howey cut the cloth to fit their case.The official organ of the party must speak

or the party, not the controversial wizardsho see themselves as the pioneers of (new-ok) Socialism, superseding Marx and theounders of the party. If the 5.S. is not whatused to be, this can be understood when

hose who write for it do so in the presentmosphere of halfheartedness.Let us stop frittering our time away.

ocialism is worth every effort we can makend a lot more than most of us do. Let ustop playing games and get down to theerious work of winning the WORKING-L\SS over to Socialism.

H. B.

A R E T H E V V O R K E R S B E T T E R O F F ?

first the facts. In the December 1952issue ~f FORUM was published a letterwhich ha d originally been written to the.E. C., and had then been circulated to theBranches.This letter urged Party speakers to change

from" just attacking Capitalism to describingSocialism." In reviewing the efforts of Partyspeakers the statement was made that

"Older speakers unconsciously pre-clude questions of the future by creatingthe impression that conditions have grownworse and will continue to do so. Thisdoes not fit the facts of experience."I understood this to mean that Capitalismimproves the conditions of . the working-class,

and that their experience had proved it. Itherefore wrote a comment on this letter inthe April FORUM in which I stated that"I hold, as a Socialist, that the conditionshave grown worse, and will continue to do"o.

It would seem, therefore, that there is areal disagreement here. In the one view,Capi talism improves the workers' conditions;in the other, it does not.After 'further consideration I wrote an

article (October issue) entitled "Are theWorkers Better Off?" In this article Icategorically stated that "As Capital accu-mulates, the lot of the labourer must getworse." I also stated explicitly that thecontrary opnuon was fatal to the Socialistcase.It should be made quite clear that I havein mind the permanent economic laws of thecapitalist system; not its temporary fluctua-tions. This question can only be seriouslydiscussed from the angle of social develop-ment.It would be readily agreed, for example,

that the years 1939-45 and after were yeanin which the workers were" better off " thanthey were in 1929 and 30, for the reasonthat they had employment. The mostfavourable condition for wage-labour is theaccumulation of Capital. Such" ups" provenothing, because they are followed by" downs" which cancel them out. In thiscase, the workers exchanged the leisure ofthe dole-queue for the comfort of the Air-Raid Shelter, or the warmth of the Battle-field.

THE ARGUMENTCapitalism is based upon wage-labour. It

is a competitive system, in which capitalists

undersell each other. To maintain p ro fit , th eemployers must get workers to produce mareSurplus Value. To get more Surplus Valuethey must increase surplus labour~that partof the working day during which workersproduce solely for the capitalist. There arethree ways of doing this:f-::-

I. By stretching the number of hoursworked;2. By speeding up in the same hours asbefore; or3. By cheapening the stuff the workerslive on.

No matter which way it is done, the workeris worse off.As Capitalism grows, more Capital is

needed to set a labourer to work. Thereforethe composition of Capital changes. VariableCapital (labour) decreases, and ConstantCapital (machinery) increases. As VariableCapital decreases the rate of Surplus Valuetends to fall, since Surplus Value comessolely from the Variable Capital, thoughcalculated on the entire Capital.Therefore, it is a law of Capitalism that

the Rate of Profit tends to fall.The capitalist tries to counteract this. He

increases Constant Capital to increase produc-tivity, and the workers therefore receive asteadily diminishing proportion of theirproduce. The Capitalist gets a greater massof Surplus Value, but its Rate declines. Inthis sense, the workers are subject to a law ofincreasing misery, in that the proportion whichthey receive, of the total value they create,continually declines. It is exclusively aproportional relationship.The capitalist system developes convulsions

called crises of overproduction. The reasonfor this is the inability of workers to buyback what they make. It is therefore a lawof Capitalism that, as it grows, the workerscan buy less and less of their produce, makingbigger crises.

If the workers' conditions are permanentlyimproving, then Capitalism is not an antago-nistic socially-harmful system. It does notdeprive workers. It must be exploiting themless, as it improves them more. How can itbe said that Capitalism robs the working class,when it is continually giving them more?Capitalism, then, is not an anarchic systemproducing crises; the troubles will all beironed out, as the workers solve overproduc-tion by buying back more and more as theyImprove.

_j

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 20 May

8/8

40 FORUM-------- --~----------------------This erroneous idea of the improvement of

workers' conditions under Capitalism breedsabsurdities in some members' propaganda.Thus it has been said in answer to question: ;-" I don't care if the workers get doubletheir present wages, 20 a week with noalterations' in prices, 1'm not interested, Iwant Socialism." It would he hard to devisea more nonsensical statement. The workerscannot get double wages without .alterationsin prices, because wages ARE prices. Ifthis speaker had said-" We are opposed tothe whole wages system-because wages cannever be anything but the cost-of-not-living.We want Socialism" --it might have had abit of sense.

If the workers' conditions are steadilyimproving, then it follows that the poor mustbe getting richer, as the rich get poorer. Thismeans that Capitalism equalizes society, andclasses are on the way out. \Vhy anybodyshould then want Socialism is inexplicable.According to "A. T." & Co., therefore,

Capitalism is Capitalism, for the benefit ofthe working-class.I hold, as a Socialist, that the Capitalist

system is a system of slavery which growsnot less hut more severe, as the socialproductive forces of labour develop. Whilethe worker develops as a worker, he deterio-rates as a human being.

