House ready to unveil health plan

From Alliance for Retired Americans:

U.S. House is Close to Unveiling Its Health Care Plan
The U.S. House is expected to release its health care reform plan on Monday. However, Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), the chairman of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs’ health care task force, warned House leadership in a Thursday night meeting that the vast majority of the group could not support the current House health care reform bill unless major changes are made. The most contentious element is reportedly a public plan option based on existing Medicare reimbursement rates - rates that Rep. Ross says have driven three of the six doctors out of his hometown. According to the publication Roll Call, forty Blue Dogs signed a two-page letter listing a series of demands, including increased aid to rural areas, more cost-cutting, and protections for small businesses. House Democrats have focused on a surtax on the wealthy in order to pay for reform. Together with hospitals' and drug makers' concessions of subsidies of $155 billion and $80 billion, respectively, a tax on the wealthy could help the system pay for itself. "The good news is that the public plan option is moving forward in the House," said Edward F. Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance.

New Science Oriented Radio Show Aims at Working-class Audience

New Science Oriented Radio Show Aims at Working-class Audience
By Joel Wendland
PoliticalAffairs.net

Are you a Discovery channel junky? If so, a new radio show hosted by renowned astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson will hit the spot. Tyson has teamed up with Comedy Central's Lynn Koplitz for a new science-based radio talk show called Star Talk.

During a recent telephone interview, Tyson said the show blends comedy, talk and great interviews with all kinds of people, from scientists and artists to TV celebrities like Stephen Colbert and Bill Nye.

"The goal is to convince people that science is all around us," Tyson said. "Science doesn't have to be as though you're taking medicine; you can have fun with it."

Tyson said that he thinks his show will appeal most to the kind of working-class people he meets everyday who recognize him from the TV programs he has hosted or appeared on. "They're discovery channel junkies, and they still want to learn. Maybe they didn't get a chance to go to college, but they remained intellectually curious all their lives," he said.

"I see this show as science for the common man. Science for people who never imagined they could have liked science at all," he added.

Read more...

Whites-only swimming pool?

From ColorofChange.org:

Two weeks ago outside Philadelphia, 65 children from a summer camp tried to go swimming at a club that their camp had a contract to use. Apparently, the people at the club didn't know that the group of kids was predominantly Black.

When the campers entered the pool, White parents allegedly took their kids out of the water, and the swimming club's staff asked the campers to leave. The next day, the club told the summer camp that their membership would be canceled and that their payment would be refunded. When asked why, the club's manager said that a lot of kids "would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."

A "Whites only" pool in 2009 should not be tolerated. The club's actions appear to be a violation of section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. Whether or not any laws were violated, a "Whites only" pool should be something every American condemns.

Please join us in doing exactly that, and please email your friends and family and invite them to do the same. Your signature will also be used to call on the Department of Justice to evaluate suing the facility under federal law. It takes just a moment to do both, here:

http://www.colorofchange.org/swim/?id=2066-232333

Bertrand Russell on Bolshevism (4)

by Thomas Riggins

Part One of Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" comprises eight chapters under the heading 'The Present Condition of Russia' [1920]. Briefly the main points of each chapter:

3. 'Lenin, Trotsky and Gorky'

This chapter is full of personal impressions of Lenin, Trotsky and Gorky. It is really very subjective, more so than many other opinions in this book, so I will pass it by after giving just a few examples.

Of Lenin, Russell says, "I have never met a personage so destitute of self-importance." Lenin thought it would be difficult to build socialism with a majority population of peasants (little did he know). He told Russell that the world revolution was needed before any real achievement could happen.

Of Trotsky, Russell says the Russians don't regard him at all as equal to Lenin but he impressed Russell more as to "intelligence and personality" but he had only "a very superficial impression" of the man. He had "admirable wavy hair" and appeared vain. He brought to mind a comparison with Napoleon!

Gorky was ill when Russell interviewed him. "He supports the government," Russell wrote, as I should do, if I were a Russian-- not because he thinks it faultless, but because the possible alternatives are worse." If Russell really thinks that, then he, as a Leibniz scholar, should have recognized that the Bolsheviks were the best of all possible Russian governments and thus mitigated some of his criticisms since he could see the Bolsheviks were doing the best they could. He should have at least made constructive criticisms of the faults instead of comparing them to his ideal of Britain since 1688 and suggesting incommensurable historic parallels

Now for a more substantive chapter.

