tionary ideal he could have been of enormous service. He is a member of the Communist party, but believes in the obligation of trying to keep it pure and wholesome through criticism.
"Why are you disappointed with Soviet Russia?" I enquired, eager to be instructed on the point.
"Chiefly because it is not carrying out Socialism," was his reply. "In theory the land is nationalised, in practice we have a system of peasant proprietorship. In theory classes have been abolished, in practice there is a new bourgeoisie and a new proletariat springing up. In theory it is a 'Peasants and Workers Government,' in practice there is no political equality and no democracy; for the peasants, the biggest part of the population, have only one vote where the townspeople have five. The peasants are making themselves rich by the sale of their produce for goods. These they will store until such a time as they can sell for big prices. They will be the new capitalists."
"But is not all this inevitable, considering the war and the continued existence of Capitalism in other countries," I queried?
"Perhaps. But they must not call it Communism, nor even Socialism. My quarrel with them is that they misname the thing. It is an autocracy, with a fresh group of autocrats. It is a
