Letter: Morris and Marx (1976)

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

Morris and Marx

In the article “The Poverty of Sociology” in the January Socialist Standard you say that William Morris had never read Marx. However, this is not so, and I quote from Morris’s How I Became a Socialist: “Well, having joined a Socialist body I put some conscience in trying to learn the economic side of Socialism, and even tackled Marx (in French) though I must confess that, whereas I thoroughly enjoyed the historical part of ‘Capital’, I suffered agonies of confusion of the brain over reading the pure economics of that great work. Anyhow, I read what I would, and will hope that such information stuck to me from my reading . . .”

So Morris certainly read Marx even though he may not have easily understood the economics.

F. Ansell

Goole

Reply:

We accept the correction with thanks.

Correction (1962)

From the January 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the article, "Cuban Background",  which we published in the Socialist Standard in January 1961, we stated that Batista first came to power in Cuba in October 1940.

This is incorrect. Batista first became President of Cuba in 1933. after leading an armed revolt.

We apologise for this mistake, and for our tardiness in correcting it.

Editorial Committee.

Poverty or misery: a correction (1957)

From the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the article “Poverty or Misery” in the January issue (page 5, middle of column 2) reference was made to Mr. Strachey’s unjustifiable use of a translation which gave the word “poverty” in place of the German word meaning “misery” in a passage from Marx’s Capital. This point stands, but error was made with regard to the various editions of Capital. The editions in English of Volume I. of Capital are:—

(1) The Swan Sonnenschein edition (1886) translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, is based on the 3rd German. This was the only English edition edited by Engels.

(2) The Charles Kerr edition (1906) is the same translation as the Sonnenschein, except for incorporation of additions and revisions to text made by Engels to the 4th German edition. These amendments to text were translated by Ernest Untermann. 

(3) The Allen & Unwin edition (1938) is a facsimile reprint of the Sonnenschein. The amendments made by Engels to the 4th German edition, are printed as an appendix. It is only these amendments which Dona Torr translated. 

(4) The Allen & Unwin edition (1928) in one volume was newly translated by Eden and Cedar Paul from the 4th German edition. (It was reviewed in the Socialist Standard in March, 1929). 

Later on this edition was taken over by Dents and published as two volumes in the Everyman series.

Ed. Com.

Con Lehane: A Correction (2004)

From the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the September Socialist Standard we stated that Con Lehane, who was a founder member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, went on to become in the 1930s and 40s a member of the IRA and a Republican member of the Irish parliament. This was not the case and was due to a confusion with someone else with the same name.

The Con Lehane who was a founder member was born in Cork in 1878 was indeed an Irish Republican but he died in New York in 1919, shortly after being released from prison where he had been detained for his political activities. In 1916 he had published a pamphlet entitled The Irish Republic arguing that the so-called Easter Rising in Dublin that year had been a workers’ revolution.

The other Con Lehane, who was on the Army Council of the IRA in the 1930s and a Clann na Poblachta deputy from 1948 to 1951, was born in Belfast in 1912 and died in 1983 (see Irish Times, 27 September 1983).

The original source of the error was an article which appeared in the anarchist paper Freedom on 8 February 1992. Our apologies for not having first checked this thoroughly enough – Editors.

Letter: "Three clarifications" (2004)

Letter to the Editors from the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Three clarifications"

Dear Editors,

The August issue stated in the article ‘Why socialism is still relevant’ that: “Our party was formed to oppose the Labour party.” This raises three clarifications. Firstly, as the writer makes clear earlier in the article,”‘in short, the cause of our Party’s formation, capitalism, continues”, thus, reiterating the point that socialists are opposed to capitalism full stop. Secondly, whereas our opposition to the individual political parties of capitalism is merely incidental to the cause for our formation in 1904 we can only voice this opposition once they are actually formed, or in the process of being formed. Historically, the Labour Party was formed in 1906, two years after the SPGB – though even before its formation socialists were opposed to its reformist predecessor, the Labour Representative Committee. Thirdly, we are opposed to all other political parties regardless of whatever name they happen to go under and not just the Labour Party For they all stink of dishonesty, opportunism and quick-fix solutions and are so steeped in corruption they can only be obliterated by the conscious decision and concerted activity of a majority of the working class.

