The Socialist Forum
A correspondent (N. T. T.) asks us the following questions about the organisation of society on a Socialist basis :—
“(1) There are always people, in any stage of civilization, who do not like and do not tone with their surroundings. People live to-day who would be much more happy lying in the sun all day, and picking their food from the trees. I wonder what would be considered the fair share of work for such people? Would they, desiring none of the absurd luxuries of mechanised and artificial civilization, be yet forced to do as much to maintain such a state as any lover of cigars, motorcars, and epicurean meals.
(2) All valuable (not in a monetary sense) works of art, will not be able to be kept in public museums. It is barely possible to consider all our paintings and sculptures thus placed—but for whom are our few Stradivarius violins, to mention but one type of art which cannot be left to rot in a museum ? There are, as I have said, but a few ; but there is a multitude of people who ache to possess them. And this is not greed. It is the very natural desire of the artist to express himself through as fine a medium as possible.
We cannot call those things details, and pass them over. They touch very vital chords of human nature, and must be considered.
Our correspondent’s iirst question is phrased in such a way that it tends to obscure the real issue. We are asked to consider the case of the man who will desire “none of the absurd luxuries of mechanised and artificial civilisation,” and who, therefore, will wish to avoid working to make them possible. He wants, instead, to lie in the sun all day and feed himself from the trees ! If the illustration is to be taken literally, it is itself absurd and impossible. Anyone who tried to live like this in England would have a very strenuous, brief and painful existence. He would be compelled to avoid all cultivated plants, because these are the products of our “mechanised and artificial civilisation,” and would be so busy trying to secure a sufficiency of uncultivated but edible articles, that he would have no time for sunning. He would doubtless soon fall ill. Moreover, not the social organisation, but the climate would effectively prohibit his mode of life for 90 per cent. of the time. But if he then decides to seek sunnier climes, he will again have to fall back on those — to him — detestable mechanical devices, the steamship or the aeroplane.
The real problem is that of the persons whose tastes do not fully coincide with those of their neighbours—but that includes everybody. Everybody would want some but not others of the articles produced by society’s co-operative effort, and would therefore appreciate the need for give and take. It is a problem implicit in every form of human society. The adjustments will be easier when the luxuries of some are not obtained at the cost of the necessities of others. Now the poverty of the poor is forcibly imposed on them in order to safeguard the privileges of the propertied class.
Our correspondent’s second question has nothing to do with Socialism. We are not advocating Socialism on the ground that we have discovered a perfect method of dividing half-a-dozen Strads among a multitude of people. In the nature of the case there is no method of satisfying the desire of the multitude (if, indeed, they exist) who ache to possess a Strad. What Socialism will do will be to remove, society’s means of production and distribution from the ownership and control of a small minority. Having done that, we do not think that the foundations of Socialist society will rock on account of the unsolved problem of the Strads and first editions and other unique relics of this, that, or the other dead hero. Capitalism gives the Strads to its most successful exploiters who can afford to pay monopoly prices—but nobody seems to mind very much. Artist-craftsmen will again find an opening for the production of masterpieces under the new social conditions.
In the following letter a correspondent from Tottenham seeks to explain why Socialist propaganda does not make rapid headway :—
To the Editor.
Sir,—The teachings of Socialism seem to be making little headway among the workers. Although the solution to the economic evils which afflict them is pointed, they seem little interested and crowd the cinemas and football matches, responding at election times to the attractively dressed programmes of parliamentary parties.
Something in the Socialist estimate is lacking, and I think the deficiency is explained by the discoveries of modern psychology. Instead of man being a rational creature who, perceiving his interests, economic or otherwise, acts in accordance with them, his behaviour, his opinions and attitudes are the outcome, largely, of psychic needs and conflicts are adaptations of thwarted instinctive urges, and assume a far from rational character.
The researches of modern psychologists seem to unite in proclaiming the greater part played in man’s life by unconscious trends, and the study of psycho-neuroses have thrown into relief the tremendous power of seemingly trivial experiences to influence reaction in all sorts of situations.
A sense of inferiority arising from some physical defect, or unimpressiveness of appearance may lead one to join forces with, an organization which gives scope for venting hostility against an inconsiderate environment. Many speakers of the S.P.G.B. have impressed me as having found within its ranks a means of rescuing themselves from an oblivion to which their appearance and mental attributes would otherwise have doomed them. They gain a satisfying distinction by being “not as others.”
Experiences of a sexual character, dislike of certain individuals, jealousy, etc., are elements which find plenty of consolation in Socialism.
