DOCSLIB.ORG

“Means of Communication As Means of Production” Revis- Ited William Henning James Hebblewhite

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Means of Communication As Means of Production” Revis- Ited William Henning James Hebblewhite tripleC 10(2): 203-213, 2012 ISSN 1726-670X http://www.triple-c.at “Means of Communication as Means of Production” Revis- ited William Henning James Hebblewhite Philosophy Department, Latrobe University, Melbourne, Australia, [email protected] Abstract: This paper seeks to examine the claim made by Raymond Williams that the means of communication are a means of production. While agreeing with the central claim by Williams, the paper argues that the model which Williams’ represents this claim with is insufficiently realized. By looking at the work of Marx and Althusser in relation to this claim, we suggest a new conceptual tool to actualize Williams’ claims. Keywords: Raymond Williams, Means of Communication, Internet, Means of Production, Marx, Althusser Acknowledgement: The author would like to acknowledge the help of Lachlan Doughney who inspired the idea for this article and to Aaron Harrison and Brook Novak who were not only supportive while researching and completing drafts of this paper, but offered excellent feedback throughout its process. 1. Introduction In this essay I wish to explore Raymond Williams’ assertion that the means of communication can be identified as a means of production. I seek to do this in the context of a critical enquiry of Wil- liams’ paper Means of Communication as a Means of Production (2005[1978]). It will be my thesis that Williams work opens up new possibilities in new communications theory. However I contend that despite opening up these possibilities, Williams’ own theory is unable to develop these possi- bilities to their ultimate conclusion and we must turn towards Althusser’s structural Marxism to as- sist in such development. The essay itself will be structured in three main sections. In the first sec- tion I’ll outline Marx’s definition of the means of production and how he viewed the means of com- munication as a form of the relations of production. I will also discuss Marx’s base-superstructure and what defining the means of communication as the relations of production does for this under- standing of society. In the second section I’ll outline Raymond Williams’ argument for identifying the means of communication as a means of production, drawing on the vast literature provided by Wil- liams over his career, I’ll argue that while Williams offers an interesting proposition, his argument is based on a definition of terms like ‘production’, which reduce their capability to express what the explicit means of production are. I’ll argue that while Williams’ wants to insist that production is beyond that of just ‘commodity production’, the use of communications now is one in which the information provided by the means of communication is treated like a commodity. In the last sec- tion, I want to examine how elements of Althusser’s philosophy can produce the theoretical inter- vention necessary to examine the the internet as a means of communication identified as ‘means of production’ which produces ‘information as a commodity’. The aim of this paper is twofold. To develop a foundation for the continued analysis of the means of communication such as the Inter- net, in the vein of Marxist theory and, to attempt to overcome the criticisms of structuralism that are contained in Raymond Williams’ work. 2. Karl Marx and the Means of Production In 1857, Marx wrote one of his more enduring pieces of work. The Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Marx 1859/1994) is for many within Marxist theory the Rosetta stone, by which all work by Marx and Engels produced after this time are understood. However it is one significant passage within this document, which has received substantial exegetical focus. Marx writes that “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a give stage in the CC: Creative Commons License, 2012. 204 William Henning James Hebblewhite development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of produc- tion constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and in- tellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their so- cial existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of produc- tion or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revo- lution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, reli- gious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of produc- tion. No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is suf- ficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since close examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation” (Marx 1994, 211). The passage itself is rich with information that can help guide our understanding of the means of production. From the idea that “the totality of relations of production constitute the economic struc- ture of society…on which arises a legal and political superstructure” (Marx 1990, 211), which briefly outlines the base-superstructure edifice which has become a central component, and heavily de- bated aspect of the Marxian tradition, to the idea that “at a certain stage of development; the mate- rial productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production” (ibid.), we can begin to formulate how Marx constructed the means of production. Necessarily it is these two important segments from the passage of the preface that concern us in this paper. If Raymond Williams’ proposal that the means of communication are a means of production then this would necessitate a rethinking of society’s structure, or would it? In order to understand the problem, we need to first be able to understand the elements that are used in