Brian Johnson, 

Pontypridd.

A personal statement (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arising out of the reply to his letter published in the September Socialist Standard, Lord Amwell asks us to publish the following statement: —

September 16th, ’48.

The Editor, 

Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

I must ask you to correct one misrepresentation in F.F.’s reply to me this month.

It is unwise to trust the capitalist press, even when it suits one in its facilitating a jibe. I did not say in the House of Lords that I went into trances or, as several newspapers put it, that I was a medium. Popular spiritualism is a thing I despise and I am not an obscurantist by any means.

What I did was to speak against a body of fellow citizens being persecuted under medieval statutes rather than common law. To illustrate my point I mentioned that many years ago I looked into certain phenomena and produced, as anyone can, some abnormal results. This without any assumption whatever about a future life or theory of spirit. As matters stood before Mr. Morrison’s order to police authorities, I could have been prosecuted for investigating psychic matters in my own home.

This had nothing to do with trances or spiritualistic claims. The press seeks sensation—don’t you follow suit. I am neither spiritualist nor medium.

I wish I had space to go into the other matters fully, especially F.F.’s complex about tripe and sheeps’ brains.

Yours sincerely,

Amwell.

Bilderberg group (2001)

From the November 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been pointed out to us that a passage on page 4 of the September Socialist Standard about the G8 leaders could have been misunderstood as saying that the "semi-mythological Bilderberg group" were the real rulers of the world. The Bilderberg group is a gathering of politicians and their paymasters in the ruling class and is not beholden to one or another government or state. Beyond the fact that its members and attendees are typically representative of ruling class opinion and powerful in their own right, their collective power as members of Bilderberg is certainly open to conjecture, though it won't extend to controlling governments. 

Editors.

Letter: Second Labour Government (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

In the September issue of the Socialist Standard, the Editorial Statement called "Break the Link with Labour" says that the second Labour government cut Unemployment Pay. I have always understood that the Labour Cabinet voted for the cuts (although by a small majority) but the cuts were never made, as the Labour government resigned before implementation. It was the incoming National Government that cut Unemployment Benefit.

Bert Mayes, 

London SW18

Reply:

We should have said "when the Second Labour Government agreed to cut unemployment benefit". On 23 August 1931 the Labour Cabinet voted by 12 or 11 votes to 8 or 9 (the size of the majority is disputed) to cut unemployment benefit by 10 percent, but fell from power before they could implement this - Editors.

Correction (1933)

From the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Origin of Unemployment Insurance.

In an article in the September issue. "Do Social Reforms Kill Socialism?" it was implied that Unemployment Insurance was directly borrowed from Germany. This appears not to have been the case. Health Insurance was directly borrowed from Germany, and the working of the Health Insurance system there was known to those who introduced Unemployment Insurance in England, but although the practice of Governments making payments to the unemployed was, of course, known, the principle of insurance had not been applied to it. In a Liberal Party publication, “A Nation Insured," written by Leo Chiozza Money, and published in 1911, it was stated that "in unemployment insurance Britain is leading the way."

This correction does not affect the argument contained in the article.

Ed. Comm.

Correction: Whose house (1986)

From the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the July Socialist Standard, on page 136 in the item Whose House?, we discussed ". . . a proposal announced by Norman Fowler, Social Service Secretary, that unemployed home-owners will lose their right to claim Supplementary Benefit to cover half their mortgage interest payments". This proposal in fact refers to only the first six months of unemployment.

Editors.

We Lost, They Won (1986)

From the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

In Between the Lines in the August Socialist Standard we stated that Morocco beat England in the World Cup. In fact the game was a goal-less draw.

