8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 25 Oct

1/8

6d.FORUMINTERNAL JOURNALOF THE S.P.G.B

No. 25 October 1954

ON THE MATERIALIST CONCEPTION OF

The MC of H is a theory of history-s-atheory put forward to explain the struggles,the changes and the developments in history.

S.R.P., in his article in the. AugustFORUM, completely ignores this. Heshould have come down to cases and shownw-here, in his opinion, it did not fit. Writingof basis and superstructure, integration andinteraction, may look profound but it. getshim nowhere. He has so wrapped himselfround with words and phrases that he hasshut himself off from the real world of actionand counter-action.

Historical DevelopmentTo begin with, he does not explain why

he has put the quotation from Mumford atthe head of his article. What is it supposedto convey? Unless we analyse a machineinto its parts how can we gain "any insight"into the pattern or purposive configurationthat endows them with special significance?Anyhow, what has it to do with the applica-tion of the MC of H?

I would be interested to know why he callshis article "A Critique of HistoricalMater'ialism" but says nothing in it aboutthe historical element. There is not a singlecritism throughout his article of the applica-tion of the Me of H. He is up in theclouds all the time. After all, it is amaterialist conception of hisiof))'; and historyis a relating of things that have happened

in fact and not phantasy. It is a theory putforward to explain the changes and directionof social development; why the AthenianEmpire developed and then collapsed; whatbrought about the internal struggles andcoilapse of the Roman Empire; whyFeudalism grew out of that collapse, andhow Capitalism developed out of Feudalism.Has S.R.P. a new theory to explain the

HISTORY

cause of modern war, and the. class strugglesof to-day and the past? If the MC of Hdoes not give us a clear picture and an

explanation of past epochs, will S.R.P.explain where it has failed to do so and putthe picture right? Let him tell us what hethinks brought about the struggles of theCromwellian period, the American War ofIndependence, the French Revolution, theAmerican Civil War and the social strugglesin Germany, if he believes that the Me of Hdoes not do so. Let him get down to earth.

In his first paragraph S.R.P. tells us thatas good a summary of the Me oJ H as: any'is Engels' view that of all the factors deter-mining historical development 'the decisiveelement is pre-eminently the production andreproduction of life and its material require-

ments". Then there is a full stop, and nota single criticism of' this statement in hisarticle. Just for the record let us call hisattention to the fact that, in the above state-n~ent,. of the man)) [actors determininghistorical development one of the factors isdecisive; that is all it says.

In his second paragraph he takes threequotations from Marx and then adds-"weare being asked to accept the separation ofideas from the material world". Whatever"we are being asked to accept", what iswrong with the three quotations? S.R.P.does not tell us. He plays about with 'parts'and 'wholes', with 'interaction' and 'integra-tion', and so on.

Let us take a look at his first quotation-"the ideal is nothing other than the materialworld reflected by the human mind." Whatelse is the ideal than this? If 5. R. P. ismaking the fatuous contention that becausewe can't have the human mind without thematerial world, it is all of a piece, and

therefore we cannot distinguish one from theother, then he has reached a point where he istemporarily incapable of really understanding'

anything that is put forward on the subject.Are we. to take it that as we cannot havebuses without people, roads and destinationsthen, if we want to discuss the constructionof buses, we are asserting that we canseparate buses from people, roads anddestinations?

Formation of IdeasIn all statements a reasonable interpre-

tation must be taken for granted, otherwiseevery statement would have to be qualifiedand qualified until it became a book. In thestatement in question Marx took for grantedthat the reader would understand that he wasreferring to the mind and the world outsideof it. The mind, or the brain, or whateveryou like to call the thinking faculty, is thatpart of the world which pictures, analyses,and generalises about the rest of the world.We are born with the faculty of thinking,just as we are born with the faculty of movingour limbs. In order to think we must havematerial to think about, and this materialcomes from the world around us. We atenot born with ideas, they are developed outof our contacts with the world. Accordingto the MC of H our principal contact withthe world concerns "the production andreproduction of life and its material require-ments" and S.R.P. has not denied this.Hence, the formation of ideas can ,only beexplained in terms of practice, and theprincipal part of our practice consists in get>ting a living. Even the wildest ideas arebuilt up out of the world around, only theparts are stuck together in an incongruousmanner-like sticking a fish's tail on to awoman's torso in order to make up an idealmermaid.

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 25 Oct

2/8

7 4 FORUM

I can't chase every drugged hare S.R.?has raised, none of which has anything to 20with the application of the Me of H,' to Iwill only concern myself here with one or twomore.

Basis and SuperstructureHe is in a jam over basis and super-

structure. The basis is that part upon whichthe other part rests-in buildings the founda-tion. Someone wrote somewhere in FOR - Iv ' :that superstructure suggests something flimsy-I thought of the Woolworth building, theBattersea Power Station, St. Paul' s, theHouses of Parliament and other super-structures! The fact that we can't have abuilding with only a foundation, or only asuperstructure, is no reason why we can'tdivide it into basis and superstructure.Further, the nature of the foundation is theprincipal factor in determining the size andshape of the superstructure.

Now let us turn to society. If, in aparticular society, cultivation, constructionand the rest of the social work is performedby slave labour then it is proper to state thatthat particular society is based upon slavelabour, because without the slave labour thatform of society would not exist F urther-more, the nature of the relations of all thosewithin that society-master and slave, legalenactments and the rest-is determined bythis slave labour basis, and the ideas of thetime are moulded by it If S.R.P. has anvdoubt about this latter point he should look

up Aristotle or Cicero, Demosthenes or

Martial, or, in later times, the protagonists ofthe Southern States of America before theUnion.