constructing the problem. The main elements, as we see in the title of Williams essay, are: 1.) The means of communication and 2.) the means of production. We may argue that the title of the essay Means of Communication as a Means of Production identifies the means of production as a larger category than the means of communication, that the means of communication become just a subcategory of the means of pro- duction. Seem in this way it is then necessary, that if we are to identify the means of communica- tion as a means of production, to come to an understanding of what the means of production are. In Marx, the means of production refers to two elements of production that when entered into a labour process becomes a unified productive force. We can understand then, according to the ac- count of historical materialism that is outlined in the passage above that these elements, the in- struments of labour and the raw materials are then an aspect, in their development, of the conflict that arises between the productive forces and the relative production. As such they play a role in defining the social structure. It is then required that we explore these categories further. For Marx “an instrument of labour, is a thing, or a complex of things, which the worker interposes between himself and the object of his labour and which serves as a conductor, directing his activity onto that object” (Marx 1990, 285). While there is debate surrounding the actual means of production and what can and cannot be understood by them, G.A. Cohen (2000) argues that such things as strength, skills, knowledge, and intelligence are not an aspect of either raw materials or instruments of labour but that they are in effect a means of the labour process. The ambiguity of terms such as means of production and instruments of labour allow for discrepancies in how one describes such elements of the productive process. It seems then that what an instrument of labour is, according to CC: Creative Commons License, 2012. tripleC 10(2): 203-213, 2012 205 such a definition, is an instrument such as a hammer, or even a factory, anything which focuses activity on an object of labour. Despite the broadness of such a concept, it become even broader when we take into account Marx’s assertion that “we may include among the instruments of la- bour...all the objective conditions necessary for carrying on the labour process” (Marx 1990, 286).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Base, Superstructure, and Dialectical Totality 43 Seán Mitchell
    Base, superstructure, and dialectical totality 43 Seán Mitchell n recent years it became something of a custom to a prognosis that capitalism no longer faced a viable sys- begin any contemporary discussion of historical temic alternative. materialism with a nod to the briefly dominant ax- Much of this pessimism was in fact shared by Fuku- iom that humanity had reached its veritable termi- yama himself, who was ambivalent if not altogether Inus. Capitalism had triumphed over socialism, Francis gloomy about the new world order he heralded, warn- Fukuyama insisted, and the ‘end of history’ was upon ing that ‘the end of history will be a very sad time’ when us. Fukuyama’s bold declaration of historical finality ‘worldwide ideological struggle…will be replaced by could be read in hindsight as little more than neoliberal economic calculation, the endless solving of technical triumphalism, proffered in 1989 as philosophical sus- problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfac- tenance to a U.S. elite then looking forward to carving tion of sophisticated consumer demands.’4 Few on the out a ‘new American century’ in the years ahead. The left were moved by this morose vision of the future, but political trajectory of the author of The End of History too many adopted a kind of inverted pessimism from and the Last Man would arguably confirm that apprais- Fukuyama: if the ‘history of all hitherto existing society al, with Fukuyama collaborating for much of the 1990s is the history of class struggle’, and the working class with an assortment of neo-cons who rose to prominence had been definitively defeated in that epic battle, then around the presidency of George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of History in Which the Proletariat Inevitably End up the Dominant Order; This Has Proven Historically to Be False
    9/24/07 Marxism • Marxism is many different kinds of theories at once: • theory of history in which the proletariat inevitably end up the dominant order; this has proven historically to be false. • a critique of capitalism. This body of theory can be relevant to literature, but we’re not going to get into it explicitly. Barry and Richter give some sense of this; for the midterm, I’ll have you learn some terms so that you’ll be at least somewhat conversant with this kind of thinking if you run into it again. • a sort-of-literary theory. I say “sort of” because what Marx and others theorize is larger than literature: “consciousness and its expressions,” which would include not only literature but all of the arts, religion, politics, law, and so on. This is the part of Marxist theory we’re going to center on, because it raises a really huge problem for post-NC Theory in general, or least for all political theories (and we know that, as Barry says, “politics is pervasive” in post-NC theory, so ALL Theory is political according to this view). • Starting point: 410: “In the social production…determines their consciousness.” Some things to point out: • base/superstructure. “Relations of production”--economic system, more or less. At the most fundamental level, people have to survive, and the way we do that as a species is to produce stuff. But we don’t do that on our own; we do it as part of some kind of economic system that we are born into.