Our apologies to Brian and all the lads and all true-blue British football fans everywhere, who must be sick as parrots at our mistake.

Letter: Plainer English (2011)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

Plainer English

 

Dear Editors,

 

Thank you for publishing my letter on plain English in the July Socialist Standard. Unfortunately (and also ironically, given the subject-matter), you omitted part of a sentence in the editing/typesetting process, leaving it meaningless. The sentence in question actually read as follows in my original email (the section omitted is highlighted in italics):

 

An “issue” is a bone of contention, but there is certainly no contention (at least among socialists) that a lack of money in the capitalist world is nothing less than a major problem for the vast majority of the population suffering from the affliction.

Martyn Dunmore,

Brussels, Belgium. 

Mr. James Parker, M.P. and the “Socialist Standard”. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our November issue we printed two articles, headed respectively, “A Travesty of Socialism” and “Labour Members and Child Slavery,” in which the utterances of the Labour Member for Halifax were criticised. In the first he was accused of talking twaddle and calling it Socialism, thus proving that he was either ignorant or fraudulent. To that accusation he makes no reply. The second article dealt with a speech he had delivered at Burton-on-Trent on October 7th, and concluded as follows: “Thus Mr. Parker, having thrown over ‘political independence’ and made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election, now shows himself prepared to throw over anything else that may endanger his seat. We wish the I.L.P. joy of these ‘political job hunters.’ ”

Mr. Parker has sent us a letter which is printed below:—

Abercoynan.

1/12/07. 

Dear Sir,—I have just seen a copy of Socialist Standard for November. The words I used at Burton-on-Trent were the very opposite of those you quote. If you get the other paper (I forget the name) published in Burton-on-Trent, you will find that the words I used in reference to child labour were these : “Speaking for myself, I would never seek to hold any seat in Parliament if it were necessary for me to support half-time labour to hold it,” If you care to look up my record in this matter you will find no man in the Socialist movement has spoken out more strongly against half-time employment of children. Not only is this true, but I think you will find if you get the paper who were represented at the meeting you refer to by a reporter and I think the paper you quote from had no reporter present, you will find that my speech went the “whole hog” for the proper feeding, training and education by the State.

Yours truly,

Mr. James Parker, M.P.

A copy of Mr. Parker’s letter was submitted to the Editor of the Burton Daily Mail, and he has sent us the following communication :—

Horninglow Street, 

Burton-on-Trent. 

Dec. 12, 1907.

R. H. Kent, Esq., London.

Dear Sir,—I find on enquiry that Mr. Parker, was not properly reported in our issue of Oct. 8th. Our reporter was present, but he did not get Mr. Parker’s reply to the question accurately. What I understand the hon. member did say was that “members of the I.L.P., as a Party, would take up the attitude of getting the age limit raised if they had the opportunity.” I am sorry that our Reporter’s carelessness has caused so much controversy.—

Yours faithfully,

Arthur E. Brown, 

Editor & Manager.

We apologise to Mr. Parker and of course withdraw our criticism in so far as it was based upon the incorrect report sent to us. We have obtained the “other paper” but do not find the words Mr. Parker claims to have used. It reports that he said Socialists would like to get the State to look after their human needs. They wanted a doctor in the schools to deal with the ailments affecting the children, such as bad eyesight, defective hearing, and to see that all were properly nourished. He also advocated one good meal in school each day. To-day they spent a few millions on education and about ten times as much on armaments, but when they became a wise nation and a Socialist nation the figures would be reversed.

We have taken these words from the Burton Evening Gazette and must express our inability to understand Mr. Parker’s conception of a Socialism which would require a “few millions spent on armaments.” The coming of Socialism will mean the triumph of the wealth-producers over their exploiters. As the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. fully explains, “in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to be emancipated,” and the emancipation of this class “will involve the abolition of all class distinctions and class privileges and free humanity from oppression of every kind.” Whence, then, will arise the necessity to spend a few millions on armaments ?

