A BLIND EYE TO ELECTORIAL SNAGS The Errors of Horatio

"... this bankrupt party, impoverished by reckless election spendthrifts ..."

"A great deal of useful criticism can be levelled against the party's first election battles."

"... rash expenditure on leaflets' and meetings ..."

—Horatio. DID Horatio say that? He most certainly did—and the quotes (unlike some of his own) are word perfect. A few well-chosen quotes ripped from their context and suitably juxtaposed and you can make anyone say almost anything. Then it may be necessary to fill in some of the carefully omitted parts in your own words before you have a crack at an answer.

Such was the technique used by Horatio in his reply to my article in the first issue of FORUM. It can be highly successful if the reader is unable to refer back to the original article or if, wanting Horatio to be right, he does not bother to check.

Strained Misinterpretation

For example, from my statement that activity is a short term method, whereas propaganda is essentially a long term policy, he draws the illogical conclusion that " therefore socialist propaganda and contesting elections are opposed "—and attributes it to me. The actual inference was, of course, merely that electioneering was therefore an inferior method of propaganda.

Again, my assertion that the most sensational methods which are useful to other organisations are not necessarily the best for ours is for some unknown reason taken to indicate an opposition to elections as such.

This applies also to his third point, in which his misinterpretation is so strained that he takes three sentences to alter " figureheads" to " leaders " and to infer from this that I think the Party is undemocratic. He does not, however, tell us what other function a candidate has from a propaganda standpoint. It must be remembered that these three statements referred specifically to candidates considered as a propaganda venture, and have nothing to do with their value as delegates to the House of Commons, which Horatio cleverly assumes in order to charge me with denying the Party's principles.

Clutching at Straws

After mentioning the main purpose for contesting election, i.e., political representation, I go on to examine secondary considerations to see whether " the Party gains some benefit from contesting an election which is not directly related to this main purpose." This prompts Horatio to ask ," what other purpose the Party has, which is not even related to its main one." 'Nuff said.

In trying to make an objective analysis of the propaganda value of elections I point to the extra indoor meetings which are possible in the constituencies and say that "apart from

this it is difficult to see what can be done with a candidate which cannot be done without one." Here that bias, which I warned should be guarded against, so blinds Horatio that he reads "these meetings could be held without a candidate."

My critic further tries to make a mountain out of the molehill of the extra £49 worth of literature sales at election time—2,000 pamphlets, he says! It sounds a lot until we remember that this increase over a period of six months does not even cover the extra copies of the S.S. printed during the election month itself.

He then begins to clutch at straws. In answer to my comparison of the inability to trace any enquiries about the Party to electioneering with the numerous replies obtained from adverts in esperanto journals, he boldly asserts that these " were made only because we ran candidates"—forgetting that this work was carried on around the time of the last election, in which NO candidates were put up.

Horatio's Positive Case

The next paragraph is a classic. After taking a number of quotes and semi-quotes from all over the article and juxtaposing them to put me in a false position, he then makes me arrive at an equally false conclusion by taking part of a subsidiary clause from five paragraphs before the last quote, misquoting it and sticking it on with a conjuction of his own to suit his own purposes. Then, realising it doesn't make sense, he re-states the whole thing " in other words "—his own, of course. It must be a weak case indeed which drives one as able as Horatio to such contemptible methods.

Next comes an appeal to our principles and policy. He turns a masterly summary of our general theoretical position and its application into a rigid dogma. As if eight short paragraphs can answer all the questions in the world and settle every practical issue that arises. Even Horatio himself realises the falsity of this argument in his more sober moments.

As he says of the Party earlier in his article: " if practical considerations (lack of support) deter it, it should say so plainly, telling the worker the difficulties, but making its object and method clear." Admirably put. I endeavoured in my article to assess the practical considerations, and I am convinced that it is time we stopped trying to fool the workers (and ourselves) that we are something we are not. We should endeavour to bring home to them our difficulties and the urgent need for their support and work, so that we may the sooner be able to seriously challenge the control of the state machine.

