Letter: Some Questions about Socialist Policy. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. In the event of the Socialist Party attaining a majority in Parliament, would they endeavour to pass legislation in the “House” for the purpose of obtaining the means of production and distribution for the working class?

2. If so, how would the Socialist Party act in the event of the Capitalists impeding the passing of the legislation, by force or otherwise?

3. I take it, that the Socialist Party is against cuts, including the biggest cut of all (the exploitation and robbery of the working class through the appropriation of the surplus value created bv the workers). How would they organise the workers against the attacks which are now taking place—unemployment, Means Test, wage-cuts, extension of hours, etc. Would they combat this by mass action, demonstrations, strikes, or what is the Socialist Party’s method of immediate policy, if any ?

4. Does the Socialist Party believe in running candidates for the immediate local and Parliamentary elections?

Thorne, Nr. Doncaster. “SEEKER”

Reply

(1) The working class need to obtain control of the political machinery before they can institute socialism. Having obtained control of Parliament and the machinery of local government, the workers would enact the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

(2) Given a majority of the population determined to achieve socialism and politically organised for that purpose, they could obtain control of the political machinery by the vote unless the capitalists then in power decided to suspend democratic elections. In either event it would have been shown that the majority wanted socialism. If Socialists had obtained control of the political machinery, including the armed forces, the capitalists would not be able seriously to impede the passing of legislation. They would not have at their disposal the means of resisting by force.

If, on the other hand, the capitalists were in power and had suspended democratic elections in order to prevent the Socialist majority from obtaining control of the political machinery, steps would have to be taken to make the position of the usurping minority impossible. In view of the fact that the organised majority would be hostile to the Government and able to interfere with the smooth running of industry, the Government would find it in the long run impossible to make capitalism function in a way satisfactory even to the capitalists. The political position of the Government would be weakened owing to its undemocratic basis and the state machine would be unable to function on account of the conflicting views among civil and military employees.

When it is recalled that capitalists have in the past had to institute democratic elections in order to make capitalism stable and efficient, even with the population overwhelmingly in favour of capitalism, it will be perceived how hopeless would be their position if they tried to go back on democratic methods in face of a united Socialist majority. Any attempt on their part to carry on without a mandate from the electorate would be bound to break down in time. Even the capitalists themselves would be forced to see the necessity of choosing socialism in preference to chaos.

(3) The S.P.G.B. is against all attempts to reduce the workers’ standard of living, and in favour of actions which will raise, it, above all, the act which alone will end exploitation, i.e., the institution of socialism. It is only possible to organise the workers to resist “cuts” if the workers wish to resist and believe it to be possible to resist. Similarly, it is only possible to organise the workers for the purpose of achieving socialism when the workers want socialism and believe it possible to achieve it. Neither the S.P.G.B. nor any other body can, at present, induce the working class to organise for the resistance to cuts or for the achievement of socialism, because the majority do not believe either to be possible. As our correspondent will have observed at the last election (if, indeed, such evidence were needed), the overwhelming majority voted for capitalism, and the majority were also prepared to accept cuts because they believed them to be necessary for the maintenance of the social system. Having voted power into the hands of the capitalists, the workers must act in accordance with the situation they have produced. They cannot act as if the situation did not exist. If they attempt to take “mass action” they will be bludgeoned into subjection by the weapon which they placed in the hands of the capitalists last October. Within the limits set by the fact that the capitalists have political power, the workers can demonstrate or strike in order to resist as far as possible further attempts to reduce their standard of living, or in order to raise it. Any sound action on these lines would be supported by the S.P.G.B. in the future as in the past. The actual control and organisation of such action must, however, be a matter for the workers themselves, since only a small minority are in the S.P.G.B. It is the policy of the S.P.G.B. to point out what such action can achieve and also to point out its limits, i.e., that it is dealing only with the effects of capitalism, and cannot lead to socialism.

