Letter: Complex phraseology (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Complex phraseology

In general I find the Socialist Standard extremely good to read but I do think there is an air of infallibility about it which tends to be a little off-putting. For example, in your July issue there was a letter suggesting that the party tends to use too much “complex phraseology and long-winded terminology.” This criticism echoed my own views and I was disappointed to see that your reply did not seem to think very much of the point. And in the same issue I see there is a short piece which in my view strongly supports the need for a little rethinking here. When I read the title “Condition of blind leaders deteriorating” I thought it so excellent that this was the first piece I read through in the issue, especially as I had often seen very good articles by Horatio in the past. I found the contents to be most disappointing. I wondered what particular piece of villainy John Boyd had perpetrated this time. The answer was that he had shown himself confused between surplus-value and profit and had displayed ignorance on the vital matters  . . .

What appalling crimes, to be sure! But I fancy these leaders commit even worse ones and it makes your paper look a little silly to be seen making such a great hooha over a matter which cannot possibly interest the majority of the non-members for whom, presumably, the paper is chiefly intended. I dare say there is a need for education in Marxian economics and perhaps you could have an occasional article on the subject, but in general I suggest it is not an urgent necessity for the working class to understand the minutiae of Marxism and in fact a piece like this only has the effect of making the average worker just run for cover. If you have to wait till the majority of the workers understand the kind of fine points of Marxist economics displayed here, I fear socialism will be postponed till the Greek calends.

(Mrs.) E. Singer

Manchester

Reply:

We note that you do not dispute the correctness of the points made in the article, but classify them under a general description “the minutiae of Marxism.” We can only understand by this that you think confusion over the terms surplus value and profit to be unworthy of comment. We do not agree with such a view. It is a part of our job to spread a clear understanding of Marx’s work and although misinterpretation and outright contortion of his theories ae not uncommon, when someone airs his ignorance in front of us, we are justified in saying so. That was all we did incidentally, your description “a great hooha,” is an exaggeration.

However we do not intend to discourage you. You will appreciate that there is scope within the SPGB for propaganda covering a considerable variety of subjects. If, as you suggest, you do not wish to see Socialism “postponed” and you are sympathetic to our views, the first step you should take is to apply for membership.

Editors.

Blogger's Note:

There was a problem with typos in this letter, and I can't see any corrections for the letter in later issues. It happens.