In Defense of Michelism

Meta
Title:	In Defense of Michelism
Creator:	Donald A. Wollheim
Date(s):	May 1938
Medium:	Print
Fandom:	Science Fiction
Topic:	Michelism, Leftism in Fandom
External Links:	Hosted online. Imagination! #8 pg 8.
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

In Defense of Michelism was a 1938 article by Donald A. Wollheim. Wollheim had recently delivered Mutation or Death!, a speech written by John B. Michel that called on science fiction fans to join together as part of the upcoming Communist revolution. Wollheim and his fellow Futurians were now pressing their case in various fanzines. In this case he was responding to an article by T. Bruce Yerke, A Reply to "Michelism", which expressed support for the general ideals of Michelism but felt science fiction fandom was an unrealistic base on which to found a revolution.

Yerke's "Reply" had been written in response to an article of Wollheim's printed in January 1938, Commentary on the November "Novae Terrae". By May, Wollheim had reversed course somewhat on his call to remove members of the Esperanto movement from fandom; he now allowed that they were Michelists in their own way, but cautioned that they shouldn't spend too much time focusing on Esperanto. By December of 1939 he would also reverse course on his feelings about the isolationist movement as expressed in In Defense of Michelism.

Text

T. Bruce Yerke's "Reply to Michelism" (Apr) leaves me with a mess of conflicting impressions, After several paragrafs hedging around the outskirts of the Michelist position he ends with the conclusion that the world is inescapably headed for either (a) a war which will end civilization (& probably mankind including TBY) or (b) a socialist revolution which despite possible bloodshed is the only hope for any furtner existence & progress. This is quite correct; is indeed the very basis of the Michelist argument.

Bruce Yerke believes it not for the science fiction ranks to accomplish this result. Again he is correct. The 75 or thereabouts active fans (I am not so optimistic about our numbers as he) certainly aren't going to remake the world by themselves. The socialist revolution, if there is to be one, will be made by millions & millions of perfectly ordinary people. Those multitudes will arrive, as in many places they already have, at those conclusions by other methods than that of Yerke, myself or other fans. Our small group arrives at those thots concerning our little planet principally by reason of our idealism & Utopian instincts. But our conclusion is quite the same as that of the millions who arrive thru the more unpleasant route of unemployment, persecution &c.

The whole argument boils down to whether or not we fans can do even the tiniest little bit toward helping along that solo chance of saving our own world. Now, whether Yerke, Speer & other head-in-the-clouds fans like it or not the fact still remains that we happen to be living on this planet NOW—in the year 1938 & presumably still decades before space-flite (assuming civilization survives the next 5 years). & whether TBY likes it or not the events of this utterly insignificant & petty little planet with its puling 2-logged parasites are just close enuf to bash brother Bruce's imaginative little brains out or blow his guts about with hi explosives or cut off his supply of victuals until after a while the blood ceases to circulate thru his gray matter & his science fiction daze SUDDENLY STOPS. You see, we fans, tho we may very well like to, just can't take an isolationist position toward the whole of Planet 3. Since that remains an incontestable fact the only thing we can do to save our faces (& bodys) is to try to do what little we can to help.

& that, my friend, is what was said at the 3d Eastern Convention & is being repeated by growing numbers of Thinking Fans everywhere. Now Michelism is not a party nor a new political program (nor did it ever claim to be). It's merely a state of mind, characterized first by the fan's having reacht the same conclusions Yerke reacht, & 2d by realizing that since we can't remove ourselves from the effects of this world conflict we must enter it & do our bit. In his own way Ackerman—& even Yerke—is as an Esperantist a definite Michelist. The work the Esperantists do in teaching the ideal of world-fellowship adds its share to the forces fighting darkness. We Michelists ask nothing more of them save perhaps that they cooperate a little more with similarly minded fans everywhere. Even if such fans are always in a minority that is no excuse for betraying your own convictions & playing slacker.

Nor do I see anything contradictory in my position in regards the Peace Pledge Union. As Dorothy Thompson said over the radio the other day, whether we litas it or not tho US (or GB) is a part of a world system & we cannot remove ourselves from it. The Peace Pledge, like the isolationist movement here, is an attempt to deny that, The purely negative pacifist position is one the surest ways to war, giving as it does complete freedom of action to those nations openly praising & advocating war—the Fascist ones. Sincere as the Pacifists may be their reasoning is hopelessly (& murderously) false.

One word in closings Yerke & Speer may like tho idea of a "benevolent dictator" but if they will pay a little more attention to the complete facts & details of history they will find there never really has been any such combination. Unless they prefer to think Feudalism managed it. They certainly must be very queer stf fans that would want a return to 1000 years ago!