(4) The S.P.G.B. is a political party, and therefore, in line with its principles, recognises the necessity of running candidates for local and Parliamentary elections. The question of doing so immediately is one to be decided in the light of many factors outside our control. There is no constituency in which there is more than a small minority of socialists, and, therefore, participating in elections at the moment would be only a propaganda effort. It has to be considered in relation to its cost in money and effort, and in relation to alternative and less costly forms of propaganda. This applies particularly to Parliamentary elections in which a deposit of £150 is required and is forfeited if the candidate polls less than one-eighth of the votes. With a growth in the number of socialists the arguments in favour of contesting elections will be stronger and the means will become available.—Ed. Comm.

Silly Rivalry. (1932)

From the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May Day some demonstrators marched on the Japanese Embassy and were bludgeoned by the police. The Communists said that it was their stunt, and the l.L.P. journal, Forward, told the Communists how silly it was.

“The whole case against Communism might be summed up in the final feature of the day. This was the march against the Japanese Embassy….. The forces of police, foot and mounted, were overwhelming, and all that happened was a disgraceful scrimmage, cruel batonings, broken heads and several arrests.” (Forward, May 7th.)

Now read what the New Leader, the other l.L.P. organ, says :—

“The United Column…..was well over 1½ miles in length and very impressive. (This) is a piquant comment on the efforts of the Communist Party speakers to represent themselves the bold and true leaders as distinguished from the faint-hearted l.L.P. The small group which, after the police charges finally did break through to the offices of the Japanese Embassy, consisted almost exclusively of I.L.Pers and was led by one of the most prominent of the Divisional I.L.P. Propagandists.”

The I.L.P., like boastful schoolboys, thus present themselves to the Communists with the challenge : “We dare you to think of a stunt so damned silly that we won’t do it, too.”

The Socialist Forum: Parliament and the Bankers. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Belfast reader asks the following questions : —

(1) Do the bankers or Parliament rule, and is Parliament a tool of the former?

Do the bankers dictate the economic, financial and, for the most part, the political programme Parliament must carry out?

(2) Did the bankers engineer the “crisis” during the autumn of 1931 and compel England to abandon the gold standard and also order a general election to take place?

(3) Could you point out some of Capitalism’s contradictions ?

Reply

(1) The Government is dependent for its existence on having the support of a majority in the House of Commons. The M.P.’s are elected by the voters, the great majority of whom are workers. The bankers, like any other section of the population, can only get their interests protected if they can get Parliament to approve.

The property rights and profits of the bankers are protected by law, just as are the property rights and profits of other sections of the capitalist class. Sometimes Governments lean towards one section of the capitalists (e.g., the bankers) and sometimes towards other sections (e.g., industrial capitalists). This they do either because of some urgent problem requiring treatment for the safety of the capitalist system, or in response to pressure from the M.P.’s and the political parties. The last Conservative Government by its rating reforms helped some industrial capitalists at the expense of other capitalists. The present Government has introduced tariffs with the same object. The return to the gold standard in 1925 was of benefit to bankers and to other sections of the capitalists.

That the bankers are able to secure protection by law and by the Government, is due to the fact that the electors approve. At the last election the “National” parties proclaimed that they were protecting the banks against supposed danger which would threaten if the Labour Party gained office. This did not prevent the majority of the workers from voting for the “National” candidates.

The bankers and other sections of the capitalists, of course, do not state openly that they are seeking protection for their own particular interests. They argue that what they seek is in the interest of the nation as a whole, and especially of the workers. While the workers lack knowledge of Socialism they will continue to accept this plea and vote into power people and parties favourable to the retention of capitalism in general and more favourable to the particular interests of bankers at one time and industrial capitalists, etc., at another.

Our correspondent should notice what happened at the recent by-election in St. Marylebone. There were two rival Conservative candidates in the field. One of them, Sir Basil Blackett, is a director of the Bank of England and had the backing of most of the Conservative leaders and the party machine. Yet he was beaten by the opposing Conservative candidate who had the backing of the rank and file of the local Conservative Party. The electors decided the issue.

(2) With regard to the question as to whether the bankers engineered the “crisis” of last autumn, we can only say that it is for those who hold that view to bring forward evidence in support. On the face of it the suggestion appears improbable, since the abandonment of the gold standard is hardly likely to have been sought by the bankers who favoured the return to gold in 1925. Our correspondent is referred to the articles published in several issues of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD from September onwards, dealing with various aspects of the “crisis.”

(3) The following are some of the contradictions of capitalism.