We are out to build a new social form.\Vhat is the basis upon which the new societywill be built? Thai e-veryth in g th aiis in andon the earth will be the common possessionof all manki-nd. That will be the b asis ofthe new society, and upon that basis therewill be a super-structure of relations and per-formances in harmony with it. In otherwords, the most important factor of the newsociety will be this basis, because without itwe cannot build up the superstructure wewant, as it will determine, in the main, thenature of the superst ructure.

Material ConditionsLater in his article S.R.P. accuses me of

a contradiction. Alas. he does not think

sufficiently over what he reads. Let meassist him. "Social progress is the result ofthe mental activity of man exerting itself onthe material provided by the external environ-ment." Out of this mental activity manderives certain ideas. Thus "ideas are theproduct of conditions and not the other wayround.". It is the interaction of man's think-ing faculty and his environment that producesidea"s, but the nature of the ideas' is deter-mined by the material about which he thinks,the conditions of his time.

At the end of his article. S.R.P. tells uithat material conditions will 'become more likeSocialism as time goes by, and that the

acceleration of the resulting Socialist ideas

A DIALOGUEComrade Spencer: Of course one of our

troubles is that we have a theory of historyhut don't apply it to the coming of socialism.That is one important reason why so manypeople say we are not really Marxist.

Comrade ,Marks: On the contrary, Iwould say that we are the only Marxists.Not only do we understand the theories butwe apply them and act in harmony with them.

S. Perhaps if I give you an example ofwhat I mean you will show me where I ammistaken.

M. Yes, certainly.S. Well now, take theMCH for example.

It shows broadly that new attitudes tomorality, politics, human nature, life ingeneral, can only be explained from changesin the prevailing mode of production-theeconomic foundation of society. That withineach past social -system, conditions have

arisen which have undermined the old vaysof doing things; and made new idea" andattitudes necessary.

M. Ah! now, stop there. Jmt let meelaborate on that to make sure you under-stand what you are saying. T ake Feudalismfor example. .Production was mainly for

local use, not for wide exchange. The obli-gation of the exploited peasant was fulfilledby him giving part of what he produced, orpart of his labour-time, to .the church and/orthe local landowner- Morality helped to pre-serve this relationship, and many others, suchas the peasant being tied to the land. Incourse of time, with changes in the methodof production, etc., the local fair or marketsbecame increasingly important in the lives ofpeople and gradually there emerged a newclass living by buying and selling goods-the merchant capitalist class; ultimately, of

October 1954

will be the Socialist Revolution. Now whatdoes he mean by that in terms of the actual?Does he mean that private property, classes,wars and the rest, will gradually disappear?If so, let him spread himselff and tell us infact, in terms of property, classes, wars andso on, what he really does mean. And whilehe is doing so he must remember that animportant part of the material conditions isthe way the working class is thinking. I

notice that, in spite of his superior andmistaken prods at separating man from hi,environment, he separates thinking frommaterial conditions.

Which reminds me. S.R.P. says that "Itis inconceivable to me that the socialist ideawill grow without a correlative developmentof material conditions approximating closerto Socialism". What am I to understand bythis, that S.R.P. is not yet a socialist or that

he is a superman? Where did he get hissocialist ideas from?Finally let me remind him once more that

the subject of his article, in spite of the title,is the MC of H. Show us where it hasfailed, and show us any reputable modemhistorian who does not base his descriptionof past epochs upon the use of it.'

. G_:_I..:::::_:.LMAC

Correspondence and articles should be

sent to FORUM, S_P_G.B., 52, Clapham

High St., London, S. W. 4. Subscriptions

12 months. 7/6d, 6 months 3/9d. Chequesand P.O_'s should be made payable to:

E. Lake, S.P_G.B.

course, goods began 110t only to be sold forprofit but produced for thai /Jurpose---thecapitalist motive for production. This re-quired a free working class and the old waysof doing things were broken down. Mo'ralityalso was changed-for example, in itsattitude to money-lending and producingthings for profit. So we see, comrade, theMCH is proved to the hilt in its applicationto history. It is in fact our guide or key toits mysteries.

S. Splendid, comrade; a first class state-ment; now would you do one thing for me-apply the same historical principle to theemergence of socialism.

M. Surely that is self-evident With thedevelopement of capitalism from small unitsto large scale production the contradictionbetween social production and private owner-ship becomes ever more glaring. The work-ing class is compelled to organise to preserveitself, and ultimately to establish conditionsof life in harmony with the new ways of

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 25 Oct

3/8

October 1954 FORUM 75

doing things. The new productive forces to-day, hampered and restricted by capitalistre lat ionships, wi ll then opera te freely to sat isfythe needs of all. In order to achieve thisnew world, we must first get people to under-

stand and want it. Until then capital ismand all the problems that go with it \'fillemain.

S. Do you mean then that the new rela-tionships between people can only emergeafter the old ways have been completelyswept away? That you cannot have the newrelationships existing side by side with the oldand becoming ultimately the dominant ones?

M. Exactly.S. Then you have not applied the principle

at all. In what you said about the emergenceof capitalism from Feudalism you showedthat new methods of production and newrelationships evolved within the old feudal

framework and that a commodity societyemerged "within the womb of the old society"as Marx put it. But when you come tosocialism you throw this overboard and asserthat the new mode of production cannotemerge within the old society. Earlier youshowed that new moral attitudes arose andriumphed as a result of the needs of a neweconomic class, with their method of doinghings already existing and growing. Nowyou have dropped this ; you haven't shownwhat new class has come on the scene, youhaven't shown what new mode of productionhey are initiating or representing. In fact,n every im portalnt aspect you ha ve violatedhe principle youwere wpposed' to be apply-ng. How do you explain that?

M. What you don't understand, Com-ade, is that whilst the revolution from feud-alism to capitalism was a revolution hom oneproperty society to another, the socialist revo-ution is one from a property society to anon-propertied society. It should be obvioushat whilst different kinds of property societiescan co-exist, soc ial ism, common-ownership,cannot exist within a private ownership world.