THE EXPLANATIo.NCan we measure the workers' position at

any given time in Capitalist society?Answer: Yes. The only thing that can

be measured to compare the workers' position,at any time, is the proportion of the wealththey retain of what they produce, at that time.This measurement is quite feasible, and has

been made repeatedly. Thus we knowthat,despite very great increases in the wealthproduced in the fast half of the last century,there was an increase in pauperism.To try to compare the standard of living

of workers of, say, 1850 with 1950, isfutile. Some contributors to FORUM seemto have attributed this to me, without reason.It is quite possible to analyse the working

day in 1850, and to conclude that the workerthen spent 1/3 of his day in necessary labour,2/3 therefore going to his employer: If thedata for 1950 showed that the worker spent!only of his day on himself, then the 20thCentury man is, in fact, worse off. This willexpress itself in greater social discrepancythan before, and show the worker that thecapitalist is relatively wealthier than he was,generating more social discontent.

If the modern worker, conversely, works2/3 of his day for himself, he would becorrespondingly better off; in this case, twice

as well off.Capitalism, being based on sale on the

market, drags everybody into the vortex.F~very d evice of human ingenuity is usecl '~Oconvince potential buyers that they must haveall sorts of things, once luxuries, now needs.Capitalism frequently throws masses ofworkers into violent motion. In employment--out. T a War! Back home! Emigrate.Overtime. New Industries. New Towns.Strikes. Lockouts.The wage slaves of Capitalism are not a

stagnating mass like the slaves of AncientRome, but an active and volatile social factor,who can and will act. Knowledge of theeconomics of Capitalism shows that theincreasing misery of the working-class isaccompanied by a corresponding growth in itsnumbers, organization and experience.The worsening position of the workers

under Capitalisrrr--cus hopelessness-is whatmakes Socialism their only hope. Theincreasing misery of the workers is a linch-pin of Social ist economics. It is the inescap-able outcome of the law of relative SurplusValue and the falling Rate of Profit.The Socialist Party, therefore, does not

see~ to improve the workers' conditions-butto abolish the working-class.

Ho.RATIo.* * *

CONTRIBUTIONS FO'R THEJU NE ISSUE SHOULDBE IN BY MAY 11th.

CORRESPONDENCE(continued from Page 34)

Comrades,On March 2nd, the E. C. following up a

complaint laid by Comrade Coster questionedComrade G. Hilbinger.The complaint was, that Hilbinger during

the course of plugging our case in the Socialist Leader', had committed theheinous offence of transgressing Principle No.7. The offending sentence of his letter to the Socialist Leader' (13.2.54) was: "Howcan a Marxist party, or any other party forthat matter, represent working-class inte-rests'?" Now this mayor may not contra-vene No, 7, depending upon which way youinterpret the principle. What I would like toknow is where the above sentence disagreeswith the party's case? If as our Object says,Socialism is in the interest of the whole

community, where is Hilbinger wrong ? To~ay that we represent working-class interests,is to imply that Socialismis not in the interestof the capitalist class, which belies ourObject, The logic of that argument is thatthe capitalist class have no problems that canbe solved by Socialism l In which case tobe consistent we should be trying our hardestto become capitalists and advocating such acourse -to others. In actual fact, we sayotherwise. Therefore a Socialist party cannotrepresent sectional or class interests. Theother aspect of Hilbinger's sentence, that noparty can represent the working-class'sinterests, is soon disposed of. All parties(other than Socialist) aspire to run capitalism;some say they will run it in the interests ofthe working-class, others in .the interests of allclasses. But we know that capitalism canonly be run in one way, in the interests of thecapitalist class. Which again bears outHilbinger's statement.

* * *What prompted me to write this letter wasnot just implications of Hilbinger's sentenceand the E.C.' s disagreement with it, but thedisgusting exhibition by the E.C. on March2nd. I hope I never witness such a sceneagain. A diffident party member beingbadgered and browbeaten by the E.C. in anatmosphere which surely must have beenreminiscent of the Roman Catholic inquisi-tions. The following comment hom abystander at H.O. is an illuminating one... He (Hilbinger) would have stood a betterchance in a Capitalist Court of Law, at leasthe would have had a better hearing! "To me the most nauseating aspect of it all,

was the hypocrisy of the whole business.Many E.C. members hold views which clashwith some aspects of the party case, someeven disagreeing with the Object! Yet theycould still pass a pious resolution tellingHilbinger that he had been a bad lad andthat he must be a good boy in future.

* *I think that we should amend the rulesoperating to the E.C. to relieve it of itsautocratic functions and make it a purelyadministrative body with no power over theindividual member or branches. Then andthen only can we obviate such scenes asoccured on March 2nd. Any cases ofdiscipline, complaints etc., could be reflerreddirect to Annual Conference to decide. Thiswould at least be a little more democratic, 0.5representing a majority of the party, whichthe E.C. does not; being a handful ofmembers with no responsibility to anyone butthemselves. Jon Keys.

Published by S.P.G.B .. 52 Clapham High Street. S_W.4 & Printed by L . E We stwoc d Ltd.,:T.U,) 14 Kingsbury Cr e en Parade, N.W.9