The existence of great wealth and great poverty side by side.

The existence of unemployment among workers needing the products of industry and willing to produce them, while at the same time the raw materials are lying unused and the factories idle.

Compulsory idleness among unemployed and enforced overwork among the employed workers.

The utilisation of labour-saving machinery not for the benefit of the users of them, but for the benefit of the capitalists, often accompanied by still greater strain on the workers.

The glorification of the leisured class and the simultaneous denunciation of idleness among the workers.

The prohibition of theft by Governments which use armed forces for wholesale robbery from other nations.

Ed. Comm.

Socialist Forum: The S.P.G.B., Trade Unions and Unemployed Organisations. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (T. W. C., Clapham) asks the following questions :—

(1) Am I right in assuming that it would be consistent with the principles of the S.P.G.B. for a member to be outside of a Trade Union?

(2) Can Local Unemployed organisations (not necessarily the N.U.W.M., which is under the influence of the Communist Party) be of some assistance to the unemployed; i.e., in informing members and non-members the correct procedure in obtaining relief, or by deputations in persuading the Local Guardians to grant extra relief. (I know there is a maximum amount which is laid down by the Ministry of Health) or to grant relief to those who have been refused.

(3) Could an unemployed member of the S.P.G.B. be a member of such an organisation?

Reply

(1) Membership of the S.P.G.B. is not conditional on membership of a trade union, but, of course, membership is denied to those who we know are guilty of anti-working-class action. Many persons who are not trade unionists have sound reasons for their position.

(2) An organisation of unemployed may be of some assistance in the ways mentioned by our correspondent.

(3) Members of the S.P.G.B. are permitted to belong to certain of the organisations of unemployed.

Ed. Comm.

Socialist Forum: A Question about Zionism. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

March 7th, 1932.

The Editorial Committee,

Socialist Standard.

Dear Comrades,

As a young Jewish worker, I accept the general principles of the S.P.G.B. But, as I am Jewish I have to bear a double load; both the load of exploitation and the load of anti-semitism. Not only do I have to work and sell my labour-power, but I am forced to have many disadvantages which non-Jewish comrades do not experience. What are the Jews to do? Persecuted as they are, and with the prospect of Socialism being very remote, is it not wise of Jewry all over the world to set up a “National Home” in Palestine.

True it is that I will be exploited in Palestine just as well as in England. But in Palestine I could escape anti-Jewish persecution. The German Jews, now threatened by Hitler, would have nothing to fear from him. The Jew-baiting in Polish Universities would cease. Thus, in my opinion, it is essential for the Jews to have a National Home, under Capitalism.

I trust that you will answer my statements in the next issue of the SOCIALIST STANDARD, as this is a serious problem. Perhaps you could explain the causes of anti-semitism.

Yours fraternally,

“JEWISH WORKER.”

Reply

Our correspondent says that he accepts the general principles of the S.P.G.B., but his letter shows that this is not correct. The argument, “Socialism being very remote, therefore let us work for something else,” is the excuse used by every reformist opponent of Socialism and is a repudiation of S.P.G.B. principles. Socialism will only cease to be remote to the extent that the workers strive for Socialism instead of supporting Zionism and other movements which leave capitalism intact.

A basic principle of the S.P.G.B. is that the abolition of capitalism is the only means of solving the social problem that is common to all workers. Acceptance of our principles carries with it a willingness to concentrate on the basic cause and to push into the background the minor and sectional problems.

The hostility shown by some non-Jews towards some Jews is one of many such minor and sectional problems. It is a continuation of traditional hostility based mainly upon economic causes. Non-Jewish traders found themselves in competition with Jews often more successful than themselves. Christians were for long prevented by the Church from practising usury. Consequently their antagonism towards Jewish traders and moneylenders tended to take the form of antagonism towards Jewish people in general. In some countries, especially where non-Jewish peasants still find themselves forced to incur debts to moneylenders, some of whom are Jewish, this antagonism still continues. It is sometimes deliberately fostered by interested parties in order to cloud the main issue.

But, speaking generally, it is not true that Jews, as such, are subject to any material disability. Can it be said in any real sense that the Readings, Monds, Rothschilds and others of their social position need a “National Home” in Palestine? So little is that the case, that they take good care not to go there.

