The meaning of character

When it comes to the Marxist programme, there are still some on what passes for the left today who will not - cannot - grasp basic, straightforward propositions. Whether that is due to a lack of elementary political education, the idiocy of isolation or factional animus is an open question. Jack Conrad replies to Andrew Northall

Writing in the letters pages, Andrew Northall mocks our Draft programme - the Draft programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain, or what he calls, for his own factional reasons, the Weekly Worker Group.1 Before exposing the unsound, the ludicrously blinkered nature of his criticisms of our Draft programme, specifically section 4, the ‘Character of the revolution’, it is worth asking, who Andrew Northall?

Well, he is a member of the Coventry and Warwickshire branch of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, who - unusually, given someone of his background - had a brief dalliance with the SPGB (Small Party of Good Boys). Comrade Northall is, moreover, a third-generation Stalinite - not the current Young Communist League crop, but the generation before that, who are, of course, nowadays middle-aged. (Perhaps we can say, at the risk of gross oversimplification, that there have been four generations of Stalinites: the first being the pro-Moscow 1926-56 ‘official’ loyalists; the second, the post-1956 diehards, anti-revisionist Maoism included; thirdly the anti-Eurocommunist rebels; fourthly the internet-engendered neophytes. Each has its own, unique, political physiognomy.)

Anyway, you will have read comrade Northall’s numerous Weekly Worker letters defending Stalin’s first five-year plan, his 1930s Moscow trials, the guilt of Lenin’s closest comrades (ie, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Rykov) and how Trotsky fell headlong into the camp of anti-Stalin counterrevolution because of arrogance and thwarted ambition. The killing of countless other “internal enemies” in the mass purges is justified too. This puts comrade Northall at odds, at least in the public realm, with Robert Griffiths, CPB general secretary and his ‘Social media protocol’ … and not only when it comes to Stalin.2

There is the parliamentary road to socialism and supporting the armed struggle too. Griffiths has forbidden CPB members from advocating a popular militia in Britain, or anywhere else for that matter, unless specifically approved of by his cringing leadership. CPB members are also told, in that exact spirit, to familiarise themselves with the home office’s list of banned organisations. So ‘yes’ to uMkhonto we Sizwe in apartheid South Africa, ‘no’ to the IRA in the Six Countries of Northern Ireland, ‘yes’ to the NLF in Vietnam, ‘no’ to the YPG in Kurdish Syria.

With that in mind, take a look at comrade Northall’s media postings.3 Lots and lots of heroic pictures of Stalin. Not only that, but the IRA, PYG, etc, etc. Indeed, comrade Northall appears to be particularly fond of the famous September 11 1973 photo of the doomed popular-front Chilean president, Salvador Allende, Kalashnikov in hand, making his last desperate stand in the Moneda Palace. An image which is, one presumes, used to implicitly critique the parliamentary - ie, the constitutional - road to socialism.

So, whereas the CPB’s gensec once had a brief dalliance with the very bad boys of the Welsh Socialist Republican Movement - tried for conspiracy to cause an explosion in 1983 - but will tell of his fervent admiration of Stalin in private … over a pint or three at his favourite pub in the Cathays area of Cardiff, comrade Northall is perfectly candid about where he stands. In short comrade Northall is a revolutionary Stalinite (that, and the fact that he is clearly a partisan of the working class, explains why I have not the least problem in calling him ‘comrade’ - albeit, when it comes to history, contemporary politics and programmatic perspectives, a profoundly misguided comrade).

Griffiths, on the other hand, is a former Welsh republican socialist revolutionary who accidentally found himself landed with the top job in the CPB due to the bungling incompetence of Mike Hicks.4 Upon its foundation the CPB declared itself the “continuation” of the official CPGB “on the basis of its rules and programme”.5 Leave aside the rules, what that meant was the parliamentary, the constitutional, British road to socialism programme circa 1977 (a Eurocommunist/Marxism Today-tainted vintage).

While the CPB’s constantly ‘updated’ Britain’s road to socialism is marginally to the left of Eurocommunism, the old paradigm basically remains the same. There is a national road to socialism, there is a constitutional road to socialism. That is what the social media Robert Griffiths defends and advocates, because he believes that anything else is to risk a CPB split. So he cleaves to respectability. On the other hand, his Young Communist League - and their elder co-thinkers - revel in the shock-value of their ‘anti-revisionist’ glorification of Stalin. Having laid down the line with his protocol, the fact that no action has followed against the Stalinite dissenters, just goes to show how weak, how pusillanimous, how indecisive the Griffiths leadership is.


