The Mystery of Rising Prices (1957)

From the June 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

An interesting letter from a reader appeared in the Daily Mail on 26th April of this year: interesting because it put a question that baffles most people and because nobody gave the answer.

Here is the question: —

  “In these days of mechanisation it seems strange that most manufactured goods should get dearer. Our wonderful new methods are claimed to give up to ten times the results achieved by older manual methods. Can anyone explain this apparent paradox?”

It is a fair question, and the facts as stated are beyond dispute. Almost every day our newspapers carry reports of some startling increase of productivity, and alongside them announcements of higher prices. What then is the explanation of what the writer of the letter calls “this apparent paradox”? There are several factors, three of which are important. Firstly, the effects of increases of output are almost always wildly exaggerated; secondly, there are large industries in which productivity is falling; and thirdly, prices rise because it has long been government policy to take actions which inevitably raise prices. This last has by far the largest effect, sufficient to offset other changes that might otherwise lower the price level.

Governments and the Price Level

Continually since 1939 it has been the policy of successive governments, National, Labour and Tory, to inflate the currency; that is, to increase the amount of notes in circulation far beyond the amount that would have been sufficient to keep up with the growth of production, trade and population. The note issue in 1938 was under £600 million; it reached £1,400 million in 1945, and is now over £2,000 million. At one time most economists knew well what the effect on the price level is when an inconvertible currency (i.e., not freely convertible into gold) is excessively expanded: now they have forgotten or, like the politicians, prefer to turn a blind eye. Governments do this because, whatever they may say about wanting prices to fall or to keep steady, they really prefer gently rising prices and wages and profits, which give so many people the illusion of being better off. Also they wonder whether a fall in prices might mean a really big rise in unemployment, which would lose them votes.

The measure of the inflation of the currency can be seen in the fact that a gold pound, the sovereign, can be sold for three times its face value of 20/-. Another mark of inflation is the progressive fall of the pound in relation to the dollar. In 1938 the pound would exchange for 4.86 dollars. In 1940 it was reduced to 4 dollars, and in 1949 to 2.8 dollars. In 1932 the American dollar had already been cut to about half its gold content. Some economists expect a further devaluation before very long in Britain. This inflation is then largely the cause of prices being generally at least three times what they were in 1938.

If the government wanted to do so, they could limit or reduce the amount of currency and thus stop the price rise or bring about a fall. Several governments have done this in the past, including the Russian government in 1947.

Misleading Claims about Increased Productivity

We see, then, that even if there were a big increase in productivity through the use of more efficient machinery and methods or other causes, its effect on lowering prices could be offset by the government’s currency policy. But the claims of increased productivity are themselves widely misunderstood and exaggerated.

It is an elementary principle that if by some means the amount of labour required to produce an article could be reduced to half, the price could be halved, but we would expect this to take place only after the new method had become the typical one in at least a large part of the whole industry. If one firm only had possession of the new method they would not cut their price to half, but would use their favoured position to make larger profits, perhaps reducing the price a little in order to capture trade from their less efficient competitors.

But before we get to this point we have to be sure that what looks like a doubling of productivity really is what it seems. And here we are only too often presented with misleading information by newspapers that probably do not have full information (because firms rarely disclose it) and which, in any event, are more interested in sensationalism than in accuracy.

News of new machinery is usually presented in the form that some new machine attended by a small number of workers will do the work of a much larger number working by hand or with another machine. It is in this form that announcements about the power-driven coal cutters is reported; and recent examples have been the automatic factory and office machines loosely described as “automation.” But though we may reasonably assume that some increase in productivity is expected, this kind of information tells us nothing at all about increased productivity. Increased productivity in the last resort means producing an article with less labour, and to know to what extent this has been achieved we need to know about all the labour, including that required to make and maintain the machine. Often this information is not disclosed, as is pointed out in the booklet on Automation, published by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

An example a few years ago was a report that “the world’s biggest signal box” had been opened by British Railways at York. In almost all the newspaper reports the item seized upon as news was that 27 men could now do the work formerly done by 70 men in a number of separate signal boxes. Doubtless the change over will in time produce some real saving of labour, but most of the Press reports omitted to state that the new box cost £500,000 (Manchester Guardian, 1st June, 1951). It will take a long time before the saving of the labour of 43 signalmen equals the amount of labour taken up in construction.