4. 'Communism and the Soviet Constitution'

Russell wanted to study and compare the Soviet system, set up by the Constitution, with the Parliamentary system but could not as he found the Soviets "moribund." The All Russian Soviet , the legal supreme body, hardly ever met and had already become a rubber stamp for the CP.

This was due to the fact that the Western blockade and the Civil War had reduced the country to the verge of collapse and the Bolsheviks could only hold out by extreme measures. The idea was first the government had to survive and after peace was established there could be a return to more democratic measures.

Russell was aware of the fact that the peasants were hostile to the Bolshevik regime. To feed the cities it was necessary to take food from the peasants and this was paid for by essentially worthless paper money which the peasants could not really spend.

Nevertheless, Russell thought the peasants "never better off" and their dislike of the Bolsheviks seemed unwarranted. He saw no "under fed" peasants and the big landlords' property had been confiscated for the benefit of the peasants.

The peasants were very ignorant, knowing little beyond the confines of their villages. Knowing nothing of the Civil War or blockade "they cannot understand why the government is unable to give them the clothes and agricultural implements that they need."

Russell saw the CP in Russia ('the bureaucracy") divided into three parts. First, the old Bolsheviks, "tested by years of persecution", who have the the most important positions. They are upset by the backwardness and hostility of the peasants and by the fact their ideals have to be postponed awaiting better material conditions.

Second, the second rank of "arrivistes" who have the second level positions. They benefit from the fact that the Bolsheviks are in power (the police, informers, secret agents, etc.,) From their ranks come the members of the Extraordinary Commission [i.e., the Cheka or,in 1920, All Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combatting Counter-Revolution, Profiteering and Corruption).

This was a violent revolution and the White Guards, the pro Tsarist side in the Civil War had unleashed the "White Terror" in areas it controlled and the Bolsheviks, fighting fire with fire, unleashed the "Red Terror" against their perceived enemies. Needless to say many untoward actions were taken by both sides.

Lenin addressed these issues of democracy and dictatorship in a speech he gave in 1920. "[In] the era of capitalism, when the masses of the workers are subjected to constant exploitation and cannot develop their human capacities, the most characteristic feature of working-class political parties is that they can involve only a minority of their class. A political party can comprise only a minority of a class, in the same way as the really class-conscious workers in any capitalist society constitute only a minority of all workers. We are therefore obliged to recognise that it is only this class-conscious minority that can direct and lead the broad masses of the workers.... What is this organized minority? If this minority is really class-conscious, if it is able to lead the masses, if it is able to reply to every question that appears on the order of the day, then it is a party in reality." And because of the dire situation in Russia it was really a small group of leaders at the top who actually ruled Russia.

Now for the third group in Russell's view. These were people who supported the government NOT because they were fervent communists but because the communists were in power and they could benefit from serving the communists-- either out of motives of patriotism or self interest (or both).

These people were of the same type as American businessmen (being motivated to advance themselves and take advantage of situations) and Russell "supposes" that if peace comes this group will help in the industrialization of Russia making it "a rival of the United States."

The Russian workers in 1920, Russel said, were lacking in the habits of "industry and honesty" and the "harsh discipline" of the Bolsheviks will allow Russia to become "one of the foremost industrial countries." This attempt will be made in the 1930s in earnest.

Coming up, 'The Failure of Russian Industry'

Click here for part one of this series
Click here for part two of this series
Click here for part three of this series

Bertrand Russell on Bolshevism (3)

Thomas Riggins

Part One of Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" comprises eight chapters under the heading 'The Present Condition of Russia' [1920]. Briefly the main points of each chapter:

2. 'General Characteristics'

In this chapter Russell relates some of the impressions he got while traveling about in Russia with the British Labour Delegation. These impressions tell us a lot more about Russell than they do about Russia.

He thinks the "Russian character " is attracted to certain doctrines of Marx due to its "Oriental traits." The only "traits" he mentions are those of "crushing" foes "without mercy" and maintaining a mind set "not unlike the early successors of Mohammed." Although I am at a loss trying to figure out what the Bolshevik leadership would have to share, by way of comparing mind sets, with the early followers of the Prophet.

The position of Marx, which led to this observation, is his teaching that "communism is fatally predestined to come about." A position that Marx never, in fact, held. He surely thought that capitalism would collapse, but the class struggle could result in the mutual destruction of the contending classes-- which may still be on the agenda.

Russell reminds us of the "kindliness and tolerance" of the English since 1688, which he contrasts to Bolshevik fanaticism and mercilessness. But of course, he says, this kindliness and tolerance "we do not apply to other nations or to subject races." This may explain why so many of the "subject races" saw a greater affinity with the Bolsheviks in the years that followed than with the British.