When all is said and done, comrade Northall claims that section 4 of our Draft programme is a misnamed nullity. Hence we read that the section titled ‘The character of the revolution’ “conspicuously fails to say anything about the character of the … revolution”.

A little bit more of this nonsense. Comrade Northall says the Draft programme “moves seamlessly from the minimum programme, to a discussion of the class structure in Britain and the role of classes in any socialist revolution, and straight to a workers’ government and the maximum programme, socialism, without any discernible join or qualitative process to bring this about.”

Triumphantly he declares:

So, despite the claims that the Draft programme is this big, bold, upfront, straight-talking, open and honest, revolutionary, programmatic document, which will help create the mass Communist Party we need and the working class into “a class for itself”, it seems the WWG is somewhat afraid of saying anything in it whatsoever about what it thinks about the likely or possible character of the British revolution, despite having the gall to entitle chapter 4 ‘The character of the British revolution’!

From here we move to what he presumably imagines to be high humour:

Perhaps candidate members or members of the WWG are at some point inducted into the secrets of the “character of the British revolution” as part of being assimilated into the organisation, not to be openly shared with the wider class, but this would make the WWG sound awfully like one of those “confessional sects” it often rails against. Jack’s subsequent comments about the duplicity of the Socialist Workers Party and the contempt in which it holds workers are more than a little ironic in this context.

Needless to say, we have no “secrets” concerning the character of the revolution. Members are required to accept the Draft programme as it stands. The “secrets” are entirely in comrade Northall’s overactive imagination.

Content analysis

What the intelligent reader will readily understand is that Marxist programmes are as short, as concise as possible. All that is unnecessary is left out. Therefore, Marxist programmes are certainly not detailed blueprints for the future, nor should they contain discussions about the past and present. With that in mind let us turn to section 4 of the Draft programme, ‘Character of the revolution’.

What does the word ‘character’ mean here? I have no problem turning to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (others would do the job perfectly well). Its uncontroversial definition reads: “main or essential nature, especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish”. That helps explain the first three opening paragraphs of section 4.

Paragraph one: “There are no get-rich-quick solutions to establish working class rule and, eventually, communism. Coups or takeover attempts by a minority are bound to fail, as is participation in capitalist coalition governments.”

Our revolution is to be distinguished from the ‘end is nigh’ nonsense preached by the confessional sects. Every big strike, mass demonstration, government by-election defeat, economic downturn is greeted, celebrated, as proof of the actuality of the revolution. This keeps young activists exited … till they burn out and have to be replaced by the next round of recruits. A rotating door. Those who remain, in general, become cynics, hacks, sad bores.

What about leftwing military or party-army coups? There have been plenty of them, particularly when the Soviet Union existed and could provide material aid. The result? Not socialism - ie, working class rule and the transition to communism - that is for sure.

Our revolution, by contrast, has to be conscious, has to be majoritarian, has to be based on steadily building our strength, has to be able to deliver the final blow with ease and calm.

Next, participation in coalition governments. ‘Official communist’ parties secured various ministerial positions under the post-1935 popular front banner. Sometimes this served to defuse a revolutionary situation, sometimes to make minor gains. Everywhere, however - eg, Spain, France, Italy - it ended in abject failure. Government programmes were, predictably, determined by the parties to the right within the coalition - eg, radicals and republicans, no matter how small, no matter how ephemeral - and this limiting of the programme to what was acceptable to the right demoralised and demobilised the working class and paved the way for either bourgeois government as normal or bloody counterrevolution. ’Tis the same today. South Africa is the obvious example. ‘Official communist’ ministers sit around the African National Congress cabinet table headed by the butcher of Marikana, billionaire president Cyril Ramaphosa. South Africa, suffice to say, is one of the most unequal societies on the planet. Poverty has actually increased since the orderly transition from apartheid.

Paragraph two: “Capitalism can only be superseded by the working class uniting itself internationally and rallying all who are oppressed. Without working class rule there can be no socialism, no human freedom, no ecologically sustainable production, no end to exploitation.”

