Comrade Marcy, writing as Jack Morton, suggests that young Socialists prepare for the world of public organizing by first establishing Socialist debating societies.

‘Debating’ by Jack Morton (Mary E. Marcy) from Industrial Socialist Review. Vol. 13 No. 9. March, 1913.

PERHAPS nothing prepares the young speaker for soap-boxing so well as local debating clubs. This statement is based upon the supposition that he is well informed on the three salient points of Marxism, summed up in three cardinal divisions. To quote from Comrade Charles Rice’s excellent article in the December REVIEW:

1. Historical materialism or the materialist conception of history, often erroneously called economic interpretation of history and sometimes referred to as economic determinism. 2. The theory of the class struggle. 3. Marxian economics.

The two first doctrines, that is the materialist conception of history and the class struggle theory, are usually and briefly stated together as a coherent whole. To quote Engels (preface to the Communist Manifesto, German edition, 1883): “In every historical epoch, the economic production (that is the mode of production and exchange. Translator) and the social organization necessarily following from it form the basis upon which is built up the political and intellectual history of that epoch, accordingly all history (since the dissolution of primitive communal ownership of land) has been the history of class struggles, struggles between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes at the different stages of social evolution; this struggle, however, has now reached a stage in which the exploited and oppressed class–the proletariat –cannot emancipate itself from (the rule of. Translator) the class–the bourgeoisie–that exploits and oppresses it without, at the same time and once for all emancipating all society from exploitation, oppression and class struggles.”

According to historical materialism, all written history can be understood only in the final analysis, by considering as the basis the economic structure of a given epoch–slavery, feudalism, or capitalism–that is the mode of production and exchange of the means of life prevalent in that epoch.

We wish particularly to call attention, in this course, to this series of articles now running in the REVIEW. Note the Class Struggle, page 476, December number and Marxian Economics, page 550, January issue. These articles will prove particularly enlightening to the young student of Marx.

Local debating clubs should be organized in every city, town and village in the country. One night every week should be set apart for debates and the subjects announced at least two weeks in advance. This will give the opposing sides time to prepare.

Be very careful in your choice of a subject. Do not choose a nebulous or abstract one.

These cause endless confusion and the entire evening may be spent in defining your terms instead of debating the question.

I shall never forget the time I heard two of the best known debaters in the United States discuss the question: “Is Socialism Scientific?” The Socialist in question is one of the ablest men in the American movement. His opponent was a man of culture and wide reputation. But the Socialist, able as he was, failed to DEFINE Socialism. As a result his opponent opened the debate by reading quotations from numerous writers most of whom knew absolutely nothing about scientific Socialism. One paper claimed that “Government Ownership,” was Socialism. Another declared “Socialism is NOT Government Ownership.” Jones made Socialism a philosophy and Smith saw in it a FUTURE state of society. The clergyman proclaimed it christianity and the atheist wrote on the working class materialism. Somebody said it was a movement of the proletariat (working class) to abolish the wages system.

Now the opponent of this Socialist debater read aloud during the entire time allowed him, all the misleading, ignorant and even scientific quotations on Socialism that he could find. Before he was half through the audience began to titter with the humor of it. The opponent closed somewhat after this fashion:

Now that we have found that Socialism is spiritual and not material; is material and NOT spiritual; is a philosophy and NOT a philosophy; since we know that it does not exist but is only an ideal in the minds of a few men; a FUTURE society instead of a present FACT, I maintain that Socialism is not scientific. The crowd broke into roars of applause and the debate was lost beyond recall. The Socialist spent his time discussing scientific Socialism. But he was too late. His opponent replied that since terms had not been defined before the debate he was compelled to go to Socialist books and newspapers for his definition; that he had read definitions from the writings of many writers and editors and that they seemed to be not at all in accord.

Debaters cannot be too careful in the choice of a subject. Define your terms if necessary.

