A Fairly Complete Case Against Michelism
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | A Fairly Complete Case Against Michelism |
| Creator: | Jack Speer |
| Date(s): | April 27, 1938 (printed May 1938) |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Science Fiction |
| Topic: | Michelism, Communism, the Futurians |
| External Links: | Hosted online by fanac.org; Science Fiction Collector #19 pp. 15-20 (May 1938) |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
A Fairly Complete Case Against Michelism was a 1938 article by Jack Speer in which he argued against the recent Michelist movement in fandom, which was introduced by Donald A. Wollheim and John B. Michel's speech Mutation or Death! at the 1937 Third Eastern Science Fiction Convention.
A Fairly Complete Case... was rebutted by Robert A. W. Lowndes' A Better Case Against Michelism.
Summary
Speer argues that while the Futurians had good intentions, their movement was bound to fail because of its alignment with the Communist Party and the precept of revolution. He brings up Donald A. Wollheim's history of starting feuds in fandom, the impracticality of rallying the entirety of fandom behind Communism, and argues for incremental socialism along the lines of the New Deal. He closes by saying that science fiction fans should reject Michelism because of their natural tendency to be rational.
Text
EVER since it appeared on the scene --- before the word came to general use --- Michelism has been absolutely and completely wrong.No, I'll take that back. One thing, one only, about Michelism has been all right. Its intentions are good. The fans backing it sincerely believe that their proposal is the thing to do. But aside from that, the history of Michelism, from the time Wollheim rose to address the third Eastern Science Fiction Convention, to the present, is one long series of unfair tactics and mistaken ideas.
In considering Michelism, we must not confine ourselves to consideration of the resolution proposed at the Convention. Much more significant are Don Wollheim's article in NOVAE TERRAE, "Commentary" and other broadsides of the past few months. The chances are anyway, that the resolution will be presented in a stronger form at the World Convention next year, which being held in New York City will probably be [illegible] by any number of quasi [illegible] quasi Communists there to vote us into Michelism.
So far as I have been able to determine, no one except a group of New Yorkers knew ahead of time what was coming off. The speech "burst like a bombshell" and only extemporaneous opposition to it could hastily be [illegible]. Despite this the resolution was defeated. Following up their initial advantage, however, the Wollheimists bombarded fan mag after fan mag with their side of the question. Only recently has there been much done toward pointing out the weaknesses of the Michelist arguments. Ted Bruce Yerke, while endorsing Bolshevism, has shown that the fan nature precluded the possibility of regimenting them in a body behind any measure. And the Leeds SFA's Sociological Circle has distributed an outline of the Basics of the Federation of Progessive Socieities [sic] and Individuals which definitely is opposed to the revolutionary method of gaining reform. The present article is an attempt to cover the ground more completely.
IF I AM to be really complete, I must first mention the parliamentary error in the introduction of the motion at the Convention. There would be little point in doing this, except that a very similar situation is likely to arise next year. With all due respect to Mr. Rothman's chairmanship, I feel that that voluminous oratory was out of order until the motion itself had been presented. All the authorities seem agreed on this: that the first step in discussion must be a presentation of the motion to be debated. This was an important matter in this case, because a large part of Michel's speech as reported -- I have ordered a complete copy from the CPASF, but have not received it yet -- was irrelevant to the statements made in the resolution. My inquiries lead me to believe that had the resolution stood alone it would have been adopted almost as unanimously as the Kyle compromise was -- that the speech which must henceforth be considered along with the resolution, turned the majority against it. Had the resolution been stated at the beginning, subsequent happenings would have been entirely different. And the fans had a right to know what Wollheim was talking about.
For the next point, I ask you to suppose for a while that the resolution passed. Then what? Yes, then what? The Convention, which speaks for fandom, has committed itself to a declaration that may scare off many newcomers who would otherwise presently come to see our viewpoint. And, on the other hand, what good has it done? What possible difference, as a practical matter, does it make whether fandom has said yes or no? Do we all then join the Communist Party and boost Earl Browder for President? Or, more immediately, do we start contributing money to the movement? What progressive, active program has the Michelism faction to offer now? If the real purpose of the motion was merely to make the fans take an interest in ideological controversies, why did Wollheim's group resort to all that secret maneuvering in an attempt to stampede the Convention before an opposition case could take form? Yes, suppose that we have accepted Michelism, now what? A majority of something over a score of fans have, we are supposing, approved the motion -- what a tremendous, magnificent army of recruits for the great Cause! Yet, as Yerke has pointed out, it is not to be expected that all fans will back any single proposition. The Wollheim solution, proposed in NOVAE TERRAE, is that we purge our ranks of all those that disagree -- the Ackerman sycophants of Esperantic muddle; the Taurasi group of dabblers; the Philadelphia fans, who "will not think;" and others. Despite his great experience on this line, I seriously question Mr. Wollheim's ability to carry out this project, commendable though it may be.