Our revolution is internationalist, not nationalist. Capitalism is international, so too must be its supersession. There is no ‘Britain’s road to socialism’. There can be, there will be, a revolution in Britain, but it will have to be carried out with the closest possible coordination with co-thinking parties, especially those in Europe. We envisage a United Socialist States of Europe. Anything less faces the distinct possibility of quickly degenerating - that or being brutally strangled by the international forces of reaction. Such an internationalist outlook more than explains why we opposed Brexit, even when given an altogether unconvincing Lexit gloss (CPB, SWP, SPEW, Counterfire). Tellingly, George Galloway, Spiked and the Brarite CPGB (M-L) explicitly, shamefully, blocked with Nigel Farage and his far-right Brexit Party.

Within Britain the working class needs to reach out to, hegemonise, the middle classes, but above all socialist Europe must seek to spread the flame to Asia, to Africa, to Latin America and, of course, to North America.

Without that, ideas of human freedom are unrealisable. Certainly notions that runaway climate change can be stopped without system change - ie, the rule of the working class - are delusional. Hence the limits, the danger of, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, Fridays for Future, Campaign against Climate Change, etc, etc. Sincere protests that avoids politics, that purport to stand above and go beyond politics, have the distinct potential of feeding into the realo wing of the Greens, climate-change state socialism or some altogether horrible eco-Bonapartist regime.

Paragraph three: “Only a revolution supported by the large majority can establish socialism. We fully support the battle cry of the Chartists: ‘Peacefully if we can, forcefully if we must.’”

A majority in the House of Commons is definitely something to aim for. Not parliament. We can safely discount the crown in parliament and the House of Lords. Either way, we need a moral majority - that will help split the armed forces, the police, the civil service, the entire state machine. That is why dismissing the vote as mere “formal bourgeois democracy” is so stupid (eg, comrade Northall).

Marxism, Lenin said, has three sources and three component parts: English political economy, German philosophy and French socialism. He not only muddled the seminal role of Adam Smith, a lowland Scot, when it came to founding political economy. More importantly, there was a fourth source, a fourth component part: British Chartism: ie, the mass fight for universal suffrage conducted between 1836 and 1848. Marx was profoundly influenced by the Chartists, knew the leading figures personally and was fully aware of the revolutionary potential of universal suffrage.

Even with a limited suffrage Marxist parties distinguished themselves from the anarchists, the syndicalists, the putschists, by their insistence on making use of elections. Our German, Austrian, French, Russian parties stood candidates despite the grossly undemocratic franchise. It was for them, rightly, less a matter of how many MPs, deputies, or whatever. More about demonstrating mass support and building solid mass organisation. Read my In the enemy camp (1993) and August H Nimtz’s Lenin’s electoral strategy (2014). Yes, we need guns, we need a popular militia, not least to protect ourselves from counterrevolution, but we also know that our political power grows with the number of crosses we obtain on ballot papers.

Because we are painfully aware that in a violent revolution it will be ordinary people, our people, who will in the main suffer, go hungry and die, we prefer a peaceful revolution. A CPGB majority in the House of Commons would not abide by the constitution, would not await the call from the monarch to visit Buckingham Palace in order to appoint a prime minister, respect the injunctions and rulings of high court judges, let alone cower before the capitalist media and its flood of lies and the machinations of MI5 and the army high command. No we would meet the threat of a bourgeois coup with the threat of overwhelming working class physical force. If they want civil war we will give them civil war. If, on the other hand, they are prepared to quit the stage of history for a comfortable retirement, so much the better (yes, we shall offer bribes and inducements). Frankly, for the reasons given, we prefer, but do not rely on, the peaceful road.

The same basic approach applies to an expected CPGB majority in the House of Commons. If the bourgeoisie went for a pre-emptive coup we would reply with overwhelming physical force and declare a provisional revolutionary government in the name of the expected general election result. The provisional revolutionary government would count the organising of a general election as one of its main tasks, having first decisively crushed the forces of counterrevolution.

How the revolution pans out in reality cannot, of course, be known in advance. There are far too many unknowables and we are, of course, dealing with millions of self-willed human beings, not some test-tube experiment. To pretend otherwise would owe nothing to Marxist theory, more to one of those science fiction novels (where things usually end badly for the prols). Either way, our position is ‘Peacefully if we can, forcefully if we must.’