In a previous article Comrade Bohn suggested books to be read on the Materialist Conception of History. It is, as Comrade Rice says, almost impossible to take up this subject without understanding the theory of the class struggle. True, one might take the side in a debate to prove that the Supreme Court was instituted to serve the economic interests of large owners of private property. But it is only through the OPPOSITION to this class, through the struggles of an exploited class against its exploiters, that the Supreme Court has had opportunity to function.

Society is not a fixed thing, having no connection with the past and no bearing upon the future. And it is the struggles of classes in society for greater economic advantage that make it move that produce history.

Kautsky’s Class Struggle (Kerr & Co., cloth, 50 cents; paper, 25 cents), and Simons’ Class Struggles in America (cloth, 50 cents; paper, 10 cents, Kerr & Co.), are two books that cannot be overlooked. They will furnish the speaker with unlimited subjects for debate.

Topics Suggested.

The old theory that society stood still until now and then a Great Man came along and pulled it a step forward, is directly opposed to the Materialist Conception of History. These two interpretations of history are rich in material to the debater.

The man who still holds to the Great Man theory points to Columbus, Washington and Abraham Lincoln as great makers of history. But the scientist looks for the economic needs underlying great movements. He finds all Europe intent on finding a shorter and cheaper route to India at the time Queen Isabella of Spain financed the expedition of Columbus.

We find the father of his country fighting to protect his newly acquired and immense domains in America against the English, stirred not by a love of universal freedom, justice or democracy, but by a desire to protect his private property interests. And so on. Perhaps in local your find martyrs to the cause in your debating club, who will argue for the Great Man theory. There are men in every neighborhood, outside the Socialist Party, who may have the hardihood to be willing to stand up against the whole club in debate.

It will be their task to prove that social progress is due to the activities of a few great men. Those who debate on the Materialist Conception of History must have facts at the ends of their tongues to show why the economic causes underlying social progress: the results following the discovery of steam as a motive power, the invention of the spinning jenney, the cotton gin, factory and trust production, etc., etc. They will need to show how the material needs of society or a certain class in society determined the form of that society–its government, religion, armies, educational system, ethical ideals–all its institutions.

In other words, the way food, clothing and shelter are produced and distributed determines the form that society will take whether it be a master and slave society, lord and serf or whether it be a capitalist and wage slave society. Material bread and butter interests are the chief stimuli back of all social institutions even those bearing the banner of justice, freedom, or morality, economic or food, clothing and shelter forces The Socialist will need to show the back of any given social stage.

It should always be an easy matter for Socialists to beguile outsiders to debate on these questions.

Then take any great movement associated with a well-known historical figure. Historians have preserved and eulogized the name of the Great Man believing that it was he or his idea that led the common herd one step further in the road to progress.

Marx and Engels have taken these various movements and studied, dissected and found the great economic needs expressed by them. Material needs were necessary to make them popular and possible.

Socialism, for example, is not a plan for a future cooperative commonwealth evolved out of the brain of one or several the great men, but a movement based upon material-economic needs of the working class.

Wars are fought at the urge of some great, usually hidden, economic interest. During the various stages in social evolution, governments have evolved to maintain and protect the changing DOMINATING economic interests. Human institutions are but the reflex of some powerful economic interest. Analyze them and the forces they foster or protect may be readily seen.

The International Socialist Review (ISR) was published monthly in Chicago from 1900 until 1918 by Charles H. Kerr and critically loyal to the Socialist Party of America. It is one of the essential publications in U.S. left history. During the editorship of A.M. Simons it was largely theoretical and moderate. In 1908, Charles H. Kerr took over as editor with strong influence from Mary E Marcy. The magazine became the foremost proponent of the SP’s left wing growing to tens of thousands of subscribers. It remained revolutionary in outlook and anti-militarist during World War One. It liberally used photographs and images, with news, theory, arts and organizing in its pages. It articles, reports and essays are an invaluable record of the U.S. class struggle and the development of Marxism in the decades before the Soviet experience. It was closed down in government repression in 1918.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/isr/v13n09-mar-1913-ISR-riaz-ocr.pdf