He compares the "baser side" of the Russian government with the Directoire in France and its good side to that of the rule of Cromwell. Cromwell's Puritans are analogous to the "old Bolsheviks" led by Lenin. That is, they started out idealistic and democratic but the force of circumstance led them to become dictators over a recalcitrant population (the Russian peasants in the case of the Bolsheviks).

Should the Bolsheviks fall, Russell says, it will be for the same reasons the Puritans did: because people will want "amusement and ease" rather than anything else. Well, the history of Russia has never seen a time when "amusement and ease" were on the agenda, including today, so I think Russell missed the boat with these historical comparisons.

Russell actually thinks there is a philosophical model, or parallel, that is more accurate than any historical one, and that is Plato's REPUBLIC. It's true that the Communist Party, the leadership at least, corresponds to the guardians and you can make a case for the CP cadre and Red Army being the auxiliaries, but Russell is completely off his rocker when he says "there is an attempt to deal with family life more or less as Plato suggested."

There was no eugenics movement in Russia, the communists did not have a rigged lottery system to distribute sexual partners, handicapped and illegitimate children were not put to death ("exposed"), marriage was not outlawed until retirement. At most you have an effort to bring about equality between the sexes and provide universal education. The demands of the Communist Manifesto as well as Plato. So the assertion that there is an "extraordinary exact" parallel between Plato and what Lenin and the Bolsheviks like him envisioned is wide of the mark.

Russell doesn't think war and revolution (violence) will bring forth the best models of socialism, and for this reason he rejects the Third International which he perceives as an instrument to promote a violent international class war.

The 1920 Congress of the Third International did pass resolutions based on the mistaken theory that world wide civil war was about to break out between the exploited masses and their rulers (even in the US) and that communists had to be ready for the test of arms. Needless to say, nothing of the sort happened (at least on the scale imagined) as the post W.W. I revolutionary wave petered out. So Russell had a more realistic position than the Bolsheviks on this issue.

He also objected to the theory of "democratic centralism" (referred to by him as "concentration of power." This theory was developed to provide effective leadership for worker's parties in conditions of illegality an/ or war. Many socialists do not think it is suited for times of peace and legality. Russell didn't approve of it, although he does not mention it by name he is dealing with the concept, because, he says, "from concentration of power the very same evils flow as from the capitalist concentration of wealth."

Russell talked with Lenin and remarks, in this chapter, that Lenin was a true internationalist, as are all communists, and would have sacrificed power in Russia to help the international revolution. With the failure of the world revolution Russell imagined that nationalism would begin to take root in Russia.

He also met Trotsky, at that time the leader of the Red Army, and remarks on the enthusiasm he aroused in public. Russell thinks that when the Asiatic parts Russia are retaken (as the Civil War comes to an end along with foreign occupation: the USSR was not founded until 1922) the communists will act like typical imperialists (they didn't) and behave like other Asiatic governments "for example, our own government in India."

Coming up: Chapter Three-- "Lenin, Trotsky and Gorky"

Click here for part four of this series

Socializing medicine: Attacks on insurance carrier rationing

Health Services and "Rationing": A Progressive View

by Phil E. Benjamin

Last Saturday's NY Times had two letters to the editor that are worth noting.

The first was from Virginia. The writer said that the better conversation concerning health care would be health services and not buying and using health insurance.

Sounds simple, right. Well, that is what basic Medicare is. Our government, since 1965, pays most of the cost for most of the health services for hospital and doctors visits for people over 65 years old. True it is a reimbursement system. That is, hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their services.

In most of Europe where the hospitals are government administered and run and doctors are either on salary [like in Great Britain] or accept a fee schedule for their services as in the rest of Europe, the aim is delivering services, not finding some insurance plan through which to gain services.

That insurance company step costs the health care system billions of dollars every year. It costs the federal government and individuals billions, that is.

Simple said, it puts the market system and profits ahead of health services.

The writer says, "Actually, I don't understand why America is still talking about providing all of its people with health insurance, as opposed to providing them with health services. Health care is a necessity of life, like education and food."

That system would be called socialized medicine as it is practices in Great Britain. The system socializes medical need and removes it from the clutches of profiteers. It almost sounds like the moral and ethical thing to do.

The Josephine Butler National Health Service Act has been introduced, initially by Congressman Ronald V. Dellums, since the late 1970s; and when he retired [he is now the mayor of Oakland, CA]; Barbara Lee has introduced it. That simple piece of legislation would give us exactly what happens in Great Britain. HR 3000 will be its number.