The class character of Society and the assumption of superiority which goes with wealth, so provoking and resented by Socialists, are accepted by the majority. The supporters of the Arsenal are feeling quite superior because “their” team has topped the League. Following the fortunes of teams, satisfying .a multiplicity of psychic needs at the theatre, they are not attracted by the rational programme of Socialism, for it holds, but for few, a means of meeting these psychic needs.
The working; class abounds in types, and it is a cardinal error to reduce it to an economic homogeneity. The critical, the cynical, the aggressive, the submissive (attitudes depending largely on previous experiences not necessarily of an economic nature), find satisfaction in exercise, whether it be in politics, sport or love.
Socialism must make an emotional appeal, in which all types can find expression ; purely intellectual approach, its appeal to rationality are barren. Revolutions are impossible without emotional upsurges.
Yours faithfully,
R. HOBSBAUM.
Our correspondent does not tell us the date of the dividing line between what he calls “modern psychology” and its not so modern predecessor, hut we can assure him that his, “discovery” is not new. Members of the Socialist Party were hearing this, tale from members of the I.L.P. and the Labour Party twenty and more years ago. And that fact has its importance. These people were going to make their emotional appeal and get Socialism quickly, rather than follow the method we advocated, of informing the workers about Socialist principles. They and their successors and imitators, the Communists, have made their emotional appeals and suffered their emotional upsurges times without numbee, but our correspondent, curiously enough, omits to dwell upon the result of it all. May we, then, remind him of one spectacular success achieved by the emotionalists—the great war fever of 1914, aided by the Labour leaders and prepared for by the previous years of Labour Party and I.L.P. appeals to emotion?
Our correspondent is wrong in thinking that the workers do not act in accordance with what they believe to be their interests. The trouble is that they mistake the capitalists’ interests for their own. Only knowledge will alter that, and the emotional appealers do not give that knowledge and, in the main, do not themselves possess it.
We are asked to believe that the statement of Socialist principles fails to appeal to the mass of workers because they accept the capitalists’ assumption of superiority, and appeals only to those who do resent it and have a “sense of inferiority.” Why, then, does our correspondent himself find that not all the members of the S.P.G.B. are like that ? Why only some of them ? If the Socialist appeal does attract some of these workers who are without a “sense of inferiority,” why not others, and why not eventually large numbers? This we are not told.
We are told that we must not reduce the workers “to an economic homogeneity.” The answer is that we do not, but the capitalist system does. The worker may possess any or all of the characteristics enumerated in the letter, but, being without property, it will avail him nothing. He will remain a member of the subject class and will find himself up against the inevitable disabilities arising therefrom. Knowledge of Socialism is the necessary preliminary to emancipation. It is not our avoidance of emotional appeal that delays our progress; on the contrary, it is largely the confusion spread by the emotional upsurgers and the despair born of disappointed hopes that is responsible for the workers’ indifference to the Socialist message.
A correspondent put the following questions :—
(1) Do you believe in the coercion of the minority by the majority?
(2) Do you agree that the best governed are those governed with the least amount of laws?
(3) Do you favour voluntary or compulsory co-operation ?
(4) As man is unable to govern himself, how can you claim that he is capable of governing others ?
(5) As all human laws must be backed by force (otherwise ceasing to be operative), how can you claim the attainment of freedom under majority rule ?
Yours, etc.,
H. ANDERTON.
(1) In a conflict the stronger party prevails, irrespective of anybody’s “beliefs.” If, as is usually the case, it is the majority which is stronger, then the majority will prevail over the minority in the event of a clash.
(2) We are seeking to establish Socialism, not seeking to alter or improve the method by which one class governs or coerces another class. From the workers’ standpoint it matters little whether the ruling class appty the coercion through many laws or few. The essential thing is that the capitalists—having been voted into power by the workers—have the means to enforce their laws. When the means of production and distribution become socially owned, it will not be necessary to maintain a coercive State for the subjugation of one class by another. There will be no classes. Society will find it convenient and necessary to formulate rules for the guidance of the individual in social affairs, and will naturally aim at simplicity and brevity in the formulation of these rules.
(3) The meaning of the question is not clear, but where the choice exists of achieving an object either with compulsion or without compulsion, it is obvious that the latter method is to be preferred because it avoids provoking resistance.
(4) We have not said that: man is “unable to govern himself,” and we are not sure what our correspondent means by the phrase. As for the question of his ability to govern others, it is only necessary to consider the ability shown by the capitalist class to govern the working class. How, in face of that fact, can anyone deny so obvious a truth?
