Correspondence: Does our Declaration of Principles need modernising?
A reader, Mr. H. G. Beales (Northfleet), writes suggesting that our Declaration of Principles would be more attractive if re-worded. He writes
“May I, as a looker-on, offer you a few humble suggestions ? It does seem to me that you have a case that should run through this country like fire; it only needs to be stated in more up-to-date language; all this talk about the Master Class is a trifle obsolete. 1 enclose a few suggested improvements for your declaration of principles.”
(1)
“That Society, as at present constituted, is based upon the ownership of Money, and the acquisition of Money. This state of Society has succeeded in making Man the most vicious and selfishly cruel animal this world has ever known. It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence where Mankind is going, if he persists in this way of life.
“No one can dispute that this could be a really wonderful world to live in. Nature always produces in abundance if given the right kind of encouragement. Not only has the present system of Society debased and brutalised human nature, it also persistently shortens and brutalises his physical life on this earth. The latest scientific opinion is that man’s body is constructed to last 150 years in health. Think what this means.
“Your Hospitals are chock-a-block with sick people. Your mental institutions are not big enough to cope with all the mentally sick. All this is directly due to the present system of Society. It is always Money first and Humanity a very had second. The existing law says every man for himself, which is the law of the jungle, and quite obsolete in this age.
“In a state of plenty the present state of Society would collapse, hence the great fight being waged by the powers-that-be against a state of plenty. The present system could not exist in a state of plenty, and its managers are only interested in making the Money system work, which, as you see, is the cause of all our troubles.
“The Socialist Party of Great Britain proposes to bring about a really sane system of Society, based on discipline and decency, by educating the people, politically, morally and spiritually with this object in view. We therefore appeal to everyone agreeing with the above principles, of any creed, sex, or colour, to join us and save Mankind from catastrophe, and make his sojourn here really worth while, and of which he may be rightfully proud.”
Reply
(1) Our correspondent’s first point concerns the choice of words. There is little doubt that if the Declaration of Principles had been drawn up in 1954 instead of in 1904 some phrases would have been differently worded, simply because some words have gone out of use and others have come into use. Some different words would have been used, but to express exactly the same principles. To make a change now would have some advantage, no doubt, but against it would be the disadvantage that some people would assume that a different meaning was intended and time would be taken up explaining that there had been no change in meaning. This idea has been considered, but the Party has decided against the change of wording.
If all that holds back the swift acceptance of our Declaration of Principles in the year 1958 is that some of its wording smacks of the language of 1904 why did it not sweep the country in 1904 ? The reason, we hold, lies in the fact that the ideas embodied in the Declaration were not readily acceptable and would not have been readily acceptable no matter what words were used to clothe them.
(2) Our correspondent mentions the term “master class,” which, he holds, is a trifle obsolete. We assume that he means that a different name should be used for the capitalist class. It is quite true that most workers to-day do not use the term master class, or the term capitalist class; neither did they in 1904. But there is more in this than a name. Most workers, then as now. had not realised that they live in a class-divided society, it is a conception that has to be explained to them, for the capitalist class has not undergone anything more than superficial changes. They still own, and still, directly or through their agents, control the means of production and distribution.
(3) Our correspondent, however, wants us to drop the reference to means of production and distribution and use instead the words “money” and “the acquisition of money.” To this there are two main objections. The first is that it is not accurate. The basis on which capitalism rests is not money, but the ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production and distribution, the land, factories, railways, etc.
The second is that it would easily be misunderstood by those who believe that the evils of capitalism could be removed by changes in the monetary system, for example, the advocates of complete governmental ownership of the banks, the advocates of inflation and their opposites, the advocates of “sound money,” i.e., a circulating gold currency in places of notes.
(4) And this brings us to the fact that, in addition to changing the words, our correspondent has removed the clauses of the Declaration dealing with the need to gain control of the machinery of government in order that Socialism shall be established. This is a fatal defect in itself but it also overlooks the fact that a political party has to have a basis on which members are admitted. The basis of membership of the S.P.G.B. is its Declaration of Principles. If the revised form suggested by our correspondent replaced the existing form, admission to membership would cease to be dependent on the old Declaration and would rest on the new. This would open the Party to people who do not accept the need to gain control of the machinery of government, and to people who wanted only that the monetary system be amended, or replaced by barter, and to many others who, in fact, do not accept the Socialist case.
Editorial Committee