S. Be that as it may, the CH, whichyou claimed you were applying, gives nohistorical precedent for the emergence ofocialism as you see it coming. The only kindof change it describes or caters for is for anew social system to emerge within the wombof the old. I therefore conclude that you arenot: applying the MOH but have some otherustification for your views.

M-. But my justification is the _ lCH.We know that societies come and go. Thatn the past new revolutionary classes havemerged from the exploited in Society. andhave revolutionised their world. Every daywe see that the only solution to the problemss for the mode of production to become

socialist. That, as in the past, the forcesof production must be unleashed from theirfetters, by the only exploited class left, theworking class. I therefore conclude that theworking class must organise to achieve the

social revolution, the culmination of the classstruggle: and you say that it violates theMCH. Comrade, I am afraid that you arevery confused indeed.

S. I think we have reached stalemate here.I maintain that the MCH tells us howsocieties have changed in" past history and Isay that our ideas of how the new societywill emerge should be in harmony with theMCH if we claim to be Marxist. Socialism,if it is to emerge at all, will do so within thewomb of capital ism. If not socialism.vvthensome other society. I can see no justificationfor the view that the new world will come asa result of people making a sudden break with

the old.M. Now "don't misunderstand rrie, com-

rade. The fact that the change from thecapitalist to the socialist mode of productionis sudden, does not mean that the process ofmaturing of people's ideas towards socialismis not a gradual process. Surely the existenceof the S.P. shows that the changes in theideas of more and more people is a lengthyprocess. When we have the majority on ourside, however, the qualitative change takesplace, the revolution in the mode of produc-tion. This idea of quantity-quality change iscompletely Marxian as you must surely know.It is in that sense that Socialism matures Jl1the womb of the old society-a-no other.

S. But if we explam people's presentattitudes and ideas as appropriate to thekind of conditions they live in, it is only rightto think that ideas can only change as insti-tutions change and institutions change as idea]

change. But you ave saying that capitalismwill remain fundamentally unchanged until weget socialism and in spite of this, people'sideas will change fundamentally before Vieget socialism. Surely this is a separation ofthought and action that racial hatreds andnationalism from the existence of societyorganised along private property lines inwhich g-roups struggle and compete for a placein the sun. These attitudes we say must beexpected where capitalism exists. Thisappliee to those attitudes and a host ofothers. Now, comrade, you are saying in thenext breath that you can keep the socialsystem that produces these attitudes, and

within that system (which depends for itsexistence on those attitudes) have a vast massof people with the socialist outlook. Surelyyou cannot maintain that, with capitalist COI1'ditions as they are, you can have a vastsocialist movement.

M. I'll go this far with you, comrade.In my opinion capitalist development has along way to go before we get a socialistworking-class, although I'm quite certain theposition I take up is fundamentally soundalthough you may be able to criticise super-ficially .here and there.

S. W ell comrade, that really begs thequestion. Anyway we will continue it an-other t ime. OPTIMUS

NOTES ON CRISES (3)What can be said of all under-consump-

tion theories, past and present, is that becausethey make an abstract separation 6f produc-tion from consumption and supply fromdemand, they are unable to give an adequateexplanation of crises. To put it anotherway, the underconsumption theorists see

society essentially from the standpoint of con-sumption, and fail to see that the consumingpower of society is subordinated to a form ofincome distribution generated by a particularset of social relations called capitalism. Thatis why the under-consumption theory tends tudisregard the fact that in the relationshipbetween production and consumption, it isconsumption which plays a subordinate role.

Recent trends in economic theory em-phasises, however, the primacy of supply overdemand and the precedence of conditions ofproduction over conditions of distribution as a

prerequisite for any realistic analysis of pre-sent day society. Indeed this 'recent trend'sees "Market demand" and "consumers'choice" not' in unreal abstraction but asfactors which stand in a dependent relation-ship to production. So while a subjectivetheory of value-c--whose underlying assump-

tions rest on a pain/pleasure principle-e-rnightstill be entrenched in the citadels of academicteaching, its inability to explain the signifi-cance and movement of economic events isgenerally recognised.

One other point might' be made in passing;that the advocates of naive under-consump-tion theories put themselves into something ofa. dilemma. If it is true that there is insuffi-cient purchasing power generated to buy backthe goods which have been produced, then itfollows that lack of effective demand mustbe a characteristic feature of the economic

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 25 Oct

4/8

76

situation. The most significant question. thento ask is not how crises start, but how it canever be possible for booms to begin?

While Marx recognised the conflictbetween the .productive powers of capitalistsociety and the distribution of its products,for him it was but an asoect of the more basicconflict between the p'roductive forces andthe product ive relat ions of copita lism. It wasin the detailed analysis of this basic conflictof capitalism that Marx sought to discoverthe prime agencies which bring capitalist pro-duction into crisis. '

That is why Marx never treated crises interms of supply and demand, i.e., productiveoutput and aggregate consuming power. Forhim 'these were merely a facet of a many-sided economic situation. To view them asrhe whole would give a partial and distortedpicture of the conditions which bring aboutcrises. While a deficit of market demandstresses the antagonist ic relat ions of productionand consumption in capitalism, it cannotexplain them. It can only serve as an ex-pression of the underlying conflict of pro-ductive class relations. Because the under-sumptionists fail to see this they mistake thesympton for the disease; they fail to see thatrelative over-production merely reveals, anddoes not initiate, a rupture in the normalprocess of capi tal ist product ion.

But, it may be objected, surely consump-tion cannot be disregarded, no matter whatform of society it is? Even capitalism can-not be based on production per se? It istrue, 0 . 'course, that the aim and end ofall production must be the appropriation ofuse values, and capitalist society is no excep-tion to the rule. Yet it is true to say thatcapitalism is so constituted that while ofnecessity itmust produce use values, its motivefor production is exchange value. This anti-thesis between use value and exchange valueis i ts basic contradiction.

