Voices of Europe; G.D.H. Cole

Voices of Europe produced and recorded by Milton Mayer in cooperation with the University of Chicago under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters. And now Milton Mayer Professor GDH Cole of London is one of the makers of modern England a lifelong socialist and the founder of the movement which brought the present socialist or semi socialist policies into being in Great Britain. In addition he is famous as one of the founders of adult education in his country the workers Education Association. And as the author of the monumental and definitive history of socialism. Like so many Englishman Professor Cole is

justice braai intellectually today in his advanced years as he was when the Fabian movement began. He is nevertheless one of the last survivors of that group of radical theorists that included the wearer's H.G. Wells and Bernard Shaw a group that set about more than half a century ago to making war and over. Professor Cole what is socialism. And I can tell you what it is I can only tell you how I regard it and what I think most important about it. Please do. We'll let me start by quoting the present leader of the Labor Party who gets killed he says socialism is about equality and I've really called you do you agree. Well. And I understand that all men are created equal.

That's called not equal in all respects but although there is a basic human equality that ought to be recognized as extending to a human being. Yes. Is it possible for a society to be constructed along the lines of this recognition without ending interference with the basic human inequality. Well you can have a kind of society that aims at stretching the elements of equality all wonderings it stressing the elements of inequality and as a socialist I want the society that stresses the the equality said you can't make it absolute of course. Well now besides being a socialist. You're in a starry eyed. And preeminently an historian of socialism. Are you prepared to say Professor Cole that the history of socialism or of the socialist movement

provides any basis for the assumption that man is in now of a socialist animal to make the socialist. I feel a sense of oh I don't think it provides any evidence against that view. I don't quite know how it could provide evidence for it hasn't been enough experience of the actual working of socialist institutions for a competent answer. And yet in the name of socialism there have been institutions of considerable magnitude Iraq had which turned out to be totalitarian. You mean Russia for example or China or Germany or Italy. I don't agree that this is been a risk to the system in Germany or we should do is to tell you Teddy an intuitionist when no I say in the name of socialism.

We knew doom enough national socialism not here because that was not socialism at all but did its deadly enemy. Well this is why I asked you in the beginning of our discussion for a definition. Or we might go to Russia if you want and and let me ask you if Russia is originated as as a socialist along socialist lines. Theoretical Well I think Russia is a socialist society as it exists today or been larger so I shouldn't think it to be a much better society than the Minicons. All the British. Oh I don't know many things I should complain about in the working of the communist system in the middle of that last remark of yours I said. What I want to say that again with you and explicating when I say Well I mean that in Russia you would have got a system in

which the means of production are socially and are used on the whole for the general common advantage. The evidence of that is the enormous growth that has been in education nor most opportunities to be new for social development among the Russian people and the fact that poor as Russia still is the lot of the ordinary Russian That's to say the parable was the present and is now partly present and partly an industrial population is immensely better than it was under Sorenson. You're speaking of his material. No not mainly I'm thinking much more of his opportunities for cultural development. I'm thinking of the enormous public to read books in Russian and the enormous growth of education both in the cultural end of the technical side what of his color what are his political development.

Well that is pretty backwoods still no doubt. And. I strongly dislike and disapprove of the repression of freedom of speech in political matters. It is against that I think there is a great deal of freedom outside the field which people who talk about communism too often leave out of account for example. Well I again what I was saying Form the people who read books freely. They have a very wide cultural life as a great deal of going to theaters going to entertainments and a great deal I think now of popular origination cultural system materials. You see Professor call when I. Want to have tempted to ask you is whether or not in terms of historical socialism and you yourself are willing to accept of present Russia present day Russia as a

socialist society. Isn't there something in the. In the public can crawl of the means of production which leads in the life of leaves to totalitarianism. I don't think so. I think the various ways of having public control of the means of production and personally I'm strongly opposed to having a general system of nationalisation in which the state takes over everything. I want to have public control but to have it in great number of different forms. A good example I think co-operative control is a perfectly valid form of public social control. And I also want to break up as much as I can so as to have few things run on a national scale with large bureaucratic organizations and a great deal of autonomy for local groups and functional groups. But then this is this is your own theory or socialism and not a

rational theory or practice as I know I agree. I'm not a communist and I'm an anti communist and I think the Russians have made great many mistakes but I don't think there was much possibility of building on the basis of rockwork Russian society was before 1970. Anything except a strongly centralized system in the first instance. My hope is that to become more and more decentralized and more more liberalized as it too settles down. Would would you know this is a beating your wife question. Would you have taken the same power and position toward national socialism whether in the hope that it would have become a more liberalized and be nationalized as it settled down. Not at all because it was a fundamentally evil thing whose its aims were evil not only its methods the means adopted be admitted in many respects

but Naziism was a thoroughly viable creed from start to finish. I wonder if you would be able to make a distinction if not between socialism man fascism. At least between socialism as it has appeared historically and fascism as it has appeared historically. In actual experience say in Russia and in Germany by way of contrast. I'm not sure that I knew what you mean. Well let me say that there are a great many Americans who feel that the distinction between what has happened and is happening in Russia and what has happened and is no longer happening in Germany or in Italy and in some other places that the distinction is a very small one and she was to me it is a distinction most

