Letter: In other words (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

In other words

I found the letter written by Jon Lieberman in the August edition of the Socialist Standard very interesting, for, like him, I consider Party members to be an aloof bunch of egg-heads, no doubt very sincere in their almost foolproof beliefs, but completely and utterly devoid of a sense of humour and suspicious of change.

Of course, the Declaration of Principles are precise and straightforward to anyone living during the period 1910 to 1940, but language and phrasing change, and it’s time the SP realized this. Nobody wishes to see Pentagonese used to describe your aims, such as: "That, at this moment in time, as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the working class keep a low profile, there is no way other than escalation of hostility, etc., etc.”; but I have endeavoured to rewrite the aims as near to present-day understanding as possible.

Incidentally, that Principle No. 8! Why read “SPGB’’ twice? And why not call yourselves World Socialist Party? Since when did Socialists consider Britain Great?

R. J. Otter

Shepperton

Reply:

Let’s put it like this: the verbal confusions in the first part of your letter make us suspicious of the verbal alterations you suggest in the second part. If our beliefs are "almost foolproof”, as you state, why criticize us for not being eager to change? Though sympathetic with us you stand outside the Socialist Party, but say we are "aloof”. You may have been somehow unfortunate in a limited contact with members, but do you really mean "completely and utterly devoid” of a sense of humour (and have you never seen evidence to the contrary in the Socialist Standard)?

As regards the name of the Party, Great Britain is the name of the political unit we operate in. Our opinion does not enter into it. We do not think Clapham High Street is High, either, but it is beyond our control and doesn’t matter anyway.

We have considered suggestions for re-wording our Declaration of Principles at various times, but no alternative has provided the same meaning. There is not space to reproduce yours in full, but the first one reads:

Society in today’s world is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e. land, factories, business groups etc.) by the capitalist class; and that consequently the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced, is powerless.

The opening phrase is a tautology: "today’s world” is society. "Business groups” are not part of the means of living. You have cut out any reference to the means of distributing wealth, leaving the impression that "means of living” is restricted to the means of production. “Powerless” has a political meaning, whereas the definition of the working class is economic. Similar criticisms apply to your other re-worded clauses. Not many marks out of ten, we’re afraid.

Blogger's Note:

R. J. Otter was an ex-member of the SPGB. He was a member of Islington Branch from August 1956 until April 1960. He reigned from the Party, stating that it was ". . . unrealistic and has a bad personal attitude." Ouch.

He returned to the letters pages of the Socialist Standard nearly ten years later, in October 1987, and he still wasn't happy with the Party.