The coal mines are an interesting example. Astonishing claims have been made about the increased productivity expected from the use of machinery in the mines, but the annual output of coal per worker employed in the coal industry has remained practically unchanged in the years 1951 to 1956, at about 315 tons per year, compared with an output of about 330 tons a year 70 or 80 years ago; which brings us to another important factor often overlooked.

Declining Industries

The coal mines are typical of a number of industries in which the general trend is for output to fall not rise. When coal mining was in its infancy the rich seams near the surface were exploited and output was high. As these are exhausted miners have to go deeper, and poorer seams are extracted—with the result that more and more labour is required for each ton of coal. New machinery helps, but if the labour required to make the increasing amount of machinery produced in the engineering trades for the use of the coal industry is taken into account, the real fall in output is even greater than is shown by the above figures.

In an address to the Rotary Club of Los Angeles (reported in Manchester Guardian, 15th Feb., 1957), the chairman of the Socony Mobil Oil Company, Mr. B. B. Brewster Jennings, surveyed a number of the raw material industries and showed that what is true of coal is true of many other industries:

  “. . . raw materials all over the world are harder and costlier to get. We have seen this very clearly in our own coal industry, in which year by year more non-productive work is needed for every ton of useful coal. For most of our raw materials the picture is much the same.”

He instanced copper, the American oil industry, with more and deeper wells to produce the same output of oil, and iron ore in Canada. His conclusion was that man’s ingenuity will keep up with the rapidly increasing demand for these materials, but only at the cost of more and more capital being invested to do it; which is another way of saying that more labour is required in these industries for each ton of output.

This general trend in the raw material industries shows itself in the fact that raw material prices in the last half century have risen considerably more than the rise of the prices of manufactured goods. And it explains why we so often read that industries which are known to have introduced new machines and methods which reduce the labour required in manufacture (e.g., the motor industry) nevertheless announce higher prices “because of the increased cost of raw materials.”

The Real Increase of Productivity

The real increase of productivity in industry and transport, etc., as a whole is consequently not the very large amount conveyed by sensational newspaper reports, but on a much more modest scale. The Earl of Halsbury, managing director of the National Research Development Corporation, who has written much about “Automation,” was merely restating the accepted view among economists who have studied this problem when, in a recent interview, he said: —

  “Productivity in the United Kingdom rose at one and a half per cent. per annum in the United Kingdom for the first forty years of this century. It’s now rising at three per cent, per annum, double the old rate. . .” (Everybody’s, 16/2/57)

In America, according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, productivity (i.e., the output per worker) in manufacturing industry rose between 1929 and 1953 by 70 per cent. As the period covered is 24 years, this means an average yearly increase of under 3 per cent. (Times, 18th January 1956).

Is this a gloomy view ?

The real facts about productivity may be a shock to those who believe that “automation” will bring a paradise of a workless world and to those who believe that capitalism can offer a spectacular rise of the standard of living. Actually a 3 percent increase of productivity each year could double output in about 30 years, but capitalism presents another gloomy aspect, that its wars and armaments make nonsense of the increase of productivity. Almost all of the increase of productivity of British industry in this century has been swallowed up in the expenses of armaments (now nearly 10 per cent. of the national income) and in succeeding destructive wars, which in a few years can destroy the achievements of a quarter of a century.

Socialism the Only Way to Secure the Benefits of Productivity

Socialists have the only hopeful answer to these gloomy facts of life under capitalism. Only Socialism can end war and armaments and thus stop that waste of production. Equally important, only Socialism can secure that the labour force and the materials now devoted to the financial, trading, and other activities necessary to Capitalism but needless in a Socialist system of society, can be freed for the production of useful articles and services. In this, Socialism offers the certain prospect that the output of useful articles could in short time be doubled. But this involves the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism in its place.

And, incidentally, to go back to our starting point, the problem of the writer of the letter to the Daily Mail will be solved in a way he has not thought of. Under Socialism prices will not be high or low; there will be no prices!