New Attack on Michelism

Fred Shroyer followed on the next page with a response called New Attack on Michelism:

I should imagine from what I have heard & read relative to Michelism that it is merely a pastel pink shade derived from the more virile & certainly more strateforward Communisticrimson. The whole mess strikes me as another mild perturbation in the proverbial teapot, another plaintive blare from the too-too daring lefts.

What in the name of the Necronomicon SCIENCE FICTION has to do with Michelism I don't know. I suppose; however, had Wollheim been a stampcollector he'd've pled his party in the name of stampcollecting. Sic semper—

Now I am not so pessimistic as Yerke & certainly not so ready to offer the only panacea for world ills as Wollheim. Nevertheless I do have a philosophy of sorts & it is as far removed from Wollheim's flagwavings & Come the Revolutions as Los Angeloe is from New York, home of the latterday worldsavers. &, too, it has the advantage of being a rather simple philosophy. I mention this outlook of mine not for any desire of airing my ego but simply for the purpose of offering a point of comparison...

[...]The point is: Does man need saving? Man is a rather simple sort of animal, upholsterd a bit & slitely inconvenienced by having to walk erect on 2 legs stead of loping along on 4. These superficialitys, I think, may well be disregarded for upon analyzation he is found to have in slitely warpt & artificial variations the same basic lusts, greed, loyaltys & traits our canine friend Rover displays. When he is well fed he grunts & is happy. When his Mother is called a lady who never refused an improper proposal he fites. When one of his country's ships is sunk he needs only the beat of a drum & the blare of a bugle to make him grab a gun & yell "Where's that $%! !#?¿&! babykiller---!" Still man is a rather likeable sort of beast. He is more or loss an individual. One (m)animal likes Lovecraft, another swears by Schachner, another enthuses over Charles fort. One conclusion is inevitable: Man is no cog but rather a homogeneous creature that never will fit, click & vibrate with all other man. It is in failing to realize this that Michelists, Communists & all others of their ilk are doomd to failure...

MICHELISM teaches worldfellowship I am told. Worldfellowship! Bleach for me, Wollheim, all Negros & other colord races til they be white as I. Uproot all religiousuperstitions, the product of ages, in minds of the little yellow brethern, hotentots &c, until they believe as I. Convince all races that their nationalistcredos are wrong & that they should adopt mine. When you have finisht with these Augean stables, Wollheim. ..I shan't join you for I shall be no more! The sun will have died eons ago & earth will be cosmic dust in the eyes of Lovecraft's Gods!

Stop War? How—by gibbering Communism? "Why Not Try God?"? or the Oxford Movement? or Couéism? Can you stop hunger by generous doses of Marx? Can you kill desire by reciting the precepts of Buddha? Marx's little lost brother, Jesus, proved the fallacy of your system; Russia proved the impossibility of your wish-projection; & countless little cooperative communitys rang the deathknell of your fancys. There will be wars & more wars: Wars to save Democracy—wars to save the Constitution—wars to End wars! & wars to do all sorts of things. Men will be blown up, citys will be wreckt & women who survive will continue to bear children who in turn will wage Wars to save Things. Tragic? Not at all! Merely "pendulation" if you'll pardon a coinage.

Laissez-faire —find a belief, be intellectually honest with yourself & realize man's limitations & basic immutability. Dream; but don't be too optomistic about finding your dreams when you awake. Find little escapes to relieve the monotony of mere living, be they Demon rum, women, religion or science fiction—it makes no difference. &--quit being a God in a pigsty!

Fred Shroyer (as Erick Freyor): New Attack on Michelism. Imagination! #8 pg 7.

Responses

[...]Mr. Freyor apparently has no faith in man's ability & does not recognize any such thing as progress or change. He sums up these beliefs (or disbeliefs) by stating that all that can be done under such circumstances is to flee to a dreamworld. Since he does not recognize progress, nor the possibility of progress, his dreams must be forever futile. Tho we science-fictionists dream, we base our dreams on science—which is man's knowledge—& on a firm conviction that changes will occur & progress continue. Since this is so, we refuse to give up hope. & when we examine our present world & recognize the crossroads facing us today, we cannot stand by...we must do our part. Our answers vary: Communism, Socialism, Esperantism. But they have many items in common: They all demand the contination of Progress. They all believe that things CAN BE DONE. Knowing this, we are going to keep our flags flying & fite for Humanity. As for you, if you have no faith in a finer future & have no regard for an ugly present, why not carry your beliefs to the only logical conclusion? You can Escape PERMANENTLY for a dime's worth of liquid in any drugstore--!

