The SPGB on New York Radio (1970)


From The Western Socialist #6, 1970

During his recent visit to the United States as fraternal delegate of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to the annual WSP conference in Boston, Comrade May, together with two other SPGB comrades, addressed a successful propaganda meeting conducted by New York Local. While in New York he was interviewed by Arlene Francis (well-known star of motion pictures and TV) on her radio program, on WOR-AM, September 29, 1970.


Inasmuch as the discussion ran about 40 minutes, we had to condense it because of space requirements of The Western Socialist. We take pleasure in presenting Comrade Cyril May’s effective presentation of the socialist case in this interview. Miss Francis asked meaningful and pertinent questions.
Arlene Francis: I would like to introduce Mr. Cyril May, party organizer of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, who is visiting this country to give some lectures. And I’m happy that one of your lectures. Mr. May. is to be addressed to me because what I do not know about your subject is embarrassing to me. Among my few meager bits of knowledge is the fact that the socialist state that you envision does not presently exist nor has It ever existed. Am I right?


Cyril May: That is quite correct. In fact, the statement of a “socialist state” is not one that we would particularly like to go along with because the very word “state” itself has certain political connotations with which you and I would perhaps disagree at this juncture. But it is true that socialism is something that does not exist in any country throughout the world.


Arlene: And has it ever?


Cyril: And it hasn’t ever. No.


Arlene: Then you have come up with a brand new idea today. And . . .  sowhat we are talking about — is what? Ia it another movement toward features such as public control of all utilities? I don’t know so I have to ask.


Cyril: OK. Well I’ll try to fill you in with the essentials on it. Socialism to the Socialist Party of Great Britain and to its companion parties in other parts of the world, including the World Socialist Party in the United States, is a system of society, or a way of living if we can put it that way, where the means of wealth production and distribution, the land, the mills, the mines, the minerals, the factories and workshops, the means of transportation will be owned by the whole of society, regardless of sex or race. In short, common ownership is the essential economic fundamental of a socialist society.


Arlene: How do you even begin that?


Cyril: Well, to begin that. It really involves a revolution In the idea process of people. They’ve got to change their ideas and concepts and the scales of social values, that they have today. In short, the establishment of a socialist society, from our point of view, rests upon a majority of people. It can’t be established by some dictatorship or some elitist group. It rests upon a majority of people understanding it and arising from that understanding taking the necessary political action to establish It. So first of all it’s a revolution in ideas.


Arlene: So that it’s a case for the psychotherapist really, before anything else.


Cyril: Well. I changed my ideas and I didn’t have a psychotherapist.


Arlene: What were your ideas?


Cyril: Well, my ideas when I was 14 or 15 were rather typical of most working class boys, I guess. I went to a Methodist Church. I thought at times, I guess, that it was a change of heart that was needed by people. And I looked at the hearts of a lot of people who had apparently changed, belonged to churches, and I found that they had no solution to what I considered to be the major problems then. This was In the middle of the 1930s when the Second World War was looming on the horizon. and after listening to a variety of different political speeches and reading books on it, I came to the conclusion that the ideas of the Socialist Party were the correct ones. But no psychotherapist entered into this. And If we’ve got to wait for psychotherapists to deal with this, then I don’t think It will ever come. It’s long enough to wait for it dealing with it in the normal way. But I think if we let the psychotherapists loose on it we really are in trouble.


Arlene: Yes, but still you’ve said yourself that we have to recondition our own thinking. That takes quite a lot of work to leave in the hands of the individual.


Cyril: No. It doesn’t leave work on the part of the individual. But at least they are capable of doing it. The trouble as I see it and the Party sees it, they’re not prepared to devote the amount of time to the world in which they live that they devote to football, perhaps. in England and in America to baseball and basketball.


Arlene: Then you don’t recognize natural greed?


Cyril: No, I don’t recognize natural greed, as such. I recognize people are greedy, including myself. But I don’t think that is any natural aspect of man. I rather think that’s more a feature of human behavior that’s determined by social conditions under which he finds himself. (Voice from background: Desperation?)


Arlene: Jeanie just said “desperation.”


Cyril: Well, not so much desperation, perhaps, apart from the way in which this world is organized—rather stupidly in my opinion. There are those who become desperate because on the one hand, the world can turn out sufficient food to feed the millions of the world, while on the other hand millions of people starve. That is a desperate situation, and one which will exist as long as this type of world operates where food isn’t grown primarily for people to eat. I mean, that is of secondary importance. In fact, a lot of food that is produced isn’t fit for humans to eat very often. But the prime reason it is produced, I would say, is for sale on the market with view to profit. No profit, no production, and the people can die of starvation. That’s desperate and I think we’ve got to do something about it.


