Refutation of Marxism

The reason why Professor Philpott's refutations of Marxism are so unsatisfactory is revealed in the next paragraph where he talks of "revolutionary amendment in the system of government or administration" as though change in government and administration were the essence of Marxism. Perhaps Professor Philpott should make himself more familiar with the views he seeks to refute — the thrust of the Marxist analysis is towards change in the economic base of society — the mediation between man and nature — which, the analysis goes, determines the nature of government and administration. However, according to Professor Philpott revolutionary change (of whatever kind) is out because rates of im-provement are limited by "the very nature of man himself". This unsupported assertion can be refuted in both practice (has the Professor not read any history?) and theory. The readiness to accept change depends to some degree on the perceived desirability of the change the perceived desirability of the change under discussion. Professor Philpott might do well to read some of the material available on this question. From it he might learn that a substSntial body of opinion holds that the nature of man is determined by the nature of society, that resistance to change on the part of men is a reflection of the resistance to change manifested by the formal political organs of their society, that the formal political organs of society resist change because powerful interests wish to remain powerful interests. Perhaps these theories are possible avenues to "truth" that Professor Philpott has not felt compelled to explore. All this, of course, does not establish the desirability of revolutionary or violent (and they are not necessarily the same thing) change (and nowhere did "Handbook" call for violent change). It does, however, indicate that the debate should not centre around village pump psychology but should concentrate, rather, on the nature of the "enormous ills" that confront us and the capability, or otherwise, of our present organs of decision making to effect the changes necessary to conquer them.

"Violence can destroy", Professor Philpott wrote. So the Vietnamese people have found out, and it was precisely in response to this destruction that the "self interested demagogues" to which Professor Philpott refers first turned their attention to the nature of the society which produced it. Many have become convinced that the seeds of this violence lie strongly locked within the structure of the societies whose troops journeyed so far to deliver the "constructive and creative" criticism which the Viet-namese people enjoyed. Further studies revealed the "enormous ills" to which the Professor referred - that the gap between the rich and poor of the world is widening, that crime rates are increasing, that the nature of labour is becoming more and more crushing and soul destroying in response to the "constructive and creative" criticism of industrial psychologists, that mental illness appears to be on the increase. The questions which these facts raise demand answers and it is not enough to assert, as did Professor Philpott, that "to some questions there are no answers".