It will be noticed that Mr. Parker does not deny that he won his seat by making a compact with the Liberals. Of course he is not the only I.L.P. leader who has done so, particulars of several of these compacts being given in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto. With regard to his claim that he “went the ‘whole hog’ for the proper feeding, training and education by the State,” if one who believes that children should be fed, and trained, and educated by the “State” is a “whole hogger” we are glad we are not “whole hoggers.” The mother, for whom a State institution, however beneficent and well-equipped, can never be a substitute, is the proper person to feed and care for her children, and it is because we know that Socialism alone will make it possible for mothers to properly feed, and train, and educate their offspring that we are Revolutionists.

Jack Kent

Correction (1976)

From the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are grateful to correspondents who have drawn our attention to an arithmetical error which occurred in our reply Classes and Prices, June 1976. The passage read “If then the amount of labour required to produce 1 oz. gold is halved, but the same amount of labour is necessary for 2 cwt. of copper, then 1 oz. of gold = 4 cwt. of copped.” The last line should have read “then 1 oz. of gold = 1 cwt of copper.”

Letter: Correction (2003)

Letter to the Editors from the June 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Correction

Dear Editors,

I am disappointed you misprinted a key word in my letter and therefore undermined the logic and argument I was trying to present. Sentence three of paragraph three, should have read:

“If they do find Weapons of Mass Destruction . . .”

The important political point is that Blair, Reid and Straw will use the apparent discovery of WOMD to “justify” the war on Iraq. My point was that even if Saddam had WOMD, the fact he did not use them destroys the case he presented an immediate threat to his neighbours or the West.

Andrew Northall

Correction (1982)

From the December 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the item Sunshine in the October Socialist Standard we may have inadvertently given the impression that if only politicians and "experts" could predict the course of capitalism's economy, slumps and booms could be eliminated. In fact both are impossible; capitalism is anarchic and can be neither predicted nor controlled.

Editors.

Correction (1981)

From the September 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the October 1980 Socialist Standard and some subsequent issues, it was stated that less than one thousandth of the British population own eighty per cent of privately owned shares. This figure was taken from the CIS report The Wealthy, and is incorrect. They say that one per cent of shareholders own eighty per cent of the shares, whereas it is in fact one per cent of the population. (Only seven per cent of the population are shareholders.) The correct figure can be found in Class in a Capitalist Society by J. Westergaard and H. Resler, Penguin, page 158. They use Inland Revenue Statistics to show how one hundredth of the population own over eighty per cent of shares. We apologise for the error, although we have the impression that most of our readers are in the ninety-three per cent without a single share to their name, in any case.

The death penalty in Soviet Russia (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our March issue (p. 41) appeared a quotation from Yvon’s “L’U.R.S.S. telle qu’elle est,” a statement taken from Russian official sources, to the effect that “from the age of 12 children guilty of theft, wounding, assassination or attempts thereto, are subject to all penalties provided by the common law.”

A correspondent from Exmouth, who describes this statement as a “wicked attack upon the Russian people and their rulers,” refers us to “The Soviet Comes of Age” (p. 163), which states that “the death sentence cannot be pronounced on a person under 18 years of age.”

We publish the correction, pending further information which may explain how the discrepancy between the two statements arises.

For the benefit of our correspondent we may add that we would regard as a “wicked attack” on Socialism any implication that in a Socialist country boys and girls of 18 could be liable to the death penalty for theft.

Editorial Committee.

Correction (1996)

From the March 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

The January editorial “Class Struggle–Back on the Agenda” stated that the working class is currently dominated “by defensive reformist ideas and reformist institutions such as trade unions”. This was a type-setting mix-up and should have read “by reformist ideas and defensive institutions such as trade unions”. We apologise for this error.

Correction (1983)

From the January 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

With reference to "added value" (in the article "Promised Land" last month) it should be pointed out that this is the total new wealth created by the workers in the productive process. This is then divided into the wages and salaries paid to workers, and the surplus value received and accumulated by the capitalist class.

Editors.