In that context it is worth noting Marx’s September 8 1872 speech in Amsterdam, where he talked about the workers attaining their goal by “peaceful means”.6 Then there is Lenin’s September 1917 call for a Bolshevik, Socialist Revolutionary, Menshevik united front Soviet government to ensure the “peaceful development of the revolution” in Russia.7

Anyhow, in just three short opening paragraphs, there is a great deal said about the character of the revolution. And, of course, there are three other sub-sections in the chapter dealing with the ‘Character of the revolution’. For his own bizarre reasons comrade Northall chooses to separate off these three sub-sections from the three opening paragraphs. Clearly though, when it comes to outlining the character of the revolution, section 4 constitutes a single whole. Not to understand that speaks either of profound confusion or dishonest polemics.


Sub-section 4.1 elaborates, once again briefly, the position of the classes in relation to the revolution. This is of decisive importance. There are, after all, those on the left who concentrate on narrow trade union politics, who discount the centrality of the battle for democracy, who ignore the position of the middle classes and who dismiss all classes other than the working class as a single reactionary bloc. This has nothing whatever to do with authentic Marxism. No, the success of the working class in carrying out a revolution and winning state power will rely to a considerable degree on its ability to win allies, neutralise potential enemies and isolate irreconcilable enemies.

Of course, the working class is central. As sub-section 4.1 says,

The working class is the only consistently revolutionary section of society. Without owning any of the means of production of society, it has nothing to lose but its chains. Of course, left to itself, left to spontaneity, it is riven with sectionalism and exists merely as a slave class, capable of being economically militant, even insurrectionary, but not hegemonic. What makes it a hegemonic class is unity around the communist programme.

Who makes up the working class? Is it just manual workers in manufacturing industry? Does the post-1979 deindustrialisation drive mean the working class is in danger of going the way of the dinosaurs? Does the increasing number of young people going to university mean that it is the middle classes who are going to inherit the future? Does the Labourism of the traditional working class in the 20th century mean that the Marxist programme is hopelessly misguided?

It is surely blindingly obvious that the working class represents a large majority of the population in Britain - as well as in Europe, the US, Japan and other advanced capitalist powers. Though these things can never be exact, we can say the working class accounts for 70-80% of the population. The working class consists not only of the employed and the self-employed (who employ no one else). The working class includes the non-employed too - pensioners, those on sickness and unemployment benefit, carers looking after young children or aged relatives, students being trained for the labour market, etc.

Traditional distinctions between manual and non-manual work are more and more irrelevant because of social and technical developments. Hence besides manual industrial workers the working class also includes those in the health service, transport, the civil service and local government, as well as non-manual workers in industry, finance and distribution, such as technicians, clerical and sales staff. All sell their ability to labour - ie, the commodity, labour-power - and work under the direction of capital, usually via one of its managerial agents. They have very little, if any, control over their work; they are treated as mere cogs in the labour process.

If the working class does not elevate itself from being a slave class, it finds its common actions paralysed or limited by opposing competitive interests, which divide every section against every other section. We see this not only in trade union politics, but over big issues such as Brexit, immigration controls and import controls. Hence the Morning Star’s CPB championing of Brexit, immigration controls and import controls to defend British interests, British people, British industry. Logically that leads to social-imperialism and support for your own country, your own ruling class, in its conflicts and wars with other countries and other capitalist rulers. Instead, we stress the importance of taking the class interests of the working class as a whole - ie, the global working class - as our starting point. Where necessary the part must be subordinated to the whole, especially, it should be added, when that part (ie, Britain) is a major imperialist power which has robbed and exploited a huge official and unofficial empire, and continues to rob and exploit other countries lower down the pecking order of nations, not least through finance capital and the City of London.

There can be no doubt that the capitalist class - those who live by exploiting labour-power and who serve the self-expansion of capital - are very small in number. The statement contained in the CPB’s 1994 and 1999 British road that “in contemporary capitalist society the great majority of people are either members of the working class or capitalist class” is beyond stupid. It is certainly true that the great majority of the population are working class … so if you add in the capitalist class you still have a great majority. But the simple fact of the matter is that the capitalist class is tiny in number. Perhaps three or four percent of the population. However, its history, wealth, positions of corporate power and connections with the state make it the ruling class - and the class whose ideas rule society.