Edgar Hardcastle

Communist Commotion (1957)

From the June 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

“FREE HARICH, SACK HARRY,” painted with true Communist zeal in large white letters on the roadway greeted the faithful as they entered Hammersmith Town Hall over the Easter week-end to receive their annual dose of dogma from the cardinals of King Street, and to indulge in some public confessions of political sins. This slogan was not a rabble-rousing challenge to strike fear into the hearts of Yankee capitalists or warmongering Tories; it was directed not outwards, but inwards, to the heart of the Workers’ Mass Party itself. Harich is the young intellectual imprisoned by the East German government, and guess who Harry is? Yes, none other than Cardinal Harry Pollitt. Alas! we confidently predict that this slogan will have as little effect in altering the status quo as others which have appeared on walls from time to time to enliven the working-class scene have had (e.g., “Hands off Guatemala,” “End Eden’s War,” “Chuck The Tories Out,” etc.). Harry is still there, and so, presumably, is Harich – but in a different place.

The irreverent slogan was, however, a sign of a definite air of revolt which hung over the proceedings, a revolt which, if not quite amounting to “ruthless self-criticism,” was at least an indication of a fairly advanced state of political masochism. Cardinal J. Gollan, the Party secretary, had to announce that 7,000 of the faithful had left the flock during the preceding year: others were all too ready to voice their doubts, especially about the Russian intervention in Hungary. One delegate remarked that in 22 years he had never known a Congress that had such a ‘type of discussion getting down to it.'” (Observer, 21/4/57). The college of cardinals, including Gollan, Matthews, Mahon and Pollitt, struggled manfully with incantations and holy writ to exorcise the devils of heresy.

Representatives of the Labour press were excluded from the conference. Could this be because Mr. Peter Fryer (who resigned from the Daily Worker over the treatment of his reports from Hungary and who was later expelled from the C.P.) was the would-be representative for Tribune?

Hungary

Although the hierarchy’s policy obtained an “overwhelming majority” of votes in its support from the Congress, there were some rather frank things said about the Russian intervention in Hungary. For instance, Mr. J. McLoughlin, the famous Dagenham campanologist, was most vociferous: “Don’t dig your heads in the sand,” he said “and ignore Hungary. Terrible things have happened.” And, he added, in a final fling at the platform, “I want to come to the next Congress and see at least a partially new front bench – not the Dutt-Pollitt-what’s-his-name axis.” (Observer, 21/4/57.) Tut, tut, John. flattery will get you nowhere.

J. McLachlan (Scotland); “The Daily Worker told us that there was black counter-revolution in Hungary, but, in fact, there were popular demonstrations against a bureaucratic regime,” he said. “I agree that these were used by reactionary forces, and I agree that the final intervention by Soviet forces was necessary. But terrible mistakes had been made by the Soviet and Hungarian leaders and we should condemn those mistakes at this ingress.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57.)

Another outspoken critic was Mr. Brian Behan. “At meeting of the executive,” said Brian Behan, “he had moved an amendment that they should dissociate themselves from the crimes of the Hungarian Communist Party. but this had not been printed in the Daily Worker. He had been told that this was due to a technical error (!) and accepted this, but he believed that his amendment should have been reported to Congress.” (Daily Worker, 20/4/57.) Readers who may be prematurely rejoicing at the thought of free speech pervading the upper layers of the Communist hierarchy will no doubt be saddened to learn that Mr. Behan did not gain a place on the new executive: the above statement, and others we shall be reporting later in this article, may offer slight clues as e cause of his unfortunate political demise.

Mr. Fryer was not permitted to put his case before Congress, but copies of a speech he would have made were distributed. A portion of this speech (reported in the Manchester Guardian of 22/4/57) is most revealing, and is worth reproducing here: “You can cross out my name from the membership list with a stroke of the pen. But you cannot cross out the truth about Hungary with a stroke of the pen. The truth about Hungary is known perfectly well to many of you who will vote for the rejection of my appeal. In the privacy of his office J. R. Campbell (editor of the Daily Worker) speaks of Kadar as a puppet. I am expelled for blazoning abroad what Campbell knows to be the truth.”