Our correspondent does not say what are the “many disadvantages” from which Jews suffer and from which non-Jewish workers are free. The illusions of Zionists on the one side are balanced on the other by the fixed belief held by many non-Jewish workers that the world is in pawn to the Jews. The complaints of some Jews that they are at a disadvantage compared with non-Jews are echoed by the Arabs in Palestine, but in their eyes it is the Jew who is the privileged and favoured interloper, and the Arab is the bearer of the “double burden.” Similar complaints are heard about the favour shown to Freemasons, to members of various Christian sects, and to adherents of certain political parties. Then there are the complaints of the national minorities—the Austrians in Italy, the Germans in Poland and Belgium, the Flemish in Belgium, the negroes in U.S.A., and the Scots and Welsh in Great Britain..

There is a certain amount of substance in all such grievances voiced by individuals and groups of workers, but they pale into insignificance by comparison with the subject position of the working class in their relationship with the capitalist class.

While all of these groups fight each other and work for their separate minor aims, the capitalist system will remain secure.

There are many weaknesses in the Zionist case. It is an impossibility for all the Jews of the world to settle in Palestine even if they wish to do so. The existence of the Jewish State raises another grievance which takes a racial and religious form—that of the Arabs and Palestine Christians.

The reference to the persecution of Jews by the German Hitlerites shows up another flaw in the argument, for the Hitler movement has developed since the setting up of the Jewish State in Palestine.

Ed. Comm.

S.P.G.B. Propaganda Meetings. (1932)

Party News from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

American Notes. (1932)

From the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Only a few years ago articles were appearing in the press of the U.S.A., informing all and sundry that there would be no more crises like there had been in the past. Lord bless you, No! The capitalists here had solved the problem, they had adopted a new method, known as mass production and standardisation. Wages were no longer to be based on the cost of production of the labour-power of the worker (in other words, the cost of enabling the wage-worker to be an efficient wealth producer and to keep him in that condition), they were now to be based on the worker’s output. The instalment plan was also boosted as a way to get rid of surplus products. Lots of propaganda was broadcasted for the wage-slaves’ especial benefit; we were given to understand that there were no classes in this great country and at the same time that any worker who had a little ambition and grit could get out of his class with very little effort.

Another sample of the same kind of piffle said that there are no classes here, that the workers are rapidly becoming capitalists themselves, directly aided by the older capitalists. No longer did the benevolent employers want all the profits. They were now anxious to hand some of it over to the workers, and advised them to buy a share or so of stock in the company employing them, to be paid, of course, out of their wages at so much per week. In some cases the wage-slaves were so ungrateful as not to care much for this great opportunity, and were frequently fired, since the employer disliked having unappreciative “partners" around. But it has been given out by a statistician that the shares thus held are like our American beer, something like one-half of 1 per cent, of the total shares issued. These shares do not give any control of the concerns, the holders having no voting rights.

Lately, the outlook has changed. Wage reductions have taken place to the extent of eleven or twelve billions of dollars, and the end is not yet in sight. Firms are still cutting their wages bill, and there is very little opposition being put up by the working class, as the labour market is very much in favour of the masters. These reductions have been going on in spite of all the talk that wages should not be reduced, that we cannot expect to have prosperity if the capitalists can’t get rid of their goods, and that if the workers’ wages are cut down they cannot buy back the products. But in spite of some capitalists seeing this contradiction, they have fallen into line with the rest and reduced wages.

In the Southern States, due to changed methods of farming, it is claimed that about six millions of people will have to give up this method of making a livelihood. They are petty farmers, share workers and croppers who* are finding that they cannot make a living and will be forced into wage-slavery. The income of these land operators is very low. In 1921 the average,-income of the Black farmer was 32 cents per day for each member of the family; renters, 14 cents; Black croppers, 18 cents; White croppers, 8 cents. The family income given for Chatham county, North Carolina, varied from $625 to $153 per year, making an average of $424 per year.