There are deep internal contradictions within the capitalist class. Not only is capitalist pitted against capitalist in the market, but finance capital exploits industrial capital, and big capital exploits medium and small capital.

What does this mean for small and medium capitalists who unmistakably make up the bulk of the capitalist class in terms of numbers? A few stats: there are 1.4 million businesses in Britain which employ at least one worker; there are 35,600 medium-sized businesses which employ between 50 to 249 workers; and there are just 7,700 large businesses which employ 250 workers and over.8 Obviously, big businesses will be owned and controlled by more than one capitalist - and top managers, top entertainment and sports stars, top politicians merge into the capitalist class. So these figures are being used not to count, rather to convey a rough sense of proportion.

Well when it comes to the capitalist class it is not numbers which count. Real capitalist democracy is not about one-person-one vote, more about one-share-one-vote. Medium and small capitalists are therefore outvoted. They suffer due to their disadvantageous position in the market and lack of an intimate relationship with the state. Yet, on the other hand, medium and small capitalists benefit from big capital’s global reach and ability to pacify the working class. All capitalists are, though, and this is crucial, united in needing the working class to remain wage slaves in perpetuity. So, as well as contradictions, there are common interests. Contradictions are secondary.

This is mirrored politically. Medium and small capitalists are united behind the monopolies and great financial corporations. They have no real independent voice. Ideologically narrow-minded, the small capitalists try to influence society through institutions which are in the main entirely subordinate to big capital. The task of communists is to break the working class from the influence of all sections of the bourgeoisie. There can be no strategic alliance with the medium and small capitalists in our view. We would not agree to have ministers in a coalition government alongside their political representatives. So the revolution will most certainly not culminate in a ‘broad alliance’ government.

By contrast, comrade Northall’s CPB envisages a strategic alliance with the medium and small capitalists. The “non-monopoly section of the capitalist class” is placed under the heading ‘Progressive movements and alliances’ in the latest edition of Britain’s road to socialism.9 This is not only the programme of ‘official communism’ dating back to 1935: it was the programme of the Mensheviks, Eduard Bernstein and the Fabians too.

Individuals from the capitalist class can come over to the side of the working class - there are countless cases, most famously Frederick Engels - but never any section of it. That is simply impossible. However, the working class can and should take advantage of the contradictions within the capitalist class. Some capitalists may support giving in to the demands of the working class, though this damages other capitalists. Concessions open up fissures in the ranks of our enemy and help to neutralise sections of it.

The middle classes are another matter. They include the classic petty bourgeoisie - the self-employed, lawyers and other professionals, career criminals - and also middle management, middle-grade civil servants, trade union officials. At the upper end the middle classes shade into the bourgeoisie and at the bottom end into the working class. Inevitably this stratum wavers between the two main classes in society. In terms of political programme there is no coherence, only eclecticism: bureaucratic statist socialism at one extreme and utopian dreams of a ‘return’ to small-scale production, localism and the small state at the other extreme.

As capitalism relentlessly revolutionises the circumstances of production, elements within the middle classes find old, privileged positions being dissolved. Such a process gives rise to explosive shifts, and political intervention can speed the process of proletarianisation. Economic crises plunge the middle class into turmoil and into political action.

Workers ought to seek alliances, as opportunities present themselves, with the various organisations and manifestations of this intermediate stratum. Indeed the working class must represent the middle classes against capital in so far as this does not contradict its own interests. But the middle classes can under no circumstances be regarded as a consistent ally of the working class. That said, success in prising it away from capital deprives our main enemy of a major social prop and adds to the potential of revolution.


Sub-section 4.2 outlines the form of organisation of the state and political life: that is, the constitution under working class rule. It represents the culmination and continuation of our immediate programme and, therefore, because means determine ends and ends determine means, the constitution we seek to achieve has a determining role when it comes to deciding the character of the revolution.

Incongruous as it might seem, the aim of this constitution is to facilitate its own negation. The constitution of the workers’ state will become simply a piece of paper, an historical document, as the state withers away along with classes themselves.