J. Trotman.

PAROCHIAL ORGANISATION AND THINKING

I MUST congratulate Gilmac on having the courage to " stick his neck out" in such a fashion as above. The interest taken by those both inside and outside the Party in this subject is out of all proportion to the meagre amount written on it. It is much to be regretted that some members still cling to the view that propagating Socialism consists only of analysing Capitalism. Those who are reluctant to talk of the future should remember that present disagreements about it are always likely to be resolved by fuller discussion of the issues involved.

Yet I must confess that I nearly always find descriptions of the future a disappointment— perhaps because their authors cannot help being influenced by the past and the present. I know that whatever Gilmac or I or any other socialist thinks the future will be like (and it would be very unimaginative of us if we had no mental picture of it) our visions, must necessarily be crude and somehow smaller than life. " To anyone who has at all adequately realised the significance of the past evolution of mankind, all our halting millennial dreams are by comparison puny and impotent; the retrospective vision of accomplished fact is the most fantastic of all Utopias."

Communities

Although he refers to communities as "large", everything he subsequently writes about them seems to show he really means " small'.

Chalets scattered about the country, self-supporting as far as possible, the horse and die sailing boat—I get the impression that these are the things Gilmac really likes, the motifs that he wishes to predominate. The addition of transport systems and machinery, denying that the communities would produce only for themselves—all these seem to be superimposed on the main picture as afterthoughts or concessions in a attempt to disarm criticism.

Travel

What particularly concerns me is the application of a principle, mentioned by Gilmac in ±e words "the world will have become a unit".

This concept of unity, wholeness, oneness,

(Comments on "What Socialism will be Like')

universality—call it what you will—is surely the essence of Socialism. It is inconceivable to me that people will be in any way parochial in their social organisation or in their thinking. Gilmac obviously has this in mind when he suggests that people will travel to other parts for temporary periods and extensively in their youth. But " in their youth " suggests to me that the norm will be little or no travel, and this impression is backed up by the methods of travel that he forecasts will be prevalent.

Gilmac sees horses and sailing boats ousting cars and aircraft for popularity. Let us leave aside the question of amusement and concentrate on the practical aspect. Any change in the means of transport—any change that is going to be more than a temporary phase or an isolated instance—is bound to be progress, that is, more efficient, more fit for its purpose and not less.

This question of travel is not in itself important, but is, I think, symptomatic of other features of society. In this connexion it should be noted that, whether or not we think it desirable to preserve the techniques of production that Capitalism has brought into being, there remains the element of necessity that may override other considerations. Marx did not underestimate this practical aspect:

" Men never relinquish what they have won, but this does not mean that they never relinquish the social form in which they have aquired certain productive forces. On the contrary, in order that they may not be deprived of the result attained and forfeit the fruits of civilisation, they are obliged, from the moment when the form of their intercourse no longer corresponds to the productive forces acquired, to change all their traditional social forms." Letter to Annenkov, Selected Correspondence, p.8

Universality

Any picture that I attempted to paint of the future would be coloured by a much greater degree of contact, awareness and knowledge than exists now or is suggested in Gilmac's notes. Universality is no mere idea in men's heads—it is rooted in material conditions. It will become an actuality when the idea of it is " in the air", and the form of society that will result will bear a direct relation to the

universal means used to bring it about.

As an example, let us take thsr dissemination of news. It is reasonable to suppose that, after elimination of " politics", society gossip, murders, etc., there will still be a demand for information about what is going on in the world—a demand that will probably be enhanced in other directions. In social organisation prior to Capitalism, "the world" consisted cf a tribe, a village, or at most a city. To-day, our news is largely national and, to a certain extent, international. With Socialism it will become world-wide, which does not necessarily mean the absence of more localised news. It is impossible to foretell what the means of mass communication will be, but it seems likely that there will be an increase rather than a diminution in the points of social contact.