It deserves support and great attention.

Who Does the Rationing?

In another letter from a Californian physician, the writer questions the use of rationing as a way to attacking any government program. Market based health policy people often use the rationing argument to get people to fear and be against a government run program. He says, "Health care is already being rationed. Major health care decisions are already being made every day by insurance companies, not doctors."

He continues: "Any health care provider can tell you about the inordinate amount of time and energy we spend fighting for our patients to get the care that they need and deserve. This result in less physician time with patients, reduced quality of care, increased health care costs for everyone, and – no accident – increased profits for insurance companies' executives and shareholders. ….. shouldn't we be discussing the rationing that for-profit insurance companies do in order to maximize their own bottom?"

Sometimes it is the simple thoughts that cut through the reams of paper and discussions.

Stay Tuned; and, Keep Struggling

Bertrand Russell on Bolshevism (2)

Thomas Riggins

Part One of Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" comprises eight chapters under the heading 'The Present Condition of Russia' [1920]. Briefly the main points of each chapter:

1. 'What is Hoped from Bolshevism.'

Russell informs us that Communism inspires people with hopes "as admirable" as those of the Sermon on the Mount. So Christians at least should be willing allies of Communist movements if they only knew their own ideals (if Russell is right that is.) But then he says that Communists hold their ideals just as fanatically as Christians and since "cruelty lurks in our instincts" and "fanaticism is a camouflage for cruelty" Communism is "likely to do as much harm" as Christianity has done.

And it seems as if the tyranny of some Communist states has indeed equaled that of Christians when they have been in control of state power (and not only Christians: it seems almost all states based on religion have been just terrible and still are to this day.) Later we will see how he thinks a Communist state may avoid this pitfall although the Russians probably won't.

Russell says capitalism is doomed because it so bad, so unjust that working people will not put up with it much longer. In deed "only ignorance and tradition" keep it going. Well. "ignorance and tradition" still seem to have a lot of steam left. The exceptional power and efficiency of the US are such that it might hold up the capitalist system another 50 years or so-- but it will be weaker and weaker and will never have the dominance it had in the 1800s.

According to this the game should have been over in the 1970s. Russell may have been off by 30 years. It is possible that the world crisis ignited in 2007 will lead to a general collapse. The US is the mainstay of the capitalist order so if it does go down it may well take the rest of the capitalist world with it.

While Russell thought that the capitalism of his day was more or less ripe for replacement he did not think the Russian form of socialism could replace it. Because he thinks Bolshevism cannot be a viable way to build socialism in the West he opposes it-- but not from the point of view of defending capitalism in any way.

Bolshevism is the socialism of a backward undeveloped country with no democratic tradition. It is the right form for Russia "and does more to prevent chaos than any possible alternative government would do." The lack of personal freedoms Russell found in Russia he blames on its Tsarist past and it is that past rather than communism as such that it is to blame.

A Communist party taking power in England (and by extension in the US or any other country with a democratic tradition might not get such an irresponsible backlash as happened in Russia and would be able to be "far more tolerant." This is, I think, especially so for the US where the Communist Party advocates a form of socialism based on the Bill of Rights.

Looking at the historic conditions of the Bolshevik's coming to power (the wreckage of W.W.I and the almost complete destruction of the Russian economy) Russell thinks communism can only come about through "widespread misery" and economic destruction.

This seems historically to be the case-- Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, etc. However he leaves open the possibility that communism could be established peacefully without the destruction of a country's economic life. Russell would like to see the least possible violence in the transition to socialism/ communism.

However, he has a really goofy idea, based on half baked psychological notions he has developed, which is that revolutionaries find that "violence is in itself delightful" and so have no inclination to avoid it. This is too ridiculous to require further comment.

As far as a peaceful transition is concerned, there is no a priori reason to reject this notion, but it would probably take place as a democratic upsurge of class conscious workers responding electorally to anti-capitalist parties once they had realized that their disintegrating economic conditions could not be halted by the traditional political system and its representatives.

Next time we will look at Chapter 2: "General Characteristics" of the situation in Russia.