Arlene: Why does, or does the Socialist Party of Great Britain feel that a gradual reform is impossible?


Cyril: Well, we’ve come up against this political question of reformism in Great Britain since around the turn of the century. Organizations like the Labour Party were formed on the old Social Democratic Federation lines and put out the view that they wanted a different type of society and envisaged that this society could be obtained by a series of political reforms. Well, in England — and obviously I talk out of a great deal of political experience after seventy years of political reforms since the first of the century, some of which have been quite fundamental in character — as for example the introduction of the National Health Service, the fact that certain industries were nationalized, all reforms advocated by the Labour Party, fundamentally these reforms haven’t patched any of the basic problems that confront mankind. And we think that all reforms, some of which may be good, some of which have a left-handed kick, as it were, if added up, do not even touch the ownership of society, which — to us — is the basis of the ills that confront mankind today. So this process of reformism doesn’t in any way bring us that much nearer to the fundamental change which we consider is necessary.


Arlene: Could your ideals be expressed in the ballot?


Cyril: Yes, that is the idea of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Companion Parties, that the capture of political control, political power, to introduce a new way of life can only be done through peaceful means. We do not envisage a revolution on the streets behind barricades, lynching people, that does not give rise to a sane order of society. So It has got to be done through the ballot box.


Arlene: Were the socialist ideals of George Bernard Shaw any closer to your way of thinking?


Cyril: I like George Bernard Shaw as a dramatist. As a political commentator he was not particularly on the beam. He was a member of the Fabian Society which is an offshoot of the Labour Party. He was interested firstly in what the Labour Party stood for, namely, to try and reform, shall we say, rub the raw edges off the capitalist system but really to keep it in being with its ownership basis.


Arlene: Doesn’t it strike you that your goals are so enormous that they are virtually impossible?


Cyril: Uuhm . . .


Arlene: Of course you wouldn’t be working for anything that you thought was impossible . . .


Cyril: Yes. If I thought it was impossible I wouldn’t be devoting my time. We do realize it is an enormous task. But we have a number of features which are working for us, in many ways. If the introduction of the new system rested upon the mere handful of socialists, relatively speaking, in this and other parts of the country then you could say, why worry? But the way the system operates and organizes itself throws up such a series of problems which man has got to grapple with one way or another, otherwise he’s a dead one, that this in itself, acts very much on happy hearts, and people begin to start thinking of things along lines of dealing with them from a worldwide basis without necessarily being socialists. There are a number of agencies, today, which are certainly not socialist — in fact, very much capitalist — in character but they are beginning to appreciate, and realize that the problems today are no longer confined to one geographical unit, but are world-wide in character.


Arlene: Can you mention what some are?


Cyril: Yes. I should think the Food and Agricultural Organization attached to the United Nations Organization has done an enormous amount of research work and printed a considerable amount of literature which is not socialist, but which in many ways has pin-pointed the problem as being one of a social nature and one of a world-wide character. They stop short there, of course, and here, I think, is their fundamental failing. They are dealing with these evils through the eyeglass of capitalism and as long as they wear that eyeglass they will not go any further than that.


Arlene: What about the abolition of money, which was suggested on this microphone some months back by Alan Watts. It is an interesting idea and it still haunts me — all the ramifications of it. Will you please develop that a little for us?


Cyril: Yes. This is one of the points that the socialist mentions — that they envisage a society without money, that at this juncture most people do think that we are cracked (laughter from the hostess). They’ve got so used to money that they can’t envisage anything except money with which to obtain articles. But if you look back over history money wasn’t always in existence, certainly not in primitive times and it only came into existence with the development of private property and became the complex money system that we know today as capitalism has become more and more complex . . . In London, recently, due to the fact that our transport system, much like yours in New York, is run down and doesn’t pay its way the suggestion’s been made that it is not worthwhile collecting all of these silly coins and silly pieces of paper; let’s ride for free. Well, this isn’t socialism, of course, but it shows the way in which people’s minds are working. To us, money is only a means of exchange in order that if I was in a bar instead of your radio studio and wanted a cup of coffee, I’d have to give fifteen cents for it because somebody owns that cup of coffee and if I want it I’ve got to pay them for it. But this presupposes ownership all away along the line. But if you have a world based on common ownership, where the coffee, the cocoa and all the thousand and one different things that men need in order to live are owned by the whole of society, then what would we have money for? It’s no use paying ourselves money in order to obtain these things. And we envisage this socialist society as being one in which people will give according to their abilities and take according to their need. And we will not need money in order to do that.