Let us see how it works out in practice.Capitalism being a profit-motivated society,any sharp fall in profit expectation evokes agerieral reaction from capital investors in theform of the curtailment of investment, andhence production; as a result the rate and

flow of capital accumulation is choked off.When this is of sufficient magnitude, crisisconditions emerge. Because capitalism is aprofit-extracting system, the rate of profit hasa vital connection with the rate of capitalistaccumulation. If there is a nrofit iucentivc,then capital accumulation will expand; andconsequently production. If there is noprofit incentive, then accumulation will con-tract. and production also.

The requirements of capital accumulationset, then, limi ts of expansion of the nroductjveapparatus. Not because of lack of pro-

FORUM

ductive labour, or exhaustion of economicresources, but due to its need to inhibit anyencroachment on capital funds as the resultof a decline in the rate of profit It is wheninvestment has outrun any further profitableutilization of the existing technical and pro-ductive methods on a sufficient scale thatcrises condit ions emerge.

Again, because. capitalism is not a systembased upon production for consciouslydesigned social ends, but for profit ext raction,it also sets limits to the level of employmentand the size of the pay rolls, i.e., purchasingpower. The expansion and contraction ofproduction (whether it be violent as in boomsand slumps or only the incidental fluctuationsof industry) is not regulated by changes inpurchasing power, but changes in purchasingpower are themselves the result of the inher-ent compulsions of capitalism-its own lawof motion. Capitalism does not then producetoo much or too little purchasing power eventhough a surface view seems to indicate it.In actual fact: the way capitalism generatesaggregate purchasing power at particulartimes is subordinated to the essential require-ments of its economy. (The consumption ofthe oapitalist class will be dealt with later inthis respect, but it does not invalidate orseriously qualify what has been said).

Capitalists will strongly react to adversechanges in the rate of profit, and curtailmentof investment is one of the ways of compen-sating for this. Curtailed production meansnot that too much wealth has been produced,but too much capital. Capital has becometemporarily redundant and with it wagelabour as exploitable material. It is herethat the reverse side of the picture comes intoview-decline in employment and reductionin pay roll. Not because nature is niggardlyand population presses hard on the meansof subsistence, but because the volume ofinvestment i s inconsistent wi th profit exnecta-tion. "The real barrier of capitalist produc-tion is capital itself."

At the peak of the boom, just when thepowers of production seem capable of beinggeared to the absolute consuming requirementsof society, a halt is called. Just as soon as

the mass of producers are on' the verge of areal improvement in their standards of living,they are denied the fruit of their efforts andthe labour market is "glutted". Thuscapitalism, in the way it functions, inhibitsthe progressive and uninterrupted developmentof the productive and technical forces ofsociety, and consequently the continued andincreasing improvement of jiving standardsfor the wealth producers. The loss incapital values and the decline in the ratio ofconstant to variahlecapital, i.e., allowingmore primitive methods to become profitable

October 1954

again, are one of the necessary conditions fora boom.

Capitalism is, then, a system of organisedscarcity and must remain so. Only in thissense can it be said that capitalism has it.font in underconsumption an underconsump-tion which is not inconsistent with, butinseparable from, and indisoensible for, itscontinuance.

All this, however, has little revelance tounderconsumpt ion theories. Underconsump-tion theory does not critically examine thestructure of productive class relations, butcontents itself with an analysis of what itthinks is a flaw in the distributing mechanismof the present order. Just as crises are theresult of deficient purchasing power, so theycan be cured by making good that deficit insome way or other. An examination of theclaims made by Hobson, Keynes and the"\Velfare" economists would, at the present,take us too far from the subject. \');/hat callbe said is that their beliefs are rooted in thefiction that capitalism is a productive systemmotivated by social ends.

In the light of what has heen said, onecannot fit Marx's views on crises into anvpast or present underconsumption .theories.The one passage which might be given anunderconsumpt ionist twist is tha t which occurswhen; criticising the view that shortage ofcapital causes crises, he interpolates with the

EDITORIAL

With this issue, FORUM enters upon it s

third year of life. It,is better now, ~e feel,than it has ever been. But there is still room,for much improvement-and here :you canhelp. We need more articles on such thingsas better public speaking, where speakers canhand on hints and tips that they have founduseful to other speakers; new scientificdevelopments of interest to Socialists; noticesof books which members think may be usefulto Socialists for one reason or another; andso on. We also want more articles fromyoung comrades, and those who have notwritten before. All except one of the con-tributors this month is already a contributorto the 5.S., and we want to encourage new

writers to come out of hiding. Writing forFORUM can be excellent practice for writ-ing in the 5.S. Members can also help tomake FORUM fulfil its proper function byreading it thoroughly and by criticising whatthey read in UJrit '~n:g,by sending letters in tous about it. FORUM can be either a helpor a hindrance to the work of the Party. Itall depends on the kind of support it getsfrom Party members in general. With theright kind of support from members andbranches, FORUM can be one of the bestthings the Party has ever done.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 25 Oct

5/8

October 1954 FORUM 77

remarks: "The last cause of all real crisesremains the poverty and restricted consump-tion of the masses as compared with thetendency of capitalist production to developthe productive forces in such a way that onlythe absolute power of consumption of theentire society would be their limit". (Vol. 3).