Click here for part one of this series
Click here for part three of this series
Click here for part four of this series

The Passing of George Fishman, Historian, Teacher, Militant, Communist

by Norman Markowitz

These are few scattered thoughts about the passing of George Fishman, whom I knew and worked with in many local political struggles in New Jersey and in national campaigns. I will be writing other things about George, less scattered in the near future. But these are my first feelings. George passed away in New Haven last week at the age of ninety two. His daughter, Joelle Fishman (CPUSA leader in Connecticut) had been with him and Edie, his wife and life comrade. George was singing, Joelle told me, with her and Edie after dinner, a pleasant dinner. He passed away peacefully afterwards, falling asleep. When I heard of his passing, I felt the loss. Felt what George and Edie had meant to me, to the people whose lives they had touched and helped to change over the generations.

Edie is still with us and still the strong gentle person whom I have known for so long. But I really can't think of George without thinking of Edie. The two literally go together in my consciousness as they went together over the decades fighting for workers rights, tenants rights, against racism and for peace. I was with them in many of the more recent struggles--whether it was making Highland Park, New Jersey a nuclear free town or campaigning against Reagan's attempt to put Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, but they been engaged in those struggle before I was born.

George and Edie grew up in Philadelphia in working class communities. George was in the Navy in WWII and Edie worked in the Camden ship yards. They were active in many struggles (Edie in serviceman's wives campaigns against racism). A teacher, George was fired and blacklisted during the postwar persecutions called McCarthyism. He and Edie never changed their political outlook or associations though. George eventually became a teacher again after working in the Campbell Soup factory (he once warned me about eating Campbell Soup based on what he saw them putting into it when he worked there). And he and Edie continued to be militants(the international term that I like better than activist) in union struggles, community struggles, national and international campaigns. George ran for Governor of New Jersey as a Communist. In 1988, Edie ran for Freeholder here in Middlesex County (Freeholder is a significant position in New Jersey since the county boards of freeholders control important social services which are funded at the county level). To my surprise(and Edie's too) we got five thousand votes, even though the local newspaper ran one red-baiting article At one point the political machine even tried to contact George and Edie and offer George a political job if Edie dropped out of the race. We all laughed at that one. They didn't know who they were dealing with.

George also went back to school and got his Ph.D in history from Temple University, His doctoral dissertation, The African American Struggle for Freedom and Equality: The Development of a People's Identity, New Jersey, 1624-1850 (New York: Garland Publishing: 1997) was his most important scholarly work. George also wrote over the decades for CPUSA publications on a wide variety of topics, although the history of the African American freedom struggle along with New Jersey history were of special interest always of special interest to him.

When George and Edie left New Jersey for Connecticut it was a great loss for us. For years I would run into people who would ask about them, including centrists, middle of the roaders, and others who claimed that they didn't want to "bothered with politics." Many of those people missed George and Edie in front of supermarkets, on the streets, and at meetings, when issues were being raised, and George and Edie got them to think a little differently, even if they didn't want to think much at all.

George will of course live on in his writings, in the many unfinished struggles that he and Edie began to participate in before I was born, in Edie, Joelle, her husband Art, myself, and many many others. So I don't have to say good bye to George. He is still very much with us.

Retired Teacher and Activist George Fishman Dies at 92

Retired Teacher and Activist George Fishman Dies at 92
by Staff
July 7, 2009 11:02 AM
New Haven Independent

George M. Fishman passed away peacefully at his Wooster Street home on Tuesday, June 30, 2009. During the 13 years that he and wife Edie lived in New Haven, he became well known for his scholarship and his activism on behalf of democratic rights, human rights and peace.

Fishman, born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on January 6, 1917 to immigrant parents, was a high school social science and history teacher. He held a PhD in history from Temple University.

Since 1938 he was actively involved in African American and labor studies, as researcher, writer and teacher. A member of many professional organizations, his articles were published in academic and popular journals. A selection of his work, “For a Better World. A Miscellany: Writings 1952-2002 on the African American People’s Freedom/Equality Struggles in New Jersey History” was completed in 2002. He was a member of AFT Retirees Chapter 933R in New Haven.

From 1938 to 1941 Fishman was a staff member of a Works Projects Administration (WPA) teaching unit. It pioneered in staff development in African American life, history and culture and in conducting classes in labor unions and community organizations.

Read more...

Bertrand Russell on Bolshevism (1)

Part One: the prefaces

Thomas Riggins

The year 2010 will see the ninetieth anniversary of Bertrand Russell’s book “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.” Russell was one the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers and keenest social critics. The observations Russell made in Russia just three years after the Revolution, his impressions of Lenin (whom he interviewed) and Trotsky (no mention of Stalin), and his assessments of the future prospects of communism still make fascinating reading and since the collapse of Soviet communism seem eerily prescient.