The principles of our constitution are not a meaningless bundle of glib phrases about respect, universal peace, ecological justice, fairness and equality put together on the back of an envelope; nor are they a utopian plan for some ‘fully automated, luxury communism’ invented by one or another of the ‘cutting edge’ thinkers. No, our constitutional principles are born out of a scientific understanding of the class struggle and reflect real historic experience - crucially that the seizure of state power is not the final culmination of the class struggle.

Communists fight to achieve the following:

  1. Supreme power in the state will be a single popular assembly composed of delegates who are elected and recallable at any time. Pay of delegates will be no greater than the average skilled worker.
  2. All parties which accept the laws of the new revolutionary order as binding will be free to operate. We accept the possibility of one party or coalition of parties replacing another peacefully. Minorities have the right and should be given the opportunity to become majorities.
  3. There must be no financial penalties to inhibit standing in elections. There should be an open count.
  4. Local organs of government must have a wide degree of autonomy.
  5. The principle of openness in state affairs will be guaranteed.
  6. All international agreements counter to the interests of the working class will be abrogated.
  7. There will be no censorship. There must be the right to communicate on all topics.
  8. The existing armed forces and the police will be disbanded. In their place there will be a people’s militia that will embody the right of everyone to bear arms.

Economic measures

Subsection 4.3 deals with the economic programme of the revolution. The workers’ state inherits not only sectors of the economy that capitalism has socialised in its own way, but those sectors owned by small and medium capital and the petty bourgeoisie, as well as a middle class which possesses various skill monopolies. Under these conditions universal nationalisation, forced collectivisation and flat-wage egalitarianism are ruled out - historical experience certainly shows that they lead to disaster.

Planning and state control of the financial sector and the monopolies is posed by capitalist development itself. Confiscation could be used as a political weapon against those capitalists who refuse to cooperate or who rebel. But the full socialisation of production is dependent on and can only proceed in line with the withering away of the skill monopolies of the middle class and hence the division of labour.

The economy under working class rule will therefore be contradictory: there is a socialised part and a part which consists of surviving capitalist elements. We have no truck with market socialism. The aim is to slowly extend the socialised part of the economy so as to finally replace the market and the law of value with conscious planning and production for human need. Socialism will thereby transform the commodity back into a product and make labour directly social.

In order to facilitate this we envisage the following measures:

  1. The radical extension of democratic decision-making in the socialised sector of the economy. Managers to be elected and rotated through short terms of office. All important decisions relating to production, hiring and firing, etc, must be ratified by workers’ committees.
  2. Shorter working hours and a major expansion of adult education and training to facilitate individuals changing jobs and taking on management and coordination roles.
  3. In the remaining capitalist sector workers will be guaranteed full rights.
  4. Unemployment will be abolished. There will be an obligation for everyone to work - the only exception being those who are unable to do so for reasons of health or age.
  5. Planning must be based on the widest participation, discussion and decision-making processes.
  6. Production to be redirected towards socially useful ends and to be reorganised so as to radically reduce the major social and international economic inequalities.
  7. Limited liability and corporate personality will be abolished. Tax loopholes will be closed and inheritance tax made genuinely progressive.
  8. Tax and other measures to encourage cooperatives.

In short the character of the revolution is profoundly democratic; it is prepared to use physical force, but prefers peaceful means; it involves a rupture in class rule, but seeks to combine this with gradualism.

  1. Letters Weekly Worker June 23 2022: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1400/letters.↩︎

  2. Unity ‘Protocol for all party members’ September 6 2021.↩︎

  3. www.facebook.com/andrew.northall.7.↩︎

  4. For a brief overview of Robert Griffiths and his political career, see M Fischer, ‘Welsh road to British road’ Weekly Worker March 26 1998: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/233/welsh-road-to-british-road.↩︎

  5. sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/48327/1/New_Times_New_Politics_AAM.pdf.↩︎

  6. K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 23, London 1988, pp255.↩︎

  7. VI Lenin CW Vol 26, Moscow 1977, p67.↩︎

  8. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/business-population-estimates-2021/business-population-estimates-for-the-uk-and-regions-2021-statistical-release-html#composition-of-the-2021-business-population.↩︎

  9. CPB Britain’s road to socialism Croydon 2020, p38.↩︎