But against this must be noted all that hesaid about crisis elsewhere. Finally, there ishis explicit repudiation of Rodbertus' viewthat crises are caused by lack of payingconsumption:- "It is purely a tautology tosay that crisis are caused by the scarcity ofsolvent consumers, or of a paying consump-tion. The capitalist mode of production doesnot know any other mode of consumption buta paying one, except that of the pauper orof the 'thief'. I f any commodities areunsaleable it means that no solvent purchasershave been found for them, in other words,consumers (whether commodities are boughtin the last instance for productive orindividual consumption). But if one were toclothe this tautology with a semblance ofpro founder justification by saying that theworking class receive too small a portion oftheir own product and the evil could beremedied by giving them a larger share ofit, or by raising II' ages, we should reply thatcrises are always preceded by a period inwhich wages rise generally and the workingclass actually get a larger share of the annualproduct intended for consumption. From theadvocates of simple (!) common sense sucha period should remove a crisis. It seems,

then, that capitalist production comprises cer-tain conditions which are independent of goodor bad will and permit the working class toenjoy that relative prosperity only moment-arily, and at that always as a harbinger of acoming crisis." (Vol. 2, pp. 475-6).

There are other factors bound up with theemergence of crises, i.e., existing wage levels,the extent of unemployment and its influenceas a competitive force on the labour market,also the extent to which new sources of cheaplabour can be tapped. These will be dealtwith later.

Finally, of the general propositions 1 11respect of the cause of crises, there are the

two most important \,.-hich have not yet' beenmentioned, "the anarchv of production" and"the disproportionality ~f pro-duction". With-out relating all that has been said to thesetwo fundamental features of capitalism, anadequate understanding of crises i s impossible.In fact, one can go so far as to say that,whatever the type of crisis that emerges, itcan be shown to be, in one way or other, anaspect of disproportionality. But an exam-ination of these two features of capitalistproduction will have to b~ left to the nextl3Sue. E. VI.

IMPROVING THE SOCIALIST CASE

This is the first of a series of four articles,the purpose of which is to clarify and collatesome of the criticism that has been madeby members of its formal principles andtheir implications. The first two article willbe a detailed critical ex~mination of the D. ofP. itself; the third will be a discussion ofwhat the function of a socialist party in-volves; and, finally, some indication will begiven of possible alternatives to the presentprinciples.

Cla'llse 1

The Party provides, ill its pamphletPrinciples and Policy, "an explanation. assimple as possible, of our Declaration ofPrinciples." The first clause deals with thebasis of Capitalism, and is an application ofthe M.C.H. Its analysis of society i amaterialist analysis. It starts with what itconsiders to be the basis (private ower-hipof the means of living) and build thesuperstructure (everything else) upon it. Forexample, .. the possession of the mean ofliving by a class sets up the wages system ...sets up the whole range of relationshipsbetween employer and employed..."Even commodities are a " striking character-istic of the present social system (that) arisesout of this basic property condition." (p.B)

The quarrel with this kind of explanationis that it implies a wrong conception of whata social system is. Society is not a pyramidbuilt upon a particular form of ownershipof means of living, nor indeed it is builtupon any other basis. It is an organism,which means that the parts of which it iscomposed are interdependent upon each other,and that they are to be understood only inrelation to the whole.

Admittedly this indicates that an under-standing of society is a rather more complexmatter than Clause 1 makes it. It i as

well to remember, however, that the 0 er-simplified " this arises out of that" kind ofexplanation makes us, not society itself.simple. Having made a faulty diagnosi weprescribe a wrong remedy--we say that onlythe basis, not the whole social fabric, is theconcern of the Social ist Revolution.

Clause 2.. Men cannot witness the strengtilening

of the barrier which shuts them ever morecompletely out from the circle of luxury,leisure and comfort without becoming

more clearly conscious of the class divis-ion." (p.l 3 my italics)

This makes the growth of class con-sciousness dependent on the class divisionbecoming more marked. It is a dangerousargument for socialists to use, because theclass division has only to remain the sameor to narrow and that "incentive" toSocialism disappears. This type 0 . propa-ganda creates the impression that peopleshould resent being sh ut out from - the" circle of luxury, leisure and comfort", i.e.should resent not being capitalists. It is ex-

tremely doubtful whether .. becoming moreclearly conscious of the class division" hasvery much to do with becoming a socialist.A worker may realise how different his lotis from that of the capitalist, but, lackingknowledge of and desire for Socialism, hemay do nothing to change these socialrelationships.

The pamphlet's explanation of thisclause concludes

"So the class struggle, as time goeson, assumes a different aspect, in strictcorrespondence with the changing visageof capitalism. When the capitalist class

stood as revolutionaries at the inceptionof the capitalist system, their victory wasessential to further progress. But whenthey had overgrown the reactionary systemof the period and etablished a new social

- system, that system in its turn, and theclass who ruled under it, became re-actionary.

And as this reactionary character hasbecome more pronounced, as the systemand the class have become a greater clogto progress and more fruitful of socialinjury, so the character of the classstruggle. becomes revolutionary. While thefight for the possession of the wealth pro- 'duced under the system is not less bitterlymaintained, the class struggle finds - itshighest expression in the movement for theoverthrow 0 . the capitalist system ofsociety, and the establishment 0 . a newsystem in which economic interests willbe in harmony.

This, then, is the true meaning of ourstatement that there exists a class strugglein society. It is a struggle on the oneside to maintain and on the other' sideto abolish a.social system." (p.13)

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 25 Oct

6/8

78 FORUM

As the capitalist system and class become.. more reactionary", so the class strugglebecomes .. more revolutionary", an.l _1 1support of this contention weare asked t.oconsider the change from feudalism to capital--

ism. This popular comparison is a fruitfulsource of error. Note:

I. Although the class struggle issupposed to change as capitalism changes, !tis also the Party case that capitalism doesn tbasically changed. [ .. The present bas.estarted in essentially the same form that Itno!" possesses, and it must retain that fon:1until it finishes its career." (p.24) J . Is Itnot reasonable, therefore, to argue that thecl~ss struggle doesn't basically change?