    [Show full text]
  • Keywords—Marxism 101 Session 1 Bourgeoisie
    Keywords—Marxism 101 Session 1 Bourgeoisie: the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. Capital: an asset (including money) owned by an individual as wealth used to realize a fnancial proft, and to create additional wealth. Capital exists within the process of economic exchange and grows out of the process of circulation. Capital is the basis of the economic system of capitalism. Capitalism: a mode of production in which capital in its various forms is the principal means of production. Capital can take the form of money or credit for the purchase of labour power and materials of production; of physical machinery; or of stocks of fnished goods or work in progress. Whatever the form, it is the private ownership of capital in the hands of the class of capitalists to the exclusion of the mass of the population. Class: social stratifcation defned by a person's relationship to the means of production. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png Class struggle: an antagonism that exists within a society, catalyzed by competing socioeconomic interests and central to revolutionary change. Communism: 1) a political movement of the working class in capitalist society, committed to the abolition of capitalism 2) a form of society which the working class, through its struggle, would bring into existence through abolition of classes and of the capitalist division of labor. Dictatorship of the Proletariat: the idea that the proletariat (the working class) has control over political power in the process of changing the ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership as part of a socialist transition to communism.
    [Show full text]
  • Mode of Production and Mode of Exploitation: the Mechanical and the Dialectical'
    DjalectiCalAflthropologY 1(1975) 7 — 2 3 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam — Printed in The Netherlands MODE OF PRODUCTION AND MODE OF EXPLOITATION: THE MECHANICAL AND THE DIALECTICAL' Eugene E. Ruyle In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material produc- tive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstruc- ture and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that deter- mines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.2 The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus labor is pumped out of the direct producers, determines the relation of rulers and ruled, as it grows immediately out of production itself and in turn reacts upon it as a determining agent. .. It is always the direct relation of the owners of the means of production to the direct producers which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden foundation of the entire social structure.3 In the first of these two passages, Marx in crypto-Marxist bourgeois social science, and appears to be arguing for the sort of techno- then by exploring the possibilities of supple- economic determinism which has become menting the "mode of production" approach increasingly fashionable in bourgeois social with a "mode of exploitation" analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Production Modes, Marx's Method and the Feasible Revolution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by European Scientific Journal (European Scientific Institute) European Scientific Journal November 2016 edition vol.12, No.31 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 Production Modes, Marx’s Method and the Feasible Revolution Bruno Jossa retired full professor of political economy, University ”Federico II”, Naples doi: 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n31p20 URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n31p20 Abstract In Marx, the production mode is defined as a social organisation mode which is typified by one dominant production model which confers significance on the system at large. The prominence of production modes in his overall approach provides clues to the identification of the correct scientific method of Marxism and, probably, of Marx himself. The main aim of this paper is to define this method and to discuss a type of socialist revolution which appears feasible in this day and age. Keywords: Marx’s method, producer cooperatives, production modes, socialism Introduction It is not from scientific advancements – Gramsci argued – that we are to expect solutions to the issues on the traditional agenda of philosophical research. Fresh inputs for philosophical speculation have rather come from notions such as ‘social production relations’ and ‘modes of production’, which are therefore Marx's paramount contributions to science.1 In a well-known 1935 essay weighing the merits and 1 For quite a long time, Marxists used to look upon the value theory as Marx’s most important contribution to science. Only when the newly-published second and third books of Capital revealed that Marx had tried to reconcile his value theory with the doctrine of prices as determined by the interplay of demand and supply did they gain a correct appreciation of the importance of the materialist conception of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Realist Arguments in Marx's Capital