Donald A. Wollheim: In Defense of Progress. Imagination! #9 pp 8-9 (June 1938)

Walter E. Marconette agreed with Shroyer that a government like Communist Russia's was a bad thing, but felt that mankind had made great strides in eradicating war compared to the past. Jack Speer defended his own idea of a benevolent dictator, citing the examples of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Tamerlane, among others. Fred Shroyer rejoined once again in favor of individual freedom over the possibility of revolution, and finished:

That 10c-drugstore-permanont-escape has aroused interested inquirys in the composing room of "Madge"—which is directly above a drugstore! ACKERMAN, amongst others, wishes to know what you ask the prescription clerk for. (It must be awful to be Notorious No. 1 in the eyes of Fandamn.) Personally, I prefer that $2.49 (plus tax) escape that you also buy at drugstores. (In a bottle, brother, in case you're "awful slow to 'catch on'.") It's like a trip to Russia: You can always come back...............

Fred Shroyer: In Defense of Progress. Imagination! #9 pg 12 (June 1938)

In the next issue of Imagination!, the editors announced that the Michelism debate had been shelved, by a majority vote taken by the LASFL. Upon learning this, John B. Michel, the movement's namesake, wrote in to ask "whether you people are sincere workers for a better world or just an inane bunch of semi-psuedo-intellectuals playing around with ideas you only half-comprehend or fail to understand at all. Is it censhorship?" Guest editor Charles Hornig replied that Imagination! was a non-partisan science fiction zine, not a Communist publication, and that "Your tone in discussing the situation is ridiculously dramatic. Don’t try to make peace-loving science-fiction into bloody politics."

Robert A. W. Lowndes also had a letter printed stating Shroyer's opinions ran counter to everything that science fiction stood for:

...A science-fiction publication cannot afford to extend its broadness of policy to such an extent that it will print articles sabotaging science-fiction itself and trying to prove that everything science-fiction stands for and believes in to be false. Science-fiction has its very roots in the belief of progress: to deny or attempt to disprove that man has made, is making, will make, or is capable of making progress is to divorce oneself completely from science-fiction and everything pertaining to the same.

IF Mr. Shroyer thinks that humanity is rutted permanently, and has ever been so, certainly he has a right to say so. You comprehend, I do not deny him the right to express his views. But I do censure you for aiding and abetting such anti-progressive activities by publishing them in a magazine whose very title proclaims the constant development and evolution of mankind.

Robert A. W. Lowndes: To the Point. Imagination! #10 pg 17. July 1938.

Michel responded with Speer-Shroyer and Company in March of 1939, and Lowndes referenced the debate in his 1940 history The Michelist Movement in American Fandom.

Three pages was entirely too much room to give to the Michelism argument; I'm glad to see that mention of the thing is hereafter tabooed.

Dick Wilson: Creepy Radio Show. Imagination! #10 pg 17. July 1938.

MARVELOUS move this eradicating of Michelism from IMAGINATION! I don't see where anyone gets any interest out of them. If you will read over all the Michelist literature you will come to the not-too-amazing conclusion that the so-called Michelists don't know what Michelism is themselves; and that they admit a world state is one of their minor objects; if the world state is one of their minor objects, then there is no difference apparent between Michelism and Communism or any other radical tendency. Michel is a Communist and makes no bones over the fact. This all boils down to the simple fact of -- What's the big idea of featuring Communism in IMAGINATION! ? The Communists have their own journals.

Sam Moskowitz: Michelism and Communism. Imagination! #10 pg 18. July 1938.

AS to Michelism--I think it's O.K. No matter how little, it does its part toward making the world a better place to live in.

Larry Farsaci: Opinions Differ. Imagination! #10 pg 18. July 1938.

...ALL of which boils down to; if you are socialistically inclined (and I am); don't waste your time supporting a lost cause. (Yes, I mean you!) Instead, put whatever support you have behind a socialistic group that has a chance to succeed--the evolutionary socialistic New Deal, which happens to be in control of the Democratic Party and the United States of America, and which is trying mighty hard to bring us the 'scientific-socialistic' state. Dragging in the however-highly-desirable World State simply muddles the issue.

IF Mr. Wollheim could only realize it, almost every magazine and newspaper in the country, except the impotent Catholic press, is anti-Fascist. And if they also be anti-Communist—well, his argument has at any rate lost its force.

Jack Speer: Wollheim and War. Imagination! #10 pg 19. July 1938.

Then pass I gently over Dick Wilson and Azygous (whom I know who is, heh-heh)... to reach the wondrous words of Robert Lowndes, with whom I agree completely and in fact incessantly. But following him and breathing hotly down his neck is our old friend Moskowitz again, without whom I can pleasurefully do. Few things would please me more than to spend paragraphs on Sammy's multifarious mistakes, but rather than ruin this thing's already vanishingly slight possibility of publication, I skip it....

Litterio Farsaci strikes the nail on the noggin with his OK on Michelism. If, as he says, it 'does its little part toward making the world a better place to live in', it fulfills its purpose, and therefore justifies its existence. No?

Fred Pohl: Letter printed in Imagination! #11, pp 19-20. Aug. 1938.