2. That the capitalist class stood asrevolutionaries to the reactionary system(feudalism) is strictly itrue+-but they Qlllybecam e the ca pitalist classto the extent thai

feudal relations were superseded. The mem-bers of this revolutionary movement, as ofall revolutionary movements, derived theirstatus from the new society, not the old.

3. The working class as suci: do Dotstand as revolutionaries to the' reactionarysystem. of capitalism-they are constituted asthe working class only in relation to thatsystem and within it.4. The" clog to progress" referred to

must be progress to classless society. Inorder to make the working class the .. pro-gressives .. the pamphlet changes the characterof the class struggle and the fight for posses-sion of wealth becomes the fight to over-throw the system. '

5. If the" true meaning " of the classstruggle is that the contestants are for andagainst capitalism, it follows that workers aresocialists and capitalists are anti-socialists.In: reality, most workers support capitalism,whereas a capitalist has been known to bea .socialist. This is because there are twostruggles, one an economic struggle betweencapitalists and workers in regard to the run-ning of capitalism, and the other a struggleo f ideas in regard to the establishment ofSocialism.

C lause 4Why the assertion that" the working class

is the last class to achieve its freedom"?Has the other class already achieved itsfreedom, or does the clause refer only tosubject classes? The pamphlet does notenlighten us. Perhaps we should start withanother line of questioning. Why is .. theemancipation of the working class" madethe starting point? To what extent is allmankind involved?

From the standpoint of the Party's object,we might reasonably infer that working-classemancipation is only a part of a larger whole,

namely the emancipation of a l l mankind.But then we are set another riddle: why isthe part, not the whole, made the object?

The only satisfactory explanation seemsto be that the Party is determined to present

its case as an appeai to the working class.The reason for making the distinct.onbetween working-class emancipation and allmankind's emancipation is that the former i;supposed to be an immediate object, and t ;_ ,elatter a consequence and there-fare a moreremote object. Whenever an object ISdivided in such a way (as, for example,into lower and higher stages) it is because thehigher is thought to be .. lao utopian", " tooextreme", "impracticable".

The reasoning goes something like this:"What is the best way to interest peoplein Socialism? Answer-talk to them intheir own language, see things from theirangle. Never mind that this is capitalistlanguage and a class angle. Take ~dvan.tage of that-make it a class appeal. Leave:

October 1954

the trickier part about a new society and allKlen being equal until later" .

Probably few members would agree thatthey reason in this way. That is not thepoint. We have to discover the reasoning

behind the D. of P. Today, fifty yearsafter it was written, Vie can detect, if we canbear to look, just how far we have left itbehind. That we have not left it fartherbehind pays a great tribute to the farsighted-ness of its authors. It must be rememberedthat the D. of P. was written prior to theexistence of any real socialist organisation.This helps to account for the fact thatClause 4 is written from the working-classstandpoint (which pertains to the present)rather than from the all-mankind standpoint(which pertains to Socialism). \Ve canchange this emphasis by putting "theemancipation of all mankind" in its rightful

place-as the prime object.(to be continued)

S.R.P.

REFLECTIONS ON THE

GROWTH OF THE SOCIALIST IDEA- .In reflecting on history in genera] and the

changes that have taken place in forms ofsociety, most of us find no difficulty in follow-ing those changing forms in the field of pro-duction and general economics together withthe political 'set up' that accompanied them

and indeed 'fathered' the next change ineconomic change. '"

We begin to suffer with blurred vision,however, when we begin to analyse thequestion of Ideas and the world of ph{iosophyin relation to the world of action, and S.R.P.demonstrates this quite well in his query onthe importance or otherwise of the cut anddried and neatly parcelled formula of theM.C.H. so beloved of the orthodox Ivlarxist.His critism is timely and comes at an oppor-tune moment when so many ideas prevailing~n the minds of members are being given air1 11 FORUM.

Socialists are of course, for the moment,theorists; they cannot be otherwise in a worldnot yet given over to applied socialism, andtheir theories belong to the world of Ideas.If and where Socialism becomes a fact thenit will be the result of the acceptance of theIdea. Ideas-when all is said about them-cannot exist in a vacuum-they must havesoil in which to grow, and the soil is theworld of men and women, together with theaccompanying environment.

The Socialist Idea as we now know it isan old-fashioned plant and has gone through

various stages of growth. If we care toglance at the growth of the Socialist Ideawe should begin with early forms that derivednourishment from ethical sources, both paganand christian. Virgil yearns for a return tothe way of life of primitive communism when"no fences parted fields, no bounds dividedacres of litigous grounds but all was com-mon. Together with Seneca and Josephusand other philosophers of nature, the earlyChrist ian thinkers interpreted the inequal iti esof their age as symbolical with the mythologyof Cain and Abel--,Cain personifying theman of possessions, and Abel the shepherdexploiting the pastures. of the earth whileoccupying none.

The advent of Christianity in an organizedmanner, representing a combination of Greekphilosophy and Jewish monotheistic ethics,expressed also a form of communist doctrinethat appealed to the poor. Paul is quotedas saying "all were of one heart, neither saidany of them that ought of the things whichhe possessed was his own but that they heldall things in common." .

This early ethical doctrine of equalitar-ianism can be traced through to the MiddleAges and up to the present time. John Ballin the J 4th century denounced the corruotionof the Church as being the chief villainresponsible for the economic position of thepeasantry in such speeches as the following:"My good people, things cannot go well in

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 25 Oct

7/8

October 1954 FORUM

England until all goods are held in common... and we shall all be equal ... they havehandsome manners while we must brave therain and wind in the fields and it i s from OUilabour that they get the means uo supporttheir pomp." Bali was hanged for his pains.

Thomas More 'Ill the 16th century,preached the: evils of money:

"Money is the root of all evil. All crimewould die if money perished. Attempts atpalliation by reform measures must lead tonought. The only remed!y is a complete

change of the whole social s))stem." (ouritalics).