fundamental in complete character. I find it difficult to see any resemblance between the two. I suppose actually as we look at it in the States we see in both cases of totalitarian political rule. And no public control and no cooperative control and no no none of the basic freedoms with which social freedoms or at least political freedoms with which you English and we Americans preoccupy ourselves. Sure yes I suppose that is largely true but doesn't cover anything like the whole of the grown. There are many other freedoms besides political freedoms and the many values that are outside the economic and political sphere. And

yes for example I mean take one thing only the Nazi creed was an anti-Semitic group. Well any kind of reseal is and will be anti Semitism or anti negro ism all that is to me is just plain wickedness but I suppose it might be suggested that a communist society and practice or at least in theory could have a kind of racialism of its own directed against an economic class and having a sane policy of extermination toward one economic class as saying not National Socialism did toward the Jews. So that would be racism and you may be a bad thing but it certainly is not is not racism. I understand of course that. This is only a figure but if through no fault of my own I am a member of an economic class. As

through no fault of my own I'm a member of a religious or racial group. I might find myself in trouble under a communist society just as readily as I might under a fascist mind and I daresay you would but in my view Richmond ought to be exterminated by which I do. Being able to be cute and I think they ought to cease to be rich and I don't regard it as persecution. Take away property from wealthy people which doesn't which doesn't appear to be they have any rights it is quite different from persecuting human beings because they happen to be Jews or the Negroes whatever they may be. But again historically people do have property to which as you said they have no special rights. Historically these people have been persecuted just as racial minorities have been persecuted under fascism or Nazi or agree who disapprove stupidly of the cruelty element the ruthlessness

11 has beaten in the treatment of Culex. I think that was unnecessary for the revolution. I think they could have carried through the necessary social changes in a much more humanitarian way. But couldn't you be just as tower and you'll forgive my taking the. Way our car has the our balance position. Couldn't you be just a start of National Socialism and say that you Reg rather than strongly oppose the violence and cruelty of that part of its policy. Course I do but I also oppose it objectives. It glorifies war. War is a horrible thing. It too glorifies the state. The claim of the state over the individual. I am a strong individualist I believe in the basic claim of the individual to live his own life. I can't see anything in the ideal of national

solutions with which I have any sympathy at all. But in what respect does does present day Russia not call our fire war our exult the state over the individual. And I certainly can't see the present day Russia glorifying war if they glorified war they would be the world would have been at war many years ago. And she knew it wouldn't talk to any of the Russians have not done all they possibly can to maintain the peace. Yeah some of the other hand I suppose it might have been said you've got to go on forgiving me. And this is a professor call it might have been said that the Germans under Hitler did all that they could to maintain the peace as long as they could gobble up sections of the world that they needed either without war or with small wars such as the one if we go back to Russia now the one in Korea

well before should not agree that the Russians were responsible or do it at all exclusively responsible for the Korean War. Well let me interrupt and say that as a good Nazi and I hope our listeners will understand that I'm not even as a good Nazi I might say that the Nazis were not responsible or primarily responsible for the second world war but that the Treaty of Versailles was over that they were not responsible for their taking over Austria but that they were compelled to do it. Well I shouldn't feel the difference if they did see that I need need isn't the answer just plain damned nonsense. In a way I always really doubt that they didn't positively glorify war so huge it was a new clean experience for human beings. This side I think we could agree on and in my in

my pretended role as a Nazi I'd have to confess that they did but I'm not sure of that. Can we say that this is either exclusively. Or distinctively a feature of national socialist or fascist totalitarianism. Oh no. Historically human beings were fortunately him shooting themselves extremely proud nations. You screen the EP to go to war but couldn't it be. Couldn't this glorification of war also be a concomitant of communism couldn't it be I say let's not argue now whether or not it has been in Russia but couldn't it be historically a concomitant of coming. I suppose it could do but I see no reason to suppose that would lose all that heritage. That would be a first class way of maintaining

as glorification of war always hears of the fidelity of the people to the to the status quo which in that case might be the communist status quo. As a matter of fact I doubt that very much. And I should have thought the Russian people had quite enough war to last them some time and that if the Russian people thought that their rulers were glorifying war their rulers would be out and out of that is quite rapidly. But then one would have thought that a great many other peoples recently would have had would have had enough war to last them for some time and and still we see some of them who shall be nameless Of course willing to at least indulge in and some of the policies which in the past have been known to lead to war. Well I don't think there's any country in any large country at any rate in which

public opinion is favorable to war now. Certainly not in this country. I should have said not in America anymore than in Russia or in China. There are much you do think that there have been countries or societies in the past in which public opinion was in favor or. I was in favor of taking the risks of war. It was due to its objectives. That's so useful paired to contemplate war for aggressive aims. Yes to go to if I may use a recently popular phrase to to carry the country to the brink of war if necessary in order to achieve the purposes of national policy. Yes certainly. Isn't there some connection between my economic dependence upon you. Let me say if I am economically dependent upon you and my