The Bomb, and Conscription

Male Communists are capable of making some monumentally fatuous remarks, but it takes a female Communist (Comrade Frances Silcocks, from Yorkshire) to reach the ultimate low in fatuity. After dilating on the struggle of working-class women against the horrors of the H-bomb, this Diana of the barricades said: “Now we are told that the Soviet Union is testing the bomb, and we are asked what we say about that,” she said. “We are opposed to tests in any country, including the Soviet Union. But what is the Soviet Union to do? Is it to sit on the fence until we throw bombs at them and they have none to throw back?” (Daily Worker, 20/4/57.) Certainly not, Comrade Frances, we hero mothers of the Communist Party would consider it an honour and a privilege to be liquidated by a real, class-conscious, Soviet H-bomb.

“There was a short, sharp debate on conscription. By 321 votes to 135 Congress defeated a proposal that the Party should fight to end conscription.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57.) The ubiquitous Mr. McLoughlin also had some words to say on this subject: “The Tory Government had announced a new policy on conscription, but the Communist Party was still committed to it. Why?” he asked. “Perhaps because the Russians have got conscription.” “Don’t be provocative,” called out a delegate. (Daily Worker, 20/4/57.)

Democracy

The election of the executive committee was democratic in the extreme; 42 members were “recommended” for election, and, would you believe it, “a party spokesman said . . . that there would be 42 members on the new executive.” (Manchester Guardian, 20/4/57.) How convenient! As we mentioned before, careless talk cost Mr. Behan his seat on the band-wagon.

Lest we appear too harsh on the comrades, we should mention that they stage-managed quite a nice little show of “democracy” during the congress. The minority formulation in the draft revised text of The British Road to Socialism relating to “fraternal relations between Socialist Britain and the countries of the British Empire” received a majority of votes over the majority (executive committee) version. However, we defy anyone to show us any fundamental difference between the two drafts as reported on the front page of the Daily Worker of 22/4/57. The debate was, as the immortal bard said, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

A final indication of the degree of democracy which pervaded the congress is that 57 general resolutions submitted by branches were not discussed, and “before delegates had seen them they were asked to agree to remit them to the National Executive, and in the end they did so.” (Manchester Guardian, 23/4/57.)

“Revisionism”

Cardinal Gollan admirably defined this fine old Bolshevik euphemism for criticism of official party policy in his weighty address to his flock (Daily Worker, 20/4/57). “We use the word ‘revisionist’ advisedly, not as a bit of name-calling, but to describe objective tendencies. These were the contributions attacking the essential basis of the Party, democratic centralism and its leading role.” He later said (Daily Worker, 22/4/57): “Lenin and the Bolsheviks had to fight revisionists all their lives.” Exactly; the modern disciples of Pope Lenin have to carry on the good fight – no wonder they don’t have any time to discuss Socialism.

Another outspoken delegate was Professor Hyman Levy, who denied that the loss of 7,000 members was due to “revisionism,” “but to the attitude of the leaders to events in Russia and Eastern Europe.” (Manchester Guardian, 22/4/57.) Professor Levy “challenged his chairman, Mr. Harry Pollitt, to explain his silence about ‘a gangsterism’ in the Soviet Union. How often has Harry Pollitt been told about this? How often has he told people to keep their mouths shut?” Need we add that Professor Levy’s utterances were nowhere reported in the pages of the Daily Worker! Much prominence was, however, given to a “reply” by Andrew Rothstein, a reply deeply embedded in party dogma. (Daily Worker, 23/4/57).

Kerala

The recent coming to power of a “communist” government in the State of Kerala in India received much plaudits from the assembled comrades. Cardinal George Matthews said (Daily Worker, 22/4/57): “The victory of the Communist Party of India in the State of Kerala is a portent of far-reaching political developments which will take place among the teeming millions of India.” No one outside the Communist Party phantasy world, however, will be surprised to learn that business in Kerala continues much as before, on sound capitalist lines, and the revolutionary Communist ministers’ ” deeds and sayings in one single day are too bourgeois for words,” according to Miss Taya Zinkin in the Manchester Guardian (24/4/57). ‘She continues: “The Chief Minister attended Acharya Vinoba Bhave’s prayer meeting yesterday, bought a copy of his book on the Gita (Hinduism’s Bible), and asked for an autograph of India’s walking saint . . . Meanwhile the Health Minister, Mr. R. A. Menon . . . told the Palghat Poor Home Society that the beggar problem must be solved by private institutions because the Government can do very little,” etc.

