Answers to Correspondents

T.H.S. (Redruth),—The reply of Councillor J. Jones at the Meeting in the Camborne Division referred to is entirely misleading. The question put to him appears to have been to this effect: Was Mr. Lee, the secretary of the S.D.F., shown at the Shoreditch Conference of that body to have deliberately deceived the membership in connection with a certain matter of importance (the circumstances attending the withdrawal of Geo, Lansbury as S.D.F. candidate for Bow and Bromley to wit). If Mr. Jones replied “that is a lie,” Mr. Jones is himself only just within the confines of the truth. The actual fact is that Mr. Lee was shown to have been guilty of a fabrication at the 1902 Conference of the S.D.F. and at the Shoreditch Conference in the following year he admitted the truth of the accusation levelled against him and annouced that he would be prepared to lie again in the interests of his organization. That is why we asked in the issue of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD quoted from at Mr. Jones’ meeting, whether Mr. Lee’s indignant repudiation of the charge that the officials of his organization had accepted Tory gold on certain terms, was to be regarded as the utterance of strict truth or whether this was another occasion on which he felt himself justified in lying in the interests of his party. Mr. Jones will not be silly enough to deny the accuracy of this statement because Mr. Lee’s confession was made in open Conference within the hearing of several score of delegates and others, including Mr. Jones himself.

R. Walmer (Stepney).—You must not expect too much from “Reynolds.” It is a Liberal newspaper although it angles for working-class support by the somewhat virulent championship of what it calls “Democracy.” Of course it isn’t democracy at all but simply capitalist radicalism or unofficial Liberalism. As you are doubtless aware, a capitalist state can swallow all the political reforms so strenuously advocated by “Reynolds” without discomfort and has done so. Certainly the working-class have not profited and will not. Capitalism has nothing to fear from “Reynolds.” On the contrary, it is all to the advantage of Capitalism that it should continue to exist because the paper
is a powerful aid to working-class sectionalism and confusion. Regret we cannot find room for your
letter. The S.S. is a small paper at present and we cannot hope to publish all communications received.

PENKO PETROV (Tambol).—We have only received one card from you, and replied by letter on March 13 to your queries respecting the Countess of Warwick and the British Socialist Movement. If you have since sent us a letter it has miscarried. We are glad to learn of the successful Five-days Congress of the Bulgarian Socialists.

G. Foster (Stockbridge).—Letter too late for this issue. Sorry you are in difficulties, but that is doubtless due to your endeavour to weigh half-sentences. Only by taking the whole of the article, and considering all the arguments adduced can you get a fair idea of the writer’s meaning. Your random selections can hardly be called fair quotation, we suggest.