making you happy or my convincing you that I am on your side because mine are all real women who is employed by a public corporation isn't dependent on the government the government the president on him. Government can make you more undermines all the rule ways. True but the government even approaches him singly and threatens him with the loss of his job can do pretty much what it wants with and the government can't do that with it evolved nationalized industries. Well no you're speaking of course of the nationalized industries in Britain but earlier in our discussion you said that if I hope I'm quoting you correctly that you thought that the the present social policies in Russia were superior to those of America or Britain. I'm sure you're not

contradicting yourself but I would like you to clarify. That statement in terms of what seems to be your satisfaction with the with the procedures of nationalized industry in Britain. I don't think I said that the policies of Russia was a period of the policies of the United States or Britain what I said was the social system of Russia was superior in practice or in theory in practice and in practice neither of us is in Russia at the moment. In practice are you of the view that a man who is economically dependent upon a government owned or operated industry is not politically dependent upon it. Grant you that he is not in England. Clearly a government has considerable power

with Odin's an industry or not. But I do think the fact of government ownership of the industry and the government is part of the individual. If the government has a larger power over the individual it is more because it operates through secret police or something of that sort. But it doesn't make any difference whether the industry is publicly owned or not. From that point of view when you say here I am back to my my question about any locked ability. On what basis now let's speak historically for a moment on what basis Professor call are you able to believe to convince yourself and to convince me I hope that socialism is possible with out the development of the secret police system or are any more than it is possible to conceive of the development of our private industrial control without

without a private industrial police system without a company police system to make sure in the latter instance. That the workers are loyal to the company and in the former instance to make sure that the workers are loyal to the government or to the system. The social system. You certainly can't link up with the existence of the secret police with socialism and in the case of Russia the secret police is an old design Institution here in terms of them. I regret that it was taken over and developed by the revolution but it is certainly not something to root out of socialism or is inseparably connected with socialism is socialism making any headway in the world I suppose you would say it was and if you take the present day Russia to be a socialist society making headway in the world I think. Yes if you would take a long run view you take a

short run view I should say at the moment nobody little is making headway in Britain. I might think in terms of trains or the just short term fluctuations. Let's talk about friends. Yes I think so. In the States. No no. Why not. World because American capitalist society is very highly violent society. Great technical efficiency does not by any means yet exhausted its possibilities. And also because I think the American people having come from many different Resul national sources and coalesced into a community which was getting wealthy very fast has fallen into the belief that Wilf is the even to be pursued and has therefore largely submerged the natural human instincts of corporate

business and become a very highly acquisitive society and one which we all are well know and or I hope not. Professor call question which you had asked and I'm sure which you have answered before nor is it asked. For the first time in history is socialism in evitable no nothings inevitable. Would you say on this basis that you are not a Marxist. I'm certainly not a Marxist. When I have a b m of Marxist school Pity Bush were idealistic. I remember speaking of petty bourgeois idealists are what happens to all socialists professors or will some of them like me stay socialists and never have any

say even the slightest tendency to become list issues to the advancing age. But not very many. I think most people tend to get more conservative as they get older. It's not by any means universal and some of my best friends today are rude solution is to it as faithful socialists as ever be. And some are not. Some I'm not and if it's a either a physiological or psychological or perhaps of necessity almost to become more conservative as one grows older. Are we not to go on having a world full of Young Socialists and old conservatives. Yes except the probably not certain the probably the old conservatives who call themselves socialists of the future so now I wonder if you could say that again very slowly and more elaborately for me. What I mean is the conservatism as a gospel will probably die out

all together and you will get socialist to a more advanced and socialist to a less advanced. And the people who now call themselves conservatives will most likely come to call themselves socialists but will belong to the right wing of the solutions movement. Is is socialism necessarily limited to materialism. I should hope not. My main reason for being a socialist has nothing to do with NATO. I didn't mean to put the question in that elementary form. R are. But there is a suspicion abroad that socialism and capitalism are closer to one another than they know to the extent that both of them are concerned only with the production and distribution of material goods. No I regard socialism as essentially a way of life and one of the things I dislike

about capitalism is that it is superior to just to just conserve with the making of money. The converting the whole process of production into production not so much of goods as products and you're convinced on the basis of your considerable experience of human nature that man is not necessarily and inherently a non socialist animal. I should not certainly not say that he was naturally and inherently I do socialist or non-socialist terrible. He obviously has any social impulses in him as well as socially impulses and I think it makes a great deal of difference which of those impulses the actual structure of society and its educational system encourage. Thank you very much Professor. Voices of Europe was produced and recorded in Europe by Milton Mayer in cooperation with the University of Chicago under a grant from the educational

television and radio center. This program is distributed by the National Association of educational broadcasters. This program has been introduced by Martin Prysner This is the end. A B Radio Network.