Arlene: Isn’t that also Communist theory?


Cyril: Strictly speaking the words “socialism” and “communism” are synonomous terms. Marx, a hundred years ago wrote this in many of the political books and pamphlets he was writing at the time and it’s largely in the 20th century, particularly from the dating of the Russian Revolution of 1917, that the words “communism” and “socialism” seem to have taken on a different meaning. In short, some people look upon “socialism” as being parlor pink and “communism” as the deepest of red. But to us they are, indeed, identical terms.


Taken from 

The Missing Migrants

 The numbers leaving Honduras are rising as the country grapples with the economic fallout of the pandemic, the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis, as well as the more entrenched issues of gang violence, poverty and climate change. It’s impossible to know how many people leave Honduras. One estimate is that every year, 130,000-150,000 people try to reach the USA.

The route to the US is full of danger, and migrants are “extremely vulnerable”. Some perish from exposure to the elements in the desert that lies along the Mexico-US border; others are killed in road accidents or die grisly deaths on “the beast” – a freight train that traverses Mexico; some are detained by authorities; and some, like Rosa and her daughter, fall victim to criminal gangs in Mexico, who view migrants as a business opportunity.

“There are multiple factors here in Honduras that force people to migrate,” says Rolando Sierra, director of the faculty of social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Honduras. “Honduras has a high percentage of the population living in poverty without opportunities for employment. And, if levels of violence, corruption and impunity don’t reduce, then neither will migration.”

The International Organization for Migration’s Missing Migrants Project documented that between January 2014 and March 2022 at least 6,141 people died or disappeared along migratory routes on the American continent. Between 2007 and 2021, the Jesuit Migrant Service attended to 1,280 cases of missing migrants in Mexico, of which 71% were from Central America. In Mexico, where many go missing, there is a forensic crisis, with more than 52,000 unidentified bodies lying in mass graves, forensic service facilities, universities and forensic storage centres.

 In Honduras alone there are 3,500 people listed as missing.

Sierra adds: “In Honduras, there are no policies in place to deal with irregular migration. There are no specialised services to investigate what has happened to people who disappear or to support their relatives.”

There is no central database of missing people, which “invisibilises the phenomenon”, according to Jérémy Renaux, coordinator for the programme of disappeared people at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Families face obstacles in reporting cases, and then receive no help.

Eva Ramirez, who founded the Comité de familiares de migrantes desaparecidos Amor y Fea group of people with missing relatives, explains, “People don’t leave the country because they want to. They leave because they have to. We live in a country that expels people through extreme poverty and a lack of opportunities, and violence, among many other factors.”

‘Sell your organs to raise the ransom’: the Hondurans risking kidnap and death to reach the US | Global development | The Guardian

The BBC is Manipulated

 Emily Maitlis, the former Newsnight presenter highlighted the role of Sir Robbie Gibb, who previously worked as Theresa May’s director of communications and helped to found the rightwing GB News channel. She described him as an “active agent of the Conservative party” who is shaping the broadcaster’s news output. Gibb was appointed to the BBC’s board by Boris Johnson’s government.

 Maitlis said the BBC often slipped into a “both-sides-ism” approach to impartiality that gave a platform to individuals that did not deserve airtime.

She also said attacks on the media can cause journalists to “censor our own interviews to avoid the backlash.”

Despite queues at the British border and economic issues piling up, such outlets are still reluctant to discuss the impact of Brexit “in case they get labelled pessimistic, anti-populist, or worse still, as above: unpatriotic”.

Maitlis warned that the traditional media is becoming increasingly afraid to stand up for itself in an era where “facts are getting lost, constitutional norms trashed, claims frequently unchallenged”.

She explained,  “And yet every day that we sidestep these issues with glaring omissions feels like a conspiracy against the British people; we are pushing the public further away. Why should our viewers, our listeners, come to us to interpret and explain what is going on when they can see our own reluctance to do so?”  

While journalists do not have to be campaigners they should avoid being “complaisant, complicit onlookers”.

Emily Maitlis says ‘active Tory party agent’ shaping BBC news output | BBC | The Guardian

The BBC is Manipulated

 Emily Maitlis, the former Newsnight presenter highlighted the role of Sir Robbie Gibb, who previously worked as Theresa May’s director of communications and helped to found the rightwing GB News channel. She described him as an “active agent of the Conservative party” who is shaping the broadcaster’s news output. Gibb was appointed to the BBC’s board by Boris Johnson’s government.