(5) All human laws do not have to be backed by force or cease to be operative. Custom is an important and, in some cases at least, as efficient a factor as force to secure observance. For thousands of years custom was the social rule without a coercive State behind it. When we talk about attaining freedom, we make it quite clear what we mean, viz., the abolition of private ownership and control of the means of life. Majority rule will obtain when society is based on social ownership, and is not in any way incompatible with social ownership. If by freedom our correspondent means the “freedom” of the individual or the minority to disregard the commonly agreed practices necessary to the existence and well-being of society, we do not claim that such an absurdity is possible under any form of society.
A correspondent, who signs himself “Ignoramus” (Wood Green), asks a series of questions : —
(1) I have my doubts about the advisability of damaging the Labour Parly. I think you will agree they have done as much as they dare under the present system and to convince the public that they are not working for their interests, may result in the return of the Conservatives. Until you are in a position to put your ideas into practice, let us have the Labour Party.
(2) You have no representatives in Parliament. How, then, do you propose to bring these things to pass? Illegally? By revolutionary methods?
(3) Why not have a membership form handy at your meetings to enrol recruits?
(4) May I mention an idea of mine? This state which you aim at will be eventually reached by the aid of religion. When we have all become convinced of the reality of God . . . then will come in reality the brotherhood of man, which is to my untutored mind another name for Socialism.
(1) Whether the Labour Government have or have not done as much as capitalism would permit them to do, is not an important question, although, incidentally, they have not been conspicuously successful even as a party aiming at the smooth administration of capitalism. The important point is that neither the Labour Government nor any other Government can both retain capitalism and serve the interests of the working class. The Socialist Party would be committing suicide if it refrained from telling the workers that this is so. But it is not true that Socialist propaganda is directed solely against the Labour Party, or that it helps the Conservatives to gain power. Socialist propaganda is aimed at making Socialists, and Labour Party members who become Socialist do not leave the Labour Party for the purpose of voting Conservative, but in order to join the Socialist Party. Our correspondent is himself an illustration of our point. He has listened to Socialist speakers, but does not indicate that this has led him to vote Conservative. Nor does Socialist propaganda lead any other workers to vote Conservative, any more than it leads them to vote Labour, Liberal or Communist.
(2) There are no Socialist representatives in Parliament because there are not yet sufficient Socialists outside of Parliament to make possible the election of a Socialist on a Socialist programme. In due course there will be sufficient Socialists in the constituencies to secure Socialist representatives in Parliament.
(3) There is no difficulty in a Socialist obtaining membership of the Socialist Party either through head office or a local branch. We do not, however, enrol members in the careless manner of other parties, because, whereas their object is to make members, our object is to make Socialists. We do not want non-Socialists in our organisation.
(4) Christianity has had nearly 2,000 years in which to justify the hopes entertained by our correspondent. There were centuries in which the whole of Christendom, to all appearances, accepted the illusion of “the reality of God”—but there was no Socialism. The chances of religion ever again having so wide and deep a hold are so remote as to be not worth considering.
The “brotherhood of man” is a phrase which means anything and everything, according to the wishes of the untutored minds which accept it. It is not a name for Socialism, but a very useful tool in the hands of the possessing class and their agents when they wish to deceive the workers into the belief that there is community of interests between the exploiters and the exploited.
If, too, our correspondent really believes that religion alone will solve our problems, why does he support a political party, the Labour Party ?
We suggest that he read our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion.”
C. Foster (W.8) asks whether we propose to use Parliament or to organise strikes as a means of obtaining power and introducing Socialism, both of which methods “seem to have failed so far.”
The Socialist Party aims at dispossessing the propertied class of their ownership and control over society’s means of living. This cannot be done while they control the armed forces and the machinery of administration. When the workers gain control of Parliament and the local councils (by means of the vote), they will have disarmed the capitalist class, and can then set about organising society on a different basis. It is true that Parliament has failed to do this in the past, for the simple reason that Parliament has never yet been controlled by a party with a mandate to work for Socialism. The Labour M.P.s, without a single exception, asked and received a mandate from the electors to reform capitalism. The electors are getting what they asked for. That they do not like it is our reason for anticipating that thev will, sooner or later, decide to try Socialism instead.
Strikes are in a different category. The usefulness of Trade Unions lies in the direction of resisting encroachments by the capitalist class on the workers’ standard of living. In this they have been partly successful. They might, with greater knowledge, be more useful, but their potential usefulness has limits. The employers, being wealthy, can, if they deem it worth while, afford to prolong disputes to a point which means starvation for the workers. They can do this because they own the instruments of production and the accumulated products, and have the forces of the State to back them up. Trade Unions can serve as more or less useful instruments of resistance, but they cannot, in their nature, serve as means by which the workers can obtain control of the machinery of government. This must be done by Socialists organised in the Socialist Party.
Ed. Comm.