    Critical Realist Arguments in Marx’s Capital Hans G. Ehrbar Published 2002 Contents Note iii 3 Critical Realist Arguments in Marx’s Capital 1 3.1 From Hegel to Bhaskar ............................ 1 3.2 Marx’s opening moves ............................ 4 3.3 Surface and core of the economy ....................... 6 3.4 From surface to core ............................. 13 3.5 The double character of labour ........................ 14 3.6 From core to surface ............................. 16 3.7 The fetish-like character of commodities ................... 19 i Contents 3.8 The exchange process ............................. 22 3.9 The curse of money .............................. 24 3.10 Does critical realism make a difference? ................... 28 ii Note This essay was published as chapter 3 in [BFR02]. This collection was published by Routledge; c 2002 selection and editorial matter, An- drew Brown, Steve Fleetwood and John Michael Roberts; individual chapters, the contribu- tors. The print edition of the book says: All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now knows or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. ISBN 0-415-25012-9 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-25013-7 (pbk) iii Note iv 3 Critical Realist Arguments in Marx’s Capital 3.1 From Hegel to Bhaskar <43> In Capital, Marx uses Hegelian concepts and terminology extensively. For instance, shortly after the beginning of the first chapter, Marx concludes that the exchange value of commodities must be the ‘form of appearance’ of some ‘substance’, called ‘value’, which is different from exchange value itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political and Social Thought of Lewis Corey
    70-13,988 BROWN, David Evan, 19 33- THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT OF LEWIS COREY. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 Political Science, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT OF LEWIS COREY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By David Evan Brown, B.A, ******* The Ohio State University 1969 Approved by Adviser Department of Political Science PREFACE On December 2 3 , 1952, Lewis Corey was served with a warrant for his arrest by officers of the U, S, Department of Justice. He was, so the warrant read, subject to deportation under the "Act of October 16 , 1 9 1 8 , as amended, for the reason that you have been prior to entry a member of the following class: an alien who is a member of an organi­ zation which was the direct predecessor of the Communist Party of the United States, to wit The Communist Party of America."^ A hearing, originally arranged for April 7» 1953» but delayed until July 27 because of Corey's poor health, was held; but a ruling was not handed down at that time. The Special Inquiry Officer in charge of the case adjourned the hearing pending the receipt of a full report of Corey's activities o during the previous ten years. [The testimony during the hearing had focused primarily on Corey's early writings and political activities.] The hearing was not reconvened, and the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, as charged, was never formally settled.
    [Show full text]
  • Base and Superstructure in Trevor Griffith's Piano
    IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (JHSS) ISSN: 2279-0837, ISBN: 2279-0845.Volume 2, Issue 3 (Sep-Oct. 2012), PP 11-16 www.iosrjournals.org Base and Superstructure in Trevor Griffith’s Piano Jayalakshmi B Assistant Professor of English,Govt. Home Science CollegeHolenarasipura,Hassan- 573 211Karnataka. Abstract: Trevor Griffiths is a contemporary Marxist playwright in Britain. He has been writing plays for stage screen and cinema since 1969. He is well- known for his stage play Comedians. Some of his plays are adaptations by the famous writers such as D.H.Lawrence and Anton Chekhov. One of his important plays Piano takes its origin from Anton Chekhov\'s short stories. In this article the play Piano will be discussed in the light of Marxist perspective applying one of the significant Marxists concept of \'BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE\'. I. Introduction The aim of this article is to examine the Marxist concept of „base and superstructure‟ in Trevor Griffiths‟sPiano. It is interesting to note that Griffiths‟s plays are an emphasis of left-wing political ideas. Karl Marx wrote the enlightened political pamphlet Communist manifesto (1898), a significant milestone in the history of socialist circles with the idea: „The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of the class struggles‟. (Marx and Engels 9) The quintessence of the Marxist ideas lies between the two fundamental hostile classes, “non-owning workers and non-working owners”, (Britannica ready Reference Encyclopedia) since the society is fundamentally made up of antagonistic classes. This historical chasm between the emblematically extreme classes, Marx termed it „alienation‟ a dangerous economic and social disorder.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour Process and the Division of Labour, a Reading Bruno Tinel
    Labour process and the division of labour, a reading Bruno Tinel To cite this version: Bruno Tinel. Labour process and the division of labour, a reading. 2009. halshs-00435252 HAL Id: halshs-00435252 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00435252 Submitted on 24 Nov 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Documents de Travail du Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne Labour process and the division of labour, a reading Bruno TINEL 2009.74 Maison des Sciences Économiques, 106-112 boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13 http://ces.univ-paris1.fr/cesdp/CES-docs.htm ISSN : 1955-611X Labour process and the division of labour, a reading1 Bruno TINEL Centre d’Économie de la Sorbonne Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne [email protected] Abstract This article proposes an analysis of the labour process and the division of labour in capitalist production through a reading of Marx and a few others like Babbage and Braverman. The distinction between labour and labour power is used to expose the specificity of the labour process. Cooperation constitutes the fundamental form of capitalist production, which entails a double-sided command (coordination to produce use-values and despotism to extract surplus-value).