Objections may be raised at referring toanything outside the scientific socialism,based on Marxist materialism, being called

socialism. These early teachings were sincereattempts at alleviating distress and calledupon social participation to bring it about;in that sense they were socialistic. Let usnever forget in the course of our modernteaching wi th it s highly scienti fic explanationsand jargon-ridden formulae,. that these early

----.:.-._--

79

reformers were men of ideas acutely "tunedin" to their environment. What they did iswhat socialists are doing to-day. Oursocialism is really very simply a better worldfor humanity to live in with the ending o r

exploitation.

It appears, therefore, as S.R.P. says, thatit is socialist ideas and action arising fromthem that will bring about Socialism-alwaysbearing in mind that ideas must have thematerial world in which to grow.

W. BRAIN

THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALISTREVOLUTION

7-fllte So-ciaii6,t Mtoement (co .ntinued)The expansion of human knowledge is

marked by the establishment, in one fieldafter another , of 'laws' which express pre-dictable, deterministic relations, in place offreedom, choice, chance, will or wish:spirits which please themselves are replacedby necessity which can't. The elucidationof 'law' in social relationships, and in theevolution of these relationships (history), isMarx' contribution to sociology. In thisfield, more particularly than in others, theinduction of the 'laws' which integrate factsor phenomena reflects the actual integrativeprocesses of the objective social world.Before the two-fold character of thecommodity (usefulness and value) could beclearly distinguished in theory, the actualpolarisation between commodities and moneyhad had to be completed socially, out of thevarious forms of exchange in which, in earliertimes, these elements had been fused, more orless. Before labour-power could be clearlydistinguished from labour, the commodityform of labour-power had had to becomethe sole and universal form, out of the mixed

and intermediate forms of earlier times.Before abstract homogeneous labour could beperceived as the substance of value, the mul ..tiple character of craftmari's labour (say, inmaking shoes from start to finish) had hadto be reduced, by manufacture, into thesimoler operations of push and pull.

This close correspondence between thephilosophical and th~ social integrations isequally aparent in Marx's wider applicationof labour theory to history in general, bvwhich he lays bare (see Prefaces to 'Capital' )the "law of motion of modern society", dis-

covers " the natural laws 'of its movement"viewed as "a process of natural history",shows "the necessity of successive determina teorders" governed by laws "independent ofhuman will", "tendencies working with ironnecessity towards inevitable results", andstates explicitly in 'Capital' that "theabsolute, general law of capitalist develop-ment is the increased productivity of labour",and implicitly ('German Id.', 'Crit. of Polit.'Ec., etc.) that the dynamic if history is thecreative character of human labour.

These philosophical integrations reflect thereduction of class struggles, within the unifiednation State, to a simple dichotomy. Butthey also reflect the incompleteness of thesocial integration, both within the physiologyof society (class struggle), and in the dis-articulate anatomy (conflict of nationalpowers). Marx rerlects the dichotomy, evento the polarisation of the social scientist andthe political platform Communist whose eyeshave seen the glory and the terrible swiftsword. Thus, history is "governed by lawsindependent of human will", but "the timehas come to change it". Or again, "thedissolution of old ideas keeps even pace withthe dissolution of old conditions", but "sooneror later the relations of production come intoconflict with the forces of production". Thesocia] scientist who warns us that he uses theterms landlord and capitalist only as "person-ifications of economic categories" reverts, aspolitical Communist, to the personalising ofsocial processes: "the whole history of man-kind . . . has been a history of classstruggles"; or (in determining the 'normal'working day) "an antinomy results wich only

force can decide"; and the grand sum otsocial intergations, Socialism, is reduced, forthe Communist, to Dictatorship.

The personalising of social forces disin-tegrates the social science whose materialistdeterminism is made possible only by itsresolving of personal relations into statisticalregularities (institutions). This still remainsthe weakness of the Socialist movement, butirreversible enlargement of the social processeswhich in Marx' time were writ smaller (thefurther depersonalising of capital, out ofaccumulation; further diffusion of equality,from mass of use-values), re-shapes the socialdeterminants of socialist thinking. TheDictatorship in the Manifesto of 1848 doesnot appear in the Manifesto of J 905 ;counter-revolut ionary violence is reduced froma probability to a hypothesis; and now eventhe hypothesis is challenged, as a concept ofrevolution emerges which does .not have toadjudicate between 51 % and the lastHottentot, or between snowball andavalanche. The Socialist movement conceivesthe revolution first as coercive, then as legal,

and from then on as social; from then onalso it begins to conceive the. act as a process.Every advance in science is a verbal

achievement, because the homespun languageof everyday life lacks the precision whichscience requires. The Socialist movement istherefore a struggle also for the verbaldeterrninante 'of socialist thinking. We lackthe terms for expressing the metabolismwhich digests into institutions the plankton ofartifactually-determined daily acts, and theosmotic function of institutions which filtervarymg activity into common outlook.

8/2/2019 Spgb Forum 1954 25 Oct

8/8

.

FORUM October 19540

world-wide Feudal or Staende' relationswere not abolished by decree, but dissolvedcentury-slow in crucibles of silver.

Not only does the dynamic of Capitalism(the solvent use-value whose diffusion seepsin and under the "iron laws" of value)

repeat, in its special way, the general lawof social evolution (diffusion of artefacts),but its movement has the same generaldirection-s-the socialising of personal powerand privilege. The extrmsic, personalcharacter of feudal tithe and tribute is re-placed by theinstrinsic, impersonal characterof contractual exploitation; status, formerlybased on personal heredity, becomes moreand more an incident of social function; andthe more anonymous, less personally auto-cratic mien of power under Capitalism thanunder F eudaiism stands out in even furthercontrast with the intensely personal nature ofsocial relations in still earlier times. For it

is essentially the dearth of artefacts, theuncushioned nakedness, the rudimentary thin-ness of social connective tissue, which givesto primitive society the animistic and personalcharacter of social relations and institutions,

where even the elemental qualities of person(age and sex) have social potency, and everyperson, even to his name and shadow, is richwith majesty and mystery and magic.