“The British Road to Socialism”

Some heretic voices were even raised against this blueprint for revolution (1957 version, with all the latest tactical amendments and deletions to match the day-today, struggle. E. & O.E.). A genuine, old-fashioned kind of Bolshevik is T. Connor who “opposed the draft as a revisionist (ouch; that word again) programme, and he was fighting for a return to revolutionary Socialism. He moved an amendment calling for the formation of workers’ councils and councils of action through which power would be seized.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57.) Cardinal J. R. Campbell rebutted this idea, evocative as it is of sterner, ruder, Bolshevik days. “The amendment put forward by Huyton, suggesting that workers’ councils and councils of action would elect a Socialist Government, proposed to substitute for the pure milk of Marxism the skimmed milk of Trotskyism,” he said. (Laughter). May we remind the reverend Cardinal and all the sheep who laughed so heartily at his witticism, that once upon a time “councils of action,” “workers’ councils,” “united fronts,” etc., were all the rage on the revolutionary front. For instance, a circular issued by the “Red International of Labour Unions” came into our hands (Socialist Standard, March 1923) before the word “Trotskyism” (one of the foulest swear-words in the Communist vocabulary) was invented. This circular advocated the concentration of “all available strength” by the formation of “councils of action through the medium of conference composed of delegates from trades councils, trade union branches, and district committees, working class local and national political organisations, unemployed organisations, co-operative societies and guilds.” Stick that in your milk and skim it, Campbell. Cardinal Campbell opposed the nationalisation of certain types of land, not because it is not Socialism, but because “it would also lead to endless complications pushing masses of people on to the wrong side of the class struggle.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57). Yes, but which side? With true revolutionary zeal the good Cardinal also opposed the policy of “no compensation,” because it “would alarm those we are seeking to neutralise, would create the maximum opposition and make most difficult a peaceful transition.”

To prove that the female of the Communist species is more deadly than the male, Mrs. Gwen Shield moved an amendment to reject the draft’s proposal to compensate former owners of nationalised industries. “She wanted them to get only the opportunity to work and when prevented by physical incapacity to get National Insurance benefits.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57). Good news for all you capitalists!

What of the Future?

Thousands of members have left the Communist Party during the past year, and many more may do so after this year’s conference, which has conclusively proved the party hierarchy’s refusal to budge one inch from its rigid pro-Russian line. But the “hard core” will carry on, for, in Cardinal Pollitt’s own words, “We all owe everything to the party, whatever we do and whatever our job” (Daily Worker, 23/4/57).

Professor Levy summed up the Communist Party’s political influence thus: “The working class of this country have constantly rejected the Communist Party,” he said. “You keep on talking as if you were the leading group.” (Manchester Guardian, 22/4/57). Whatever future party line the diehards adopt in following the tortuous changes in the policy of the Russian ruling class, it will inevitably be anti-working-class and anti-Socialist. The Communist Party’s past history has been a chapter of misrepresentation, trickery, deceit and humbug. Its future is likely to be no different.

Michael LaTouche

Karl Marx and Enoch Powell (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Suppose that on the occasion of some of these crises, the nation were to rouse itself to the effort of getting rid by emigration of some hundreds of thousands of superfluous arms, what would be the consequence? 

That, at the first returning demand for labour, there would be a deficiency. However reproduction may be, it takes a space of a generation to replace the loss of adult labour. Now the profits of our manufacturers depend mainly on the power of making use of the prosperous moment, when the demand is brisk. Compensating for when it is slack. 

This power is secured to them by the command of machinery and manual labour. They must have hands ready by them, they must be able to increase the activity of their operations when required and to slacken it again according to the state of the market, or they cannot possibly maintain the pre-eminence in the rate of competition on which the wealth of the country is founded.”

This is quoted by Marx in Capital Vol. 1, p. 595: “Lectures on Colonies” by Professor H. Merivale, Oxford, 1841.

But in fact, says Marx: “it is capitalistic accumulation that constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of labourers i.e. a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the self-expansion of capital and therefore a surplus population.” Marx called this the Industrial Reserve Army.