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Production Relations in Marx's Theory of Capitalist Exploitation
    The Role of Production Relations in Marx’s Theory of Capitalist Exploitation* Gilbert L. Skillman Department of Economics Wesleyan University Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT It is well known that Karl Marx explained profit in capitalist economies as arising primarily from the exploitation of productive labor. Less generally understood is Marx’s theory as to the economic logic of capitalist exploitation, in particular the sense in and degree to which the latter depends on direct capitalist control of production, which Marx termed the subsumption of labor under capital. In Volume I of Capital, Marx focuses exclusively on the purchase and consumption of labor power under capitalist production as the basis of capitalist exploitation, on the grounds that the appropriation of surplus value must be explained on the condition that commodities exchange at their respective values. However, this stipulation manifestly does not follow from the arguments Marx presents, and its apparent implications clash with Marx’s own historical account of exploitation via circuits of capital which did not in fact depend on the subsumption of labor under capital. This paper argues that the logic of capitalist exploitation is instead best understood in terms of Marx’s historical-materialist theory of profit, which depicts capitalist production relations as a historically contingent strategic response to evolving conditions of class conflict over the creation and distribution of surplus product. This account, constructed from Marx’s published and unpublished economic writing, establishes a consistent thread of argumentation linking the Grundrisse with the analysis featured in Volume I of Capital a decade later.
    [Show full text]
  • Torrence, Ryan MRP.Pdf (404.7Kb)
    Running head: MARXIST CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL HEALTH POLICY TOWARDS AN ORTHODOX MARXIST CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL HEALTH POLICY RYAN TORRENCE Supervisor’s Name: Claudia Chaufan Advisor’s Name: Dennis Pilon Supervisor’s Signature: ___________________________ Date Signed: ___________________________ Advisor’s Signature: ___________________________ Date Signed: ___________________________ A Research Paper submitted to the Graduate Program in Health in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Program in Health York University Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 August 2020 MARXIST CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL HEALTH POLICY 1 Introduction Critical health policy researchers have, over the past few decades, shown beyond doubt the connection between socioeconomic inequalities and disparities in health and disease outcomes. The evidence is strong enough that mainstream outlets like the World Health Organization now acknowledge the centrality of the social determinants of health. However, researchers and activists have largely been frustrated in their attempts to mobilize this knowledge into practice. By most accounts, social health inequalities are increasing on intranational and global scales, especially following the 2008 economic crisis (Cash-Gibson, et al., 2018). The present Covid-19 pandemic – which has caused unemployment levels to rise to historic heights in most advanced economies – has made understanding the connection between socioeconomics and individual health even more urgent. The concept of health inequality as a field of study emerged alongside the pioneers of the socialist tradition; Frederick Engels’ 1845 The Condition of the Working Class in England is a seminal work in the field, and his lifelong collaborator Karl Marx elaborated at length the deleterious (physical, psychological, and spiritual) effects of capitalism on the lower classes.
    [Show full text]
  • W. T. Mills, E. J. B. Allen, J. A. Lee and Socialism in New Zealand
    W. T. Mills, E. J. B. Allen, J. A. Lee and Socialism in New Zealand IT is now some years since Professor W. H. Oliver asked whether 'left' could be considered a direction in New Zealand politics. Although Professor Oliver's main concern was to illustrate a point about New Zealand society I have often thought, since reading that provocative essay, that much of what historians have considered the history of socialism in New Zealand could fruitfully be viewed from this sceptical perspective.1 The somewhat improbable trinity of W. T. Mills, E. J. B. Allen and J. A. Lee tried, at different times, to grapple with the meaning of socialism within the context of New Zealand. They also attempted to work out the ways in which the context not only defined the meaning but the possibility of achieving socialism. Mills and Lee, of course, were active politicians and what they said and thought was usually subordinate to the tactical imperatives of the political situation. Allen, on the other hand, was an activist-intellectual. Each man was articulate, each played out some role within these islands, and together they allow us to take account of the wider context within which the socialist tradition had emerged; for Mills was an American; Allen was English; while Lee was born in Dunedin.2 It may occasion some surprise that the focus should be on these three men to the exclusion of others with some claim to be considered the ideologues of socialism in New Zealand. Men like Harry Holland, Rod Ross, or Sid Scott of the Communist Party, committed to a simple version of class warfare and faith in nationalization, epitomize what many New Zealanders have thought to be socialism.
    [Show full text]