Organic Unity

Perhaps a better word to describe the world than " unit " would be " organism ". This complex organism, which has grown from the single cell, is at present diseased, but the trouble is not to be remedied by removing some of the nerve fibres. When the treatment (social revolution) is given, the patient (humanity) won't become simpler—he will just be made to " work " better.

So "gigantic buildings, huge liners and other monstrous products of man's ingenuity " might conceivably be adapted to the needs of the new society. For it is not so much the size of the buildings that is monstrous, but the uses to which they are at present put. I am prepared to envisage some gigantic buildings under Socialism only because they might be more convenient in which to administer certain affairs than another type of building.

The world won't be a unity because lots of people in communities will think it is a unity. It will be so because material developments will have taken place (far more extensive than any of us can now forecast) that will knit people together in society as indissolubly as the separate cells in their bodies are knit together.

S.R.P.

PRODUCTION FOR USE—or Mass Production?

PRODUCTION FOR USE—or Mass Production?

What is Mass Production? It is that method of production where society is split up into more or less exclusive occupational groups and the work each group performs is broken down into its simplest process and each person becomes a detail worker.

To give an example—where most families

made their own bread, there was still division

of labour. But this simple division of labour

is not mass production. Mass production

methods are bread-making are only possible

when the vast majority of families, including the

mothers and daughters no longer bake bread.

Prior to mass production, thousands of mothers and daughters were making tens of thousands of loaves of bread, in fact plenty of bread—but it was not mass production of bread. Or.ce the mothers and daughters were taken into factories, offices, etc., other methods were required to produce the tens of thousands of loaves. A relatively few professional bakers and assistants were necessary.

In order that these relatively few people can turn out the bread formerly made by thousands of people, vast masses of machinery have to be made, machinery enabling the process of bread-making to be split up into its simplest opera-

tions and the labourers divided, classified and grouped according to these functions. These methods demand the centralising of the activity, such as is to be seen at Lyons' Cadby Hall, ' Hovis ", and " Wonderloaf " model bakeries.

Mass production methods demand a hierarchy of labour, from the labourer at the working-tool to the organising manager. It must be remembered that this splitting of the functions demands speed and authority in production and transportation.

Division of Labour

Comrade Parker, in his article " Will there be Mass Production?", writes, "division of labour is only harmful when excessive ". When he says this, he has granted me my whole case.

What are mass production methods but excessive division of labour?

Parker then says: " Further, however, it is argued that mass production necessarily involves pace-making, is exclusive to capitalism, and is inseparable from large towns. These are more controversial statements with which I for one, disagree."

Seeing that Marx has been quoted, may I be permitted some references?

" The foundation of every division of labour that is well-developed, and brought about by the exchange of commodities, is the separation between town and country." (K. Marx, Capital Vol. 1, p.345, Sonnenschein Edition.)

In case members doubt the wisdom of stating

bat the future will be regarding the manner

and methods of production within Socialist

society—that it is not "scientific" but merely

utopian:

" The abolition of the separation between town and country is no Utopia, it is an essential condition of the proportionate distribution of the greater industry throughout the country. Civilisation has left us a number of large cities, as an inheritance, which it will take much time and trouble to abolish. But they must and will be done away with, however much time, and trouble it may take." (F. Engels, " Landmarks of Scientific Socialism, p.244, Kerr Edition.)

" In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labour and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour has vanished, after labour has become not merely a means to live but has become itself the primary necessity of life, after the productive forces have also increased <vith the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flows more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banner from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." (" Critique of the Gotha Programme." K. Marx Selected Works, p.566, Vol. II.)

Whilst quoting Marx and Engels, I am prepared to agree that supporters of mass production may find other quotations that might appear to bear a different interpretation. This shows the futility of relying on any one person m expecting to find the 100% correct position in any one book. But what it does show is the childishness of the accusation that it is Utopian if one states that under socialism the excessive fivision of labour will not exist, and that town and country will be abo'.ished.

