DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Imagination, v. 1, issue 8, whole no. 8, May 1938

Transcribe
Translate

Imagination, v. 1, issue 8, whole no. 8, May 1938

Page 6

6

IN DEFENSE OF MICHELISM (pronounced Mi-shel'ism) by Donald A. Wollheim

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 further 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 optomistic 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. These multitudes will arrive, as in many places they already have, at these conclusions by other methods than that of Yerke, myself or other fans. Our small group arrives at these 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 mere 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 sole chance of saving our own world. Now, whether Yerke, Speer & other head-in-the-clouds fands 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-legged 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 grey 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 Yerked--is an Esperantist a definite Michelist. The work the Esperantists do in teaching the ideal of world-followship 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 like it or not the 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 priaisng & advocating war--the Facist ones. Sincere as the Pacifists may be their reasoning is hopelessly (& murderously) false.
One word in closing: Yerke & Speer like the idea of a "benevelent 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 to return to 1000 years ago!

Saving...

6 IN DEFENSE OF MICHELISM (pronounced Mi-shel'ism) by Donald A. Wollheim 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 further 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 optomistic 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. These multitudes will arrive, as in many places they already have, at these conclusions by other methods than that of Yerke, myself or other fans. Our small group arrives at these 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 mere 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 sole chance of saving our own world. Now, whether Yerke, Speer & other head-in-the-clouds fands 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-legged 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 grey 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 Yerked--is an Esperantist a definite Michelist. The work the Esperantists do in teaching the ideal of world-followship 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 like it or not the 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 priaisng & advocating war--the Facist ones. Sincere as the Pacifists may be their reasoning is hopelessly (& murderously) false. One word in closing: Yerke & Speer like the idea of a "benevelent 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 to return to 1000 years ago!