Horatio

Lessons for teachers (1988)

Book Review from the July 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why don't teachers teach like they used to? by Rachel Pinder. (Hilary Shipman. 1987. paperback £6.95)

I hear and I forget
I see and I remember
I do and I understand

This old Chinese proverb forms the opening lines of Rachel Pinder s informative, sometimes amusing and always very readable book. Having spent her working life in teaching and the last ten years before retirement as headteacher in Inner London, she relates the history of teaching by both "progressive'' and ' traditional" methods over many centuries up to the present. In the process she exposes confusion, if not total ignorance, as what constitutes "traditional" methods; what has. and has not. been tried; and the results achieved by the different methods.

In 1510. Dean Colet. founder of St Paul's School, criticised "traditional teaching by rule and formal methods". Richard Mulcaster. High Master of St Paul's in Tudor times, complained about teachers who "think it the best that boys should fruitlessly run through all the rules learned by heart but not understand." Elizabeth Lawrence in The Origins and Growth of Modern Education goes even further back, quoting Plato: "Enforced learning will not stay in the mind. So avoid compulsion and led your child's lessons take the form of play". It appears therefore that "progressive" methods have been advocated and used for 2.000 years. Does that make them "traditional"?

Professor Jean Piaget, an eminent Swiss psychologist, refers thus to John Amos Comenius (1592-1670): "Comenius may undoubtedly be considered as the founder of a system of progressive instruction adjusted to the stage of development the pupil has reached." Comenius said that learning should be in four stages: examine; question; investigate; determine. In 1641 he was invited by Members of Parliament to visit England and set up a school system based on his principles; unfortunately the Civil War intervened.

Although the beginnings of "progressive" education are often credited to Rousseau, it is obviously much older than that. In a review it is neither possible nor desirable to quote every example but the following extract from Richard Edgworth's (1744-1817) Essays on Professional Education perhaps gives a key to Mrs Thatcher's obsession with "returning to basics"

  The first object should not be to teach them reading or grammer. or Latin or arithmetic . . but gradually to give them the desire to learn and the power to attend . . . they must be taught to think (our italics)

Politicians' exhortations since 1976 that schools should "get back to basics" shows an alarming degree of ignorance and apparent unawareness of school inspectors' reports over the past 100 years. The latest of these, in 1981. bears great similarity to one within over a hundred years ago:

 There is no evidence that a narrow curriculum, concentrating only on the basic skills, enables children to do better in these skills: HM Inspectors' surveys suggest that competence in reading, writing and mathematics may be improved where pupils are involved in a wider programme of work and if their skills in language and mathematics are applied in a variety of contexts.

In 1858 the Newcastle Commission was appointed to investigate education and make proposals. One of these was that children should be examined annually by an inspector and schools paid "by results". This was introduced in 1862 and Robert Lowe. Vice President of the Privy Council for Education said in the House of Commons:

  I cannot promise the House that this system will be an economical one and I cannot promise that it will be an efficient one. but I can promise that it shall be one or the other. It it is not cheap, it shall be efficient; if it is not efficient, it shall be cheap.

Examinations were based on a centrally controlled curriculum and although teachers were not forbidden to teach other subjects, there was great pressure to ensure that children would pass the examination rather than that they should learn anything worthwhile. The system worked as far as government expenditure was concerned; this dropped from £813,441 in 1861 to £636,806 in 1865. In Curriculum Change in the 19th and 20*h Century Gordon & Lawton quote from the 1871 school log-book of a Welsh headmaster:

  Believing that one-fourth of the school time that was devoted to subjects not recognised by the government and consequently not paid for by grants, had the effect of keeping a well-informed school but causing the percentage results to be lower than those of schools that are mechanical in their working and unintelligible in their tone. I have been compelled against my inclination to arrange that less time be devoted to them in future and more time to those that pay best.

However this teaching by rote did not produce workers adequately fitted for their role and the system was gradually eroded, being finally eradicated in 1890. How long will it take this century for realisation to dawn that "traditional' teaching, according to official definitions, not only stunts the mind but will produce a generation ill-equipped to provide adequately the labour required by modern capitalism?

Towards the end of the book Rachel Pinder talks of education which is not based only on lessons but also on the involvement of parents, family and friends in widening children's experience and therefore knowledge. This is a concept with which socialists would not disagree.

Eva Goodman