I sincerely hope that, now it is shown that Ac "masters" of scientific socialism advocated all these things, members will not dismiss the arguments by merely labelling them utopian. Of course, I am fully aware that "because Marx and Engels advocated these propositions” it does not make them correct.

Production for Use

In his article, Parker says: " There seems no reason why it should not be possible in a society in which people control their own conditions of work, for a machine to relieve arduous toil and yet not entail boredom." It would appear from this, that he thinks that machinery and mass production are the same

thing and, consequently, thinks that members who state that there will be no mass production methods under socialism are saying that all machinery will be abolished. This, of course, is nonsense.

In closing, he says, " but don't expect society to abandon social production of most chairs and tables." Here, again, it would appear that he equates social production with mass production—presumably there was no " social production" until mass production methods were employed!

I agree with Comrade Parker when he says he sees no reason why it should not be possible in a society in which people control their own conditions of work, for machines to relieye arduous toil and yet not entail boredom. But mass production methods preclude the operative from control of their work, compelling them to:

(1)Standardise the machine processes.

(2)Operate a single process.

(3)Standardise the products.

All three points of Parker's description of mass production, as contained in the encyclopedia to which he refers us, demand that people must submit absolutely to a central directing authority. To standardise the machine processes must produce the excessive division, of labour which Parker himself agrees is harmful.

To operate a single process produces boredom, and I certainly question whether it relieves arduous toil. Parker certainly gives us no evidence of this.

To standardise the product must mean dictation to the consumers as to what they must have. This is in opposition to a basic socialist principle—Production for Use. Production for use does not mean merely the absence of exchange; it also means that the needs of people will determine production.

Again, all these descriptions of mass production methods demand the development of mono-culture and the division of society into large towns and rural communities, which must prevent the all-round development of the individual.

Parker again shows that he does not know mass production methods when he sees them. When dealing with monotonous and repetitive work, he says, " Mass production is said to involve monotonous and repetitive work. So it docs. But so does a great deal of non-mass

production. I wouldn't like to argue that writing figures In a ledger all day is much less repetitive than operating an automatic machine."

Surely the clerk who is writing figures in a ledger all day is just as much engaged in mass production methods as the operator of an automatic machine.

Time Saving

Parker says, " Time is worth saving on any job under any system, because it enables us to undertake other jobs or to enjoy leisure."

Time saving does not mean the opposite of wasting time—it means doing everything in the shortest possible time. In fact, the people concerned with saving time are usually found trying to kill time. - Why does everybody want to do things in the shortest possible time? Because of the dictates of market production. It would be interesting to hear what Parker has in mind when he writes of leisure. Also, why should people within socialism want to " Save time from productive work in order to enjoy other experiences "?

The terms "productive work" and "leisure" can only exist when people are engaged in " getting of living ", i.e. productive work, and when a person is doing something for his own pleasure, hobby or recreation, called leisure. The terms have no reference to what is being done, but why it is being done.

Under socialism there will not be the condition* nor the idea of "getting a living". Socialism means to me a way of life in which people will have recognised that " the primary necessity of life is WORK." (Marx).

Then Parker tries his hand at speed. He says " Pace-making is certainly a feature under capitalism, but remember it is not the machine that sets the pace, it is the boss." Of course, it is the machine that sets the pace. Certainly it is the employer who agrees to the installation of the belt system, but once installed, the pace is set.

Mass production machinery and methods are a product of property society in which things and services are produced for a market. In society where there is no property, there can be no place for the whip as used in past society, nor its modern counterpart —• whipping-up machinery, and methods. People will work because they want to and will need no whips, no threats, no promises, no punishment, ho reward.

It is easy to write " There are many ways in which mass-production will be different: under socialist conditions," but nowhere in the article, or in discussions, have I been told anything about these differences which will make mass- production methods attractive within socialism. I do hope we shall hear from members about these differences.

From my point of view, mass production methods are even less attractive than the cartoon illustrating Parker's article. Some of us, however, can find solace in the fact that neither of these abominations will exist within society where ALL work is useful.

A. Turner.