The commodity is the cell unit of Capital-ism, and the changes in its organic composi-

tion-shrinking of the value nucleus relativeto the mass of its continuum, use -affectsthe whole body of Capitalism.by attenuationof the value relations between men. Thiseffect is reinforced by the progressive laxa-tion which moderates differences in finalincome (that is, evens out the distribution ofvalue itself) in order to maintain the admin-istrative apparatus of Capitalism, the politicalconnective tissues and the sinews of war. Tocall this State apparatus the property 0 . thecapitalist class is a misnomer ~hich reflectsour personalised attitude to social forms andprocess. If it is property at all, it is socialproperty, its operation delegated: the very

size and ubiquity of the apparatus compellingthe delegation which diffuses power and sub-ordinates privilege to function~

Because we cannot hold in sharp verbal focusthe idea that the substance of mind (beneaththe thin cortex which deduces) is the un-conscious induction from the minutia: o ractivity we still think of thinking as having.. indep'endence" (and therefore as "re-

acting", and therefore at that. POJJ1t"decisive "), and still do not see activity asthe substance of society, and that sinceactivity is determined by the things a~ted onand with. the roots or growing pomts ofsociety are the products of production. OUfpolitical language has moved from the picto-graphic to the hieroglyphic, but hardly yet t.othe alphabetic; thus, while history WIth ~s 15no longer a chaos of events selt-determmedor accidental, our determinant categories arestill" class relations" and "ideas" and"modes of production ", which are inter-mediate categories, distinctively-shapedcrystals of the same molecules and not them-selves " related", but undergoing concurrentmolecular change with the continuous creationof atoms (artifacts). And the efJM t atreduction 1 '0 a new simp,[icitly casmoi bewaved a sid e a s w ord ~pla y, for w e dC IT IYomo 'w n th es is if n- e do not accept our presen tcontroversies as historicallY 'id eterm ined andihetejore a s s oc ia lly portentous.

Meanwhile, differences of opinion, as onthe question whether "each society has itsown laws of economic development", arelargely verbal, classificatory. Once it isunderstood that such a view is justified withina given taxonomy, it need not conflict with

the effort-to raise generalisation to anotherlevel, as an enlargement of thought whichenables us to see not only the dynamic effects,within Capitalism, of the profusion (andhence diffusion) of use-values, hut to see thisalso as a particular capitalist) form of ageneral trend of social evolution; that is, tosee the movement towards Socialism as 111-hering in the act of production.

Capitalism repeats in another plane thetheine of earlier class societies where, in eachcase, it is the proliferation of products whichcompels the droplet changes in detailed pro-cess which coalesce into new techniqueswhich integrate into new modes of production,concurrently precipitating new classes anddissolving old ones, as a diverted stream mayruin some and enrich others. The settledthree-field economy of Feudalism, as com-pared with the locust nomadism of communisttribes, raised the output of trading surpluseswhose accretion transformed feudal society" economically", "socially" and "ideo-ogically "step by step and hand in hand:as accretion of capital does to-day. The

(to be continued) F. EVANS

HEAD OFFICE MEETINGS

At the A.C ..M. last year Com: Kersleyand myself pleaded for the continuation of theSunday evening lectures at H.O. and wewere warmly supported in our proposals thatwe should use H.O. for this purpose everySunday evening, instead of alternate Sundays.We further suggested that the meetings shouldstart at 7 p.m. instead of being advertisedfor 7.30 and eventually starting at 8 p.m.or later. What was the result of this? Lastyear was a fiasco in this respect. A fewpoorly attended meetings were half heartedlystarted, and the rest were abandoned. Theattitude has become-why go to H.O.Sunday evening if it is so uncertain whetherthere will be a meeting on.

I f we are going to succeed in the lectureform of propagandal-- it must be continuous.In pre-war days I used to go to the DoughtySt. discussions because they were continuous,and one could rely on there being a meetingas arranged. Every Summer the titles of thewinter meetings should be arranged-but thisis never done. Nobody knows anything aboutthem until the night of the meeting-yetother organisations can and do arrange listsof winter meetings during the Summer months.I have invitations to give lectures to variousorganisations and associations as far aheadas next ,May, and lists of these fixtures willbe sent to members concerned.

We have all heard the moan about meet-

ings starting at 7 p.m.-members can't getthere in time. Strange enough they canalways get to Dennison House to start at7 p.m. In this case we have to be out by10 p.m., yet with premises of our own ViChave to hire Dennison House to hold ameeting to talk to a few party members-rather an expensive adventure.

While in a grumbling mood, it is deplor-able how some party members spend (orwaste) most of their time in attacking otherparty members. I scarcely give a lecture orwrite an article in the 5.5.; or F anum, that isnot the target of some malicious attack,usually by someone who is almost un-acquainted with the aspect of the subject. Ifthe critism was helpful, it wouldn't matter-but it mostly takes the form of "YOU don'tknow what you are talking about: all yourfacts are wrong and you ought not to be inthe party."

If members would blow off their steamagainst our opponents, instead of arguing sofiercely against one another, we might getsomewhere. If we were to' centre our atten-tion more on converting the unconverted, anddiscussing with those who are not so familiarwith the party' scaseout persuasive effortsshould reap better reward. It is our task tospread Socialist ideas, to convince those whoare not yet socialists. Let us concentrate moreon this objective. H ARVIS

~ub1ished by S.P.G.B .. 52 Clapham Higf1 Street. S.W.4 & Printed by L. E Westwood Ltd . ~T.U.) 14 King9bury Green Paraee, N.W.9