Russell has divided his book into two parts “The Present Condition of Russia” and “Bolshevik Theory.” The first part will not concern us as much as the second as it is really outdated as regards the “present condition” of Russia, although there are some observations made that are still of interest. The second is a general consideration of the philosophical outlook of Bolshevism and that still has lessons for today.

I am posting this article in several parts and will begin with the prefaces. Russell reissued the book in 1948 and in a brief preface declared that in all “major respects” he had the same view of Russian Communism as he had in 1920. I doubt if that was actually so as he says many very favorable things about the Bolsheviks in 1920 and holds contradictory attitudes about them. I think he was actually much more negative in 1948 than in 1920.

Let us actually begin with the original 1920 preface which was retained in the 1948 republication. Russell says Bolshevism is a radically new political movement which is a combination “of characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam.” This allusion to Islam will crop up again later. I note it because after the defeat of Communism it is radical Islam that is being touted as the next big threat that the US has to confront.

Russell says the most important fact about the Russian Revolution is the “attempt to realize socialism.” Russell is dubious about this possibility succeeding and , as we know, it ultimately failed. In the book Russell has a lot to say about this which many may still find relevant.

Russell does say that "Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind." There are two reasons for this. First, Bolshevism stirred the hopes of humanity in such a way as lay the foundations for the future building of socialism. Second, the future creation of a socialist world would be "improbable" but for the "splendid attempt " of the the Bolsheviks.

Russell uses the term "splendid attempt" because he does not think the Bolsheviks will ultimately succeed in creating a stable or desirable form of socialism in Russia. He thinks this is because Bolshevism is "an impatient philosophy" which, in Russia, as elsewhere, is attempting to create a new world order "without sufficient preparation in the opinions and feelings of ordinary men and women."

Russell saw three possible trajectories that the Russia of 1920 would be faced with due to the hostility of the capitalist world. The first was DEFEAT by the capitalists, the second was VICTORY by the Bolsheviks but at the cost of "a complete loss of their ideals" followed by a "Napoleonic", regime and third, "a prolonged world war" which would destroy civilization.

Well, he saw something through a glass darkly. The major capitalist assault to defeat the Bolsheviks was repelled (the Nazis) but the effort both in preparing for it and executing it did lead to a regime which sullied the ideals for which it stood and which history rather refers to as "Stalinist" than "Napoleonic." The strain of the second world war and cold war did finally defeat "Bolshevism" (now in quotes) and led to the demise not of civilization itself but of the new socialist civilization that the Russians had dreamed of founding. Nevertheless, Russell's views indicate that the attempt of the Bolsheviks was a noble one which will inspire future generations to struggle on for the construction of a socialist world.

It is worth noting that Russell considers himself to be ideologically a political Bolshevik himself! "I criticize them only when their methods seem to involve a departure from their own ideals," he declares.

But while he shares the political idealism of Bolshevism, there is another side to it that he vehemently rejects. He thinks that they act like religious fanatics (fundamentalists) in the way they defend their basic philosophical ideals. He gives their adherence of philosophic materialism as an example. Russell says materialism "may be true" but the dogmatic way Bolsheviks proclaim it is off putting to one who thinks that it cannot be scientifically proven to be true. He writes: "This habit of militant certainty about objectively doubtful matters is one from which, since the Renaissance, the world has been gradually emerging, into that temper of constructive and fruitful skepticism which constitutes the scientific outlook."

But no sooner does he say this than he basically takes it back and mitigates the charges against the Bolsheviks on this count. Speaking of the capitalist rulers in Europe and America in 1920 Russell says "there is no depth of cruelty, perfidy or brutality" that they would shrink from in order to protect capitalism and if the Bolsheviks act like religious fanatics it is the actions of the capitalist powers that "are the prime sources of the resultant evil." If that is what it takes to get rid of capitalism Russell seems to say "so be it." Anyway he hopes that when capitalism falls the fanaticism of the communists will fade away "as other fanaticisms have faded in the past."

Unlike Marx who said he did not necessarily hold individuals guilty for the roles they played in the economic history of mankind, Russell is full of moral indignation when it comes to the capitalist rulers of his day. "The present holders of power are evil men, and the present manner of life is doomed." Let us hope this present economic crisis is the heralding of that long awaited doom.

Russell ends his preface by thanking the Russian communists "for the perfect freedom which they allowed me in my investigations." Russell had gone to Russia as part of a British delegation to assess the revolutionary situation (May-June1920). It is extraordinary that he would have been on an officially approved delegation considering that he thought his own government was made up up "evil men."

Part Two coming up.