 Maitlis said the BBC often slipped into a “both-sides-ism” approach to impartiality that gave a platform to individuals that did not deserve airtime.

She also said attacks on the media can cause journalists to “censor our own interviews to avoid the backlash.”

Despite queues at the British border and economic issues piling up, such outlets are still reluctant to discuss the impact of Brexit “in case they get labelled pessimistic, anti-populist, or worse still, as above: unpatriotic”.

Maitlis warned that the traditional media is becoming increasingly afraid to stand up for itself in an era where “facts are getting lost, constitutional norms trashed, claims frequently unchallenged”.

She explained,  “And yet every day that we sidestep these issues with glaring omissions feels like a conspiracy against the British people; we are pushing the public further away. Why should our viewers, our listeners, come to us to interpret and explain what is going on when they can see our own reluctance to do so?”  

While journalists do not have to be campaigners they should avoid being “complaisant, complicit onlookers”.

Emily Maitlis says ‘active Tory party agent’ shaping BBC news output | BBC | The Guardian

The BBC is Manipulated

 Emily Maitlis, the former Newsnight presenter highlighted the role of Sir Robbie Gibb, who previously worked as Theresa May’s director of communications and helped to found the rightwing GB News channel. She described him as an “active agent of the Conservative party” who is shaping the broadcaster’s news output. Gibb was appointed to the BBC’s board by Boris Johnson’s government.

 Maitlis said the BBC often slipped into a “both-sides-ism” approach to impartiality that gave a platform to individuals that did not deserve airtime.

She also said attacks on the media can cause journalists to “censor our own interviews to avoid the backlash.”

Despite queues at the British border and economic issues piling up, such outlets are still reluctant to discuss the impact of Brexit “in case they get labelled pessimistic, anti-populist, or worse still, as above: unpatriotic”.

Maitlis warned that the traditional media is becoming increasingly afraid to stand up for itself in an era where “facts are getting lost, constitutional norms trashed, claims frequently unchallenged”.

She explained,  “And yet every day that we sidestep these issues with glaring omissions feels like a conspiracy against the British people; we are pushing the public further away. Why should our viewers, our listeners, come to us to interpret and explain what is going on when they can see our own reluctance to do so?”  

While journalists do not have to be campaigners they should avoid being “complaisant, complicit onlookers”.

Emily Maitlis says ‘active Tory party agent’ shaping BBC news output | BBC | The Guardian

South Korea’s “baby-making strike”.

 Fertility rates have “declined markedly” in the past six decades says the OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. But the trend has been particularly pronounced in South Korea, where family sizes have reduced in the span of a few generations. 

At the start of the 1970s women had four children on average but South Korea has again recorded the world’s lowest fertility rate with the number sinking to a new low.

The rate in the country first dropped lower than one child per woman in 2018. In 2020 there was widespread alarm in South Korea when it recorded more deaths than births for the first time.

But on Wednesday, figures released by the government showed the figure had dropped to 0.81 – down three points from the previous year, and a sixth consecutive decline.



A declining population can put a country under immense strain. Apart from increased pressure on public spending as demand for healthcare systems to cape with the frail elderly and a rise in pension payments, a declining youth population also leads to labour shortages that impact the economy. Raising children in South Korea is expensive, and many young people are sinking under astronomical housing costs. A crisis is brewing. If South Korea’s population continues to shrink, there won’t be enough people to grow its economy and look after its ageing population. Politicians have been unable to fix it. They have thrown billions of dollars at trying to convince people to have children and are still this hasn’t worked.

In comparison, the average rate across the world’s most advanced economies is 1.6 children.

Countries need at least two children per couple – a 2.1 rate – to keep their population at the same size, without migration.



Essentially, many women here are still forced to choose between having a career and having a family. Increasingly they are deciding they don’t want to sacrifice their careers.



As one woman put it, “we are on a baby-making strike”.


South Korea records world’s lowest fertility rate again – BBC News

Remembering The Rohingya

  Four-year-old Yasmin, a Rohingya, has lived a life of uncertainty, unsure where she belongs. Born in a refugee camp in Bangladesh, living in India’s Delhi she is unable to return to t family home in her ancestral village in Myanmar.