WE COME now to a consideration of that toward which Michelism aims -- a Soviet America. As Michel and Wollheim have declared a number of times their membership in the Communist Party and have stated their intention of getting fans to support that party -- Don's "Commentary" said Michelism believes America's only hope is Communism -- let us examine the aims and methods of Communism. I have not gone to the trouble of looking up the Communist platform, but I anticipate no correction when I say that Communism insists on Revolution. They hold the opinion that the abuses of the present day can be swept away only through a rising of the Masses such as they say occurred in Russia. Do you agree? It is on this point that I most strongly oppose Communism. The Communist belief is that the moneyed classes are so strongly entrenched and in control of the world that it will take all the grief of a Revolution to cast them out. In reply, I wish first to quote Robert Quillen's Paragraph, "The new set-up is unfair. Nobody knows what government will do to business, but everybody used to know what business would do to the government." That illustrates better than anything else I know of the changed state of affairs. The most powerful group in American today is not the Fifty Families--not the Munitions Makers--but the Democratic Party, controlled by the New Deal. And the New Deal is working for the same things we desire. And barring the faint possibility of a radical shift in the political party line-up, the Democratic Party is certain to continue in power for at least another six years, and if successful in this interval, for a long time to come. Yet the Communist set of theories has not changed much since the days of Karl Marx and scarcely at all since Lenin's time, despite the fact that Russia itself has retreated from pure Communism. It is the Communists who have not kept their minds clear and watched the world. Yet Wollheim and his satellites are asking that we cast our fortunes with the Communists and risk our future on a small group whose doctrines are already obsolescent.
"If not Communism, what?" shouts Robert Forsythe in a pamphlet distributed by DAW's Committe [sic] for the Political Advancement of S-F, which we must take to represent the Committee's views. No, "if not this, what?" has never been a good argument. Logic as taught in High School would be sufficient to show the utter foolishness of this attitude -- that a person, without examining Communism itself, should, because he thinks everything else is going to the dogs, embrace the Reds. The scientific attitude, "A thing is not so until proven so" still holds. In a minute we shall look further into this thing called Communism.
But first let me answer Forsythe's "If not Communism, what?" The answer is evolutionary socialism, by which mean smost of the world's great advances have come about, and the means asked for by Wells, Stapledon, Huxley, et al for achieving the aims listed in the Basis. This is also the type of socialism asked by the American Socialist Party -- a group which, while much larger than the communist, is still too small to hope for much but suggestions from. Briefly, the evolutionary socialists ask that governments gradually take over the vital industries as fast as government can be made capable of managing them--first the utilities--many steps have already been taken in this direction--then closer regulation of agriculture, textiles and housing, and the simultaneous protection of the individual against sudden strokes of misfortune: by bank insurance, Social Security and so on. Similarly, the Basis asks that a World State come gradually into being. The advantages of these methods are at once clear. For one thing, the strife and destruction of a civil war are avoided-- and you must remember that seldom, if ever, does a government instituted after a revolt stand long; there is a full generation usually of fumbling and bloodshed, and more often than not an eventual return to at least the form of government of the old days. Evolutionary socialism obviates all this. Moreover, reform, under it, will come in naturally. If you are a socialist and believe in democracy, you must take some sort of evolutionary viewpoint, for when it operates, changes come only as fast as the majority desires: when the majority desires no further changes for a while, the movement pauses and consolidates. The Communists, on the other hand, demand that you accept their view on things and work for its realization as a whole thing, egotistically believing that they have discovered the perfect system.
And here we see one of the greatest disadvantages of Bolshevist theory. All their actions are based on the idea that Revolution must come. Thus their aim is to make the state of things not better, but as unbearable as possible. Acting on this concept, they foment labor troubles; and what though the individual laborer does lose by a strike? The day of Revolution has been hasted! We see, then, why DAW, while approving the idea of simplified spelling, insists that now is not time for it. It would, you see, make the world a little more bearable and the Revolution would not be received quite so enthusiastically. And so on and on; that is bust a recent example that came to my notice. Communism, then, is a movement downward instead of upward.
When I started this article, I intended going on and considering Communism aside from its methods; however, this article is so long now Balty may have to cut it, so I'll let it go for a while.
Some of the points advanced may not stand up under rebuttal -- undoubtedly there will be refutation -- and you probably do not entirely agree with me. No matter. On any of the main points -- the question of what comes next; the impossibility of swinging fandom entirely into line; the unnecessity of Revolution; the destructive Communist methods; the unworthiness of Russian Communism itself -- I appeal to the reasoning mind of which every stf fan is possessed. Do not adopt Michelism.