In these Southern states there is cheap power, and plenty of low-priced labour- power. The Chambers of Commerce of these States invite the capitalists to come South because of the attraction of cheap land, low taxes and easy labour laws. The State of Georgia, for instance, allows sixty hours’ work per week; no limit is put on the working day as long as the hours worked in any one week do not exceed sixty. These, and many other things, are called to the employer’s attention, in spite of the officials of capitalist concerns believing that wage reductions will worsen the depression. It is stated that factories have been opening up in the Southland at the rate of one every four days for the last five years. Here are some of the. firms that have established themselves in the South territory: Standard Oil, United States Steel, Proctor & Gamble, Goodrich and Goodyear Rubber Companies, Dupont Explosives. These and many more were listed in an article which stated that the rush down in this low-wage belt puts the Klondike gold rush in the shade. These companies know, if they do not take advantage of the conditions prevailing, others soon will, because of the larger profits expected. At the end of the year 1927, 67 per cent, of all the cotton goods in the United States was manufactured in Southern States.

In 1927, in 16 States known as Southern Territory, there were 37,350 manufacturing establishments, employing 1,679,798 workers, engaged in making more than 200 different products. In the United States as a whole, the manufacturing establishments were 191,866, with 8,353,793 workers: There is no doubt that there has been quite an increase in the South since 1927.

The wage paid by these new masters is considerably lower than the Northern wage-rate. The average rate in all industries, in Georgia, $702; Alabama, $884; Tennessee, $773 ; in North and South Carolina, $632 per year. Compare wages in the North: Massachusetts, $1,228 ; Pennsylvania, $1,382; Ohio, $1,448; for the United States as a whole, $1,300. These figures are taken from the Census of Manufacturers in 1927. It was there shown that the worker in the North is more productive than the worker of the South; that the difference in output was 7.2 per cent. But it cost the Pennsylvania employer $847 more wages to get this increase, thus leaving the advantage to the Southern field at the rate of 20.4 per cent. This is the magnet that is attracting the capitalists to the South.

Now, also, these companies do not have any unions to contend with, as this new crop of wage-slaves have not, as yet, had much experience in their new status. What they get in wages looks to them like a small fortune, the employers appear to them like great benefactors, and trade union organisers are given short shrift. They have no strikes to interfere with them. Even the staffs of the American Federation of Labour get from 10 to 20 per cent less wages than those in the North. So business is flocking to the low wage area in spite of the past assurances to the workers that a “high wage scale" would be maintained.

There is not much talk about high wages now. We hear that what is needed is cheaper goods, “so that the benefit to the consumers will be enlarged ”; this is to be the enticement to get the public to buy the surplus, the magic wand to induce the people to spend. All sorts of suggestions are being advocated here to get us out of the depression. The capitalists told us that high tariffs would solve the problem, so the tariffs were increased. Now we are told that high tariffs are one of the causes of the depression, and must be lowered. Prohibition is another red-herring that is being dragged out; we are told that if it were not for this law, if light wine and beer were allowed to come back, this would bring back prosperity. They forget that in other capitalist countries, where Prohibition is not the law, the crisis, also prevails. A Bond issue of five billions is being suggested, to carry on public works, but is not receiving much support at the present, since this would mean higher taxes, and we are told that what is needed, is lower taxes.

How are the workers reacting to the changed conditions here? They are looking for all kinds of solutions to the fix they find themselves in. Hunger marches are taking place, some of them organised by the Communist Party. The latest one was led by a sky pilot. Of course, the parson’s gang was looked upon as being made up of good, loyal American citizens, and considerable discretion was shown in handling them by the powers that be. While the other marches were allowed, the authorities did not view them with so much favour. The slaves are ready to back up any scheme that promises to solve their problems; unemployed insurance, the lifting of Prohibition, lower tariffs, trade with Russia, almost anything but the real solution. The Communist Party here is making a great noise about trade with Russia, and about the dole for the unemployed. They think that if they can get the wage-slaves to rally for the dole and other reforms, then these slaves will be good material and can be led to fight for Socialism at the behest of the leaders. They have not yet learned the lesson that capitalist politicians can advocate all these reforms and use them to get into office. In fact, at present they are certainly in a more favourable position to get into office than the Communist Party is. Like the reformist “Socialist Party” here, when Liberal candidates were put up by the capitalist parties, the "Socialist” ranks were depleted. This has occurred more than once, and each time we heard great cries front these so-called Socialists that “the capitalists have stolen our thunder." To get elected on a real Socialist platform is far from the minds of the leaders of either of these parties. What they are after is something to get them into office as quickly as possible. Having their ears to the ground, listening to what the workers are concerned about, they put these things in their programmes. Thus they catch the unwary, and to them what the hell else matters as long as they can get to the pie counter on the shoulders of the backward workers. The results of this kind of “tactics” have been amply demonstrated by the Labour Party in England, Social-Democratic Party in Germany, Socialist Party of America, and others elsewhere. Instead of accomplishing, what they claim, the effect is just the opposite; workers lose interest when they see that these parties, on getting into power, are as helpless as the openly capitalist parties in face of the social problem.

