Is there a socialist maths?

I was once forced to ask a question at the SWP's annual Marxism event because everyone found the meeting, on Alan Turin, too difficult to contribute to.

I was in the same boat as them frankly but because I was on "the team" it was my duty to ensure all embarrassing silences were filled with embarrassing questions. So instead of doing the usual "talk with confidence and people may be fooled into thinking you know something." I opted to ask a stupid question instead - "Can there be a socialist maths."

Excitingly the answer was "no, maths is maths, stupid boy". But I'm not so sure. I say this because I've just noticed that Respect have claimed there were 60,000 on the climate change demonstrations on Saturday - more than twice the organiser's claim of 25,000. Thank the gods that the organisers have been exposed as the reactionary stool pidgeons that they are, underestimating their own demonstration in order to suck up to George W Bush.

Of course, there are other alternatives. Respect have a new, more socialist way of counting or they don't tell the truth.

It's a particular bugbear of mine, lies. If twenty six people come to a meeting you don't round it up to forty. If there are eighty people at a local demo you don't count an extra twenty who were there in spirit. It's a trap you can never escape from. If this year's demo was 25,000 and you claim 60,000 what happens next year if 50,000 show up? Whilst in reality you've doubled your numbers, attendees could feel like the movement is slipping backwards. So you have to lie again.

How are you meant to make a real analysis of the situation if you don't know the facts. I had no way of knowing how many were there - I have to go by the estimates and then compare it to my experience. This doesn't just go for numbers of course, but numbers are the easiest way of demonstrating the point.

Now, whilst I'm always very careful not to lie about these things - in a vain hope that other people will follow a good example - there's little guarding against being wrong or influenced by pessimism / optimism. Mistaken can be argued with, lies cannot. When your theory does not fit the facts you can't simply change the facts and keep smiling.

If the left should have a code of ethics, and I think it should, point one should be "Never lie to yourself, the movement or the class." It's not easy, particularly when the truth undermines a point you've been making or cuts against your theory, but it's these times in particular when we need to be prepared to look facts in the face. Thankfully, on this occasion, no one will be sucked in by an obvious exaggeration.