Socialism is common sense
Dear Editors
I am writing to express my thanks to you and my views as to the two letters that appeared in the March edition.
About five years ago a friend introduced me to socialism after a few drinks by saying it stood for, most succintly, "no money; no law; no government". He expounded upon this slightly and argued the case against my well conditioned questioning. Since then I have considered myself a socialist in principle upon further investigation if not in practice. It wasn't only until the last few years that I have decided to look into this further and conclude it is the only way forward, logically.
Since then I have discovered the world that is not so openly available to people as it should be—indeed, my many debates with friends have resulted in some thinking I may have a point that is nice in theory but will never work and some discounting my views (which, I freely admit, are in need of fine tuning and further ammunition by way of self education) out of hand. Of the, say, five friends I can discuss this with, one has accepted these views and is willing, with me, to devote more energy to them.
The letter on morality struck me, as socialism does, as common sense: I have never been one for rigid morals—I have done questionable things—but the essence of socialism goes hand in hand with morals, or at least the general perception of such things as a right and a wrong. Why would we advocate socialism if it didn't agree, at least in part, with a sense of morality,in a basic form at least?
Secondly, the letter on work. I have argued over many a pint the fact that even now, in such a money driven society, people will do the kind of volunteer work that those who have comfortable homes and jobs find distasteful. And despite me sometimes believing there is no hope for humans, it is when I read the Socialist Standard this particular belief loses some strength.
I have felt compelled to write to even The Sun to argue against what they have written but then decided it would fall on deaf and controlled ears.
Recently my friend (mentioned earlier) and I attended a debate on the unions' political fund organised by the Socialist Alliance and saw a lot of people trying to make a difference. However I have realised the difference they are trying to make is not enough and they may go the way of others and succumb to reformism, and nothing but. I see a lot of internal bickering and would love to sit them all round a table and remind them exactly what the principle of socialism is. Then perhaps wen would make real and perceptible headway. Not just estranged groups and seperated parties, but all socialists.
ADE MANNING (by e-mail)
Top
Jack London
Dear Editors,
In the review of Jack London's The People of the Abyss (Socialist Standard, March), JB does not develop the most crucial point about London as a political commentator: his technocratic and statist solution to the ills of capitalism. From a socialist point of view, London's failure to present a credible analysis of how can get out of the abyss of capitalism overshadows his haunting chronicle of poverty.
This stems from his basic antipathy to the poor, his inability to conceive that they might be capable of “clean and wholesome ideals and aspirations”. This is an economic determinist view of human nature – the poor live squalid lives and acquire squalid ideas, therefore the only hope for improvement is for those with comfortable lives and enlightened ideas to take charge of the system. This is the opposite of the socialist case.
We argue that the workers of the world, even the poorest, are potential socialists and capable of carrying through a revolution. London did not believe this. He might have clothed and fed the poor, set up a welfare state and improved factory conditions, but he would not have touched the mechanics of capitalism.
And finally his was a fascist vision, which supported the British Empire provided it ran efficiently, and which had nothing to say to the millions not born with a white skin. The facts of poverty are not enough; they have been with us for centuries. The facts will change nothing unless we draw lessons from them.
HELEN ROBERTS, Hull
Top
