Answers to Correspondents
A correspondent writes to criticise us for “accepting the ruling of the L.C.C.” which forbids us to take collections or sell literature in London commons and parks. He suggests that we ought to hold meetings of protest and get the audiences to show by means of a vote their disapproval of the L.C.C.’s action. The results of the votes should be forwarded to the L.C.C., and then he adds : “If the bye-law is not repealed, the L.C.C. is acting unconstitutionally and you can take a collection, sell literature, and tell the police.”
Our correspondent’s argument contains one fatal defect : his assumption that a bye-law ceases to be effective because a number of public meetings protest against it. Even if we assume (a very big assumption) that the Tory, Liberal, and Labour supporters who form the vast majority of the audiences who gather in public places, would support such a protest, the fact remains that a big majority of the members elected to sit on the London County Council are in favour of the ban, and their supporters, if not activelv in favour, are at least not prepared to demand its withdrawal. It is not within the limited means of the S.P.G.B. to reach the whole of the electorate in London, and the few we can reach at our meetings arc too few to change the composition or to influence the actions of the L.C.C. So long as the L.C.C. is composed of people who want the ban, so long will that bye-law remain in force. And so long as it remains in force, the L.C.C. have the power to see that it is carried out.
If our speakers ignored it, they would be faced, as several individuals (not our members) have already been faced, with fines or the alternative of imprisonment. Being a working-class organisation, we cannot light-heartedly accept the burden of paying a number of fines and of losing our jobs (those who have them) by going to prison. To do so in the case in question would, in any event, be without effect upon the L.C.C., since the imposition of such fines would please them without causing the slightest trouble or embarrassment. It would probably not even lose them votes. When we have to consider taking suchcostly action, it must be for a purpose much more worth while than fighting this particular bye-law, which, troublesome as it is, does not prevent us from carrying on propa¬ganda. It has indeed decreased our income, and so far we have not been able to make good the loss in other directions. We hope, however, that our efforts to do so will prove successful in the near future.
ED. COMM.
A correspondent draws our attention to the first paragraph on page 17 of Boudin’s “Theoretical System of Karl Marx,” which lays it down that the class which owns the new means of production is always victorious in its conflict with the older ruling class. Our correspondent points out that if this is true then the working class— not being property owners—will never achieve their emancipation. He also assumes that the passage in question is a quotation from Marx.
In the first place, the paragraph referred to is not a quotation from Marx and is not offered by Boudin as a quotation. The paragraph before this one and the paragraph after it are presented as quotations, and are taken from Marx’s preface to his “Critique of Political Economy,” but the quotation marks end with the para¬graph before the one dealt with by our correspondent, and only begin again with the paragraph following.
The view put forward is certainly not that of Marx. It is also extremely improbable that it represents Boudin’s con¬sidered view. The probable explanation is that Boudin here intended only to state as a fact in relation to past class struggles that the victory was with the class which owned the new means of production. That it should read as if it were intended to refer to all class struggles and to be an essential feature of class struggles can only have been a slip on the part of Boudin.
ED. COMM
If the correspondent who wrote about the pay of teachers and civil servants will give his name and address (not necessarily for publication) we will reply to his criticism.
ED. COMM.
C. W. Morrow.—We do not know what your views may be in the future. It is sufficient that you have not found it possible to combine Socialism with religion. To say that a Socialist has the “free-will” to be a Christian if he wants to be, is like saying that he has the “free-will” to be an anti-Socialist, which is absurd. No, Mr. MacDonald is not a Socialist. The fact that some scientific men retain, outside the province of their scientific activities, beliefs which cannot be substantiated, does not prove these beliefs to be valid.
E. Tinkler.—We suggest that you read our pamphlet, ” Socialism and Religion,” and then write to us again.
ED. COMM.