There can be only one solution to this problem as far as the workers are concerned, and that is a change of ownership of the productive forces, from the present form to one where they will be held in common by and in the interest of Society. All else is of no account.

Taffy Brown 

              (Workers’ Socialist Party, U.S.A.)

Letter: Marx and Dictatorship. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (London, E.C.1) asks the following question:—

I notice that you class yourselves as "Marxists." How can you explain the following to be in accordance with S.P.G.B. principles. It is taken from Marx's criticism of the Gotha Programme.

The question, therefore, now arises, what transformation will the State-system experience in a communist society? . . .  Between capitalist society and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding with this there will be a period of political transition, during which the State can be nothing other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. (Italics mine.)

Can you explain what Marx meant by the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? Does not the above quotation show that the S.P.G.B. is at variance with Marx and Engels?

Reply.

One of the questions put by our correspondent was answered by Engels himself in his introduction to the German edition of “The Civil War in France.” The introduction was written in London in 1891, on the 20th anniversary of the Commune. Translated into English, it was published in 1920 by the New York Labour News Company in a pamphlet called “The Paris Commune."

Engels’ introduction, after surveying the events of the Commune and the lessons to be drawn from it, concludes with the following words:—

The German philistine has lately been thrown once again into wholesome paroxisms by the expression “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Well, gentle sirs, would you like to know how this dictatorship looks? Then look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Commune was an instance of majority control based upon democratic elections. There was no suppression of the newspapers or the propaganda of the minority, and no denial of their right to vote. The Communards, having once obtained control of the State, set about democratising the machinery of legislation and administration. For example, they filled all positions of administration, justice, etc., through election by universal suffrage, the elected being at all times subject to recall by. their constituents. They also paid for all services at the workmen’s rate of pay.

This contrasts in a marked way with the Dictatorship in Russia—a dictatorship not of the proletariat, but of the leaders of the Communist Party.

In Russia the electoral system is not based upon universal suffrage and democratic elections. Many persons, for political reasons, are deprived of the right to vote. In proportion to population, the Town Soviets send to the District Soviets five times as many delegates as are allowed to the Village Soviets. The elections are not direct (as in Great Britain and most countries), but are indirect. That is to say, the All-Union Congress of Soviets is not elected by the electors at first hand, but is elected from Regional Congresses, which in turn are elected from District Soviets, which are elected by the Village and Town Soviets. The power of recall, owing to the devious route it has to follow, is impracticable.

Opposition propaganda and newspapers and opposition candidates for election are suppressed. The persons who are disfranchised are subjected to severe economic disabilities. It is made difficult for them to obtain food and lodging, and various rights are denied to them. (Recently there has been some alleviation of their condition.) 

It was for years the rule that Communist Party members did not receive more than a fairly low maximum rate of pay, in this copying the Commune to some extent. It is reported now, however, that this rule has been relaxed since the middle of 1931, when the Russian Government announced a large-scale extension of the policy of inequality of pay among factory workers. It has also to be remembered that Communist Party members have been, and still are, privileged in being able to buy goods at specially low prices.

The Russian Government has for years practised inequality in the payment of those workers and officials who have not been members of the Communist Party and who, therefore, have not been affected by the rule referred to above.

The S.P.G.B.'s view on the transition period after the workers have obtained control of the machinery of Government is in line with that of Marx and Engels, and is opposed to the miscalled “dictatorship of the proletariat" in Russia.

Ed. Comm.