Yasmin’s parents fled Myanmar in 2017 to escape a campaign of genocide launched by the military. Many fled to neighbouring countries like Bangladesh and India, where they live as refugees.  Five years on, Rohingya Muslims – the world’s largest stateless population, according to the UN – remain in limbo.



The number of refugees in camps in Bangladesh has grown to close to one million. Half of them are children. The Bangladesh government has been pushing for Rohingya Muslims to return to Myanmar. Thousands of refugees have been moved to a remote island called Bhasan Char, which refugees describe as an “island prison”. Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina told the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michele Bachelet, that the refugees in her country must return to Myanmar. Estimates vary, but refugee organisations believe there are between 10,000 and 40,000 Rohingya refugees in India. The future seems bleak. The government of India doesn’t want them. No nation is willing to take in the hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas. The UN says it is unsafe for them to return home because of the conflict in Myanmar. 



According to a recent UN assessment, cuts in international funding have added to the challenges for a population that remains “fully reliant on humanitarian assistance for survival”. The UN said the refugees continue to struggle to get nutritious food, adequate shelter and sanitation, and opportunities to work.  Education is also a big challenge. There are concerns of a lost generation, who aren’t getting decent schooling.



 The Rohingya people dream of being able to return home. Until things are safe for them to do so, they are pleading with the world for more assistance and compassion.



Rohingya crisis: Has the world forgotten the stateless refugees? – BBC News

Fact of the Day

  Empty office space in London is estimated at roughly 2.88m sq metres (31m sq ft).

 That’s about 2.88 sq km (712 acres), and it’s 50% more than the mere 1.8m sq metres available in the capital in 2019.

Facing the Workers’ Anger

 



British workers are at breaking point, with anger over the cost of living crisis reaching a level not seen since the poll tax riots of the 1990s, Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, said. The frustration at pay failing to keep pace with soaring inflation was spilling over into a wave of strike action that would extend from a summer of discontent into the winter. Graham said a groundswell of unhappiness over living standards was sweeping the country.

She was speaking from the picket line outside the port of Felixstowe, where thousands of dock workers are striking over pay this week, and compared the situation to widespread national anger over Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax, more than three decades ago. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in towns and cities around Britain in March 1990, in a rebellion that culminated in clashes with mounted police in Trafalgar Square, central London. It was regarded as a key event in bringing about the end of Thatcher. 

Asked whether she felt the country was facing a moment with clear parallels to unrest over the poll tax, she added: “I think we could be, without a shadow of a doubt. I actually think there is a moment where people could rise to doing exactly the same thing again,” Graham stated.

Dismissing speculation that union leaders are coordinating industrial action to exert maximum pressure on employers and the government, Graham pointed out that, “It’s the other way around. There is a coordination of workers, who are saying: ‘I’m not taking this any more’. That is happening organically, which is what happened with the poll tax. Yes, there are leaders of things. But collectives make change, not individuals.”

Workers’ anger at cost of living as strong as time of poll tax riots, union boss says | Industrial action | The Guardian

Enough Sacrifices to Mammon

 Emmanuel Macron has warned the French they are facing sacrifices.

Macron said France and the French felt they were living through a series of crises, “each worse than the last”.

“What we are currently living through is a kind of major tipping point or a great upheaval … we are living the end of what could have seemed an era of abundance … the end of the abundance of products of technologies that seemed always available … the end of the abundance of land and materials including water.” 

“This overview that I’m giving, the end of abundance, the end of insouciance, the end of assumptions – it’s ultimately a tipping point that we are going through that can lead our citizens to feel a lot of anxiety. Faced with this, we have a duty, duties, the first of which is to speak frankly and clearly without doom-mongering,” he said.

Philippe Martinez, the secretary general of the powerful CGT union, said Macron’s comments were “misplaced” and that many in France had never known abundance.

“When we talk about the end of abundance, I think of the millions of unemployed, the millions of those in a precarious situation. For many French people, times are already hard, sacrifices have already been made,” Martinez said.

The leader of the French Communist party, Fabien Roussel, a presidential candidate earlier this year, expressed astonishment at Macron’s speech. “Unbelievable! It’s as if the French have had no worries and been over-indulging themselves. We have 10 million poor in France because of President Macron’s carelessness and the predatory behaviour of the rich,” Roussel tweeted.

Macron’s speech came as it was revealed that the dividends paid out by major French companies reached a record €44bn in the second quarter of 2022, as a result of what was described as exceptional profits in 2021. The dividend payout was almost 33% up on the previous year.

Macron warns of ‘end of abundance’ as France faces difficult winter | France | The Guardian