work for these ideas. His persistent determination to justify his optimism supports him through set-backs that would discourage most people. But these qualities, so admirable in some respects, are disastrous in other ways. They are in large part responsible for his marked tendency to act as if gestures of support and half-hearted promises of financial help are firm promises which will be confirmed and to count upon them as if they were already confirmed. They are also in large part responsible for his firm belief that if he but tries long and hard enough he can extract support from even the most reluctant target. This, in turn, led to his prolonging the many travels and visits planned to take. And, in its turn, this extension of his term of absence from my or the Foundation's daily work has left his colleagues to carry on activities that he began but of which he had not fully informed them because he expected to return in time to deal with them himself.
Moreover, as he moved about with speed and often with no prior notification to his colleagues, it was impossible to obtain information from him quickly, if at all. As his journeys became more and more frequent during the years that he was working for the Foundation he became more and more difficult to work with. And the fact that the "promises" and "im portant things" that he was accomplishing so seldom bore observable fruit, tended to bewilder and dismay and ultimately discourage his colleagues.
retain the respect or liking of most of those with whom he has had any sort of protracted relationship. He has drawn many people into the work of the Foundation. He has inspired many others, some of them of public distinction, to see the work of the Foundation, as I do, as potentially important to the world. But those who have been drawn in gradually drop out or, because they are led to emulate his extravagances, have had to be sacked. Often after several meetings with those who at first were ready to help us he has lost their sympathy by his importunities and exaggerations, arrogance and bad manners.
Ralphs infamous folly in China His self-assurance, which enabled him to carry through actions that No-one else, I believe, would have done this.
No-one else would have believed in the possibility of doing it or had the persistence and hardihood to achieve able up to a point, but finally ruined by impetuous egoistical folly.
Again, I remember that on one of his visits to Israel for me he was given an interview by the Prime Minister, Ben Gurion. He took it upon himself to lecture the Prime Minister his and the Israel Government's shortcomings, a leeture naturally resented by its recipient. He told me of this, as he fault. He agreed with me. optimistically believed that he would not repeat these quite uncalled-for rude provocations.
Discipline was abhorrent to Ralph The lack of good manners was obvious both in very important matters such as I have just recounted and in the small daily give and take. Discipline was abhorrent to Ralph and he revolted from it inLondon School Economics February, 1965. The wish sprang, I still think, at least in part from a genuine affection for me. and, possadmiration, as did his rather fulsome flatteries. I am by no means immune to flattery. It is so rare as to be sweet in my ears. But, if it is very obvious, it can only be irritating and embarrassing. And his was too often so obvious as to make me feel a fool At first I thought that this was the re sult of sincere feeling and of his desire to please me, but later I realized that it was also an indirect way of inflating his own ego. On all occasions he used my reputation and any weight that my name might carry to support his own views. And he had vastly inflated opinion of my importance.
Ralph could not, of course, resist the limelight, even in small and silly ways and even against my expressed wishes. Towards the end of June 1965, a Lobby against our Govern.
held at House Commons. Ralph wished me to attend it. I did not want to do so as it seemme that my views on the Vietnamese known and that there were plenty of were others who would attend the Lobby.
Finally, however, I gave way to his pleas on condition that, since it was a very serious occasion, I should go quietly and as one of many. Ralph acceeded to this condition. When, however, we reached the House of Commons he produced a large sign that he insisted my being photographed holding. He then proceeded, like a monkey on a stick to climb all over the motor car in which we had driven up in order to flout the police I forget now how and why. It was all quite foolish and undignified, and I was ashamed. Again, after his ostracism by the British Governшень he appeared here his last visit-done up in a preposterious "disguise" late one evening.
It did not occur to him that in doing so he was exposing me to the charge and penalties of harbouring someone for bidden entry to Britain. He simply could not resist flamboyant showing After the Cuban crisis It was after the Cuban crisis that I began to see more clearly than I had done the effect of the reverse side of Ralph's good qualities. He found himself at that time at the centre of the events in which I took part and have related in my book Unarmed Victory me since our acquaintance began Whether he has ever claimed to have written Unarmed Victory or not, I do not know. He was out of the countr at the time of its writing and, when he returned to London, I asked him to verify and to supply certain facts that I needed. In reply he sent me a long account of the whole affair from his point of view, a book, which he had written. My wife and I spent a day in concentrated search for the few facts that I needed. It was the culmination of his tendency to write full length reports of his impressions instead of the factual notes required of him. Since that egregious per formace, he has improved in this respect, in regard to my work at any rate For my answer to the charge that anyone else, otber than I, has written my letters or publications or opened and replied to letters from The pictures on this page are of Russell and Schoenman at the House of Commons lobby that Russell refers to. The cover shows Russell speaking at a rally in Trafalmy correspondents see page 164 the Allen and Unwin edition of Volume III of my autobiography.
Complaints, all couched as jokes, came to me in the early days as often as might be expected from the upholding OUT civil disobedience work. Ralph would, they said, try to bully them into doing what he thought right by saying that he was peaking as my secretary and moved them less than he wishes. This, gathered, thought it should. Not till the year following the establishment of the Foundation did I receive serious com plaints of him save from people who did not in any case like what WE were trying to do. Always, when any complaints of him came to my notice, I discussed them with him and more often than not he admitted often referring to my criticisms mising reform and thereand his determination to defer to them.
After the establishment of the Foundation in September, 1963, however, the unfortunate traits of which I have spoken became steadily more marked. I began to receive serious complaints from his colleagues and gar Square in 1962. The sub-headings in the text are the Black Dwarfs. The photos are by Romano Gagnoni (Report).
others who were sympathetic to our work. At the end of January, 1964, two of his colleagues called upon me at Plas Penrhyn to beg me to expel him from his position in the Foundation as my secretary. They spoke for themselves and three other colleagues Their charges had three main bases: (1) that Ralph was ruinmy reputation by telling people that he was responsible for what purported to be my work; (2) that he was playing fast and loose with funds obtained on the ground that they were to be used for my work for peace; (3) that his attitude was dictatorial and his intolerance of opposition intolerable For these charges they presented chapter and verse. I asked the two who had come SeE me and other three colleagues to put their charges in writing. They did so, and with their letters gave me some precise know ledge that had not before possessed. I was grateful to them for troubling to do this. Neither they nor any of Ralph's other associates the work had, up to this time, made to me any serious or precise complaints. When asked why not, they all said, in various ways, that they had not wished to distress me. They did not seem to realize that by delaying they had put me into a very false position and one that would inevitably harm our work if and when I tried to extricate myself from it They had hinted at dissatisfactions. but had never given me any information with which to face Ralph could now, and did, tackle Ralph about the matters that they had brought up. He either denied the charges and the evidence for them in toto or explained what the "evidence really sprang from". In view of his rebuttal of the charges, his promise to reform in one case (the charge of wasting money and energy on illplanned journeys) and, especially, the fact admitted by all his colleagues, that there was no-one else who could take his place and carly his work, did not repudiate him. Moreover, I had strong reasons to doubt the reliability and even the capability of most the complainers. I now suspect that these "reasons" may have been carefully provided by Ralph himself. The most reliable and capable of Ralph's colleagues were unwilling at that time to bear the unpleasant consequences of plain speaking, although later they were driven to do Their reluctance has done great harm both to me and, what is worse, to our work.
The Peace Conference at Helsinki Among the first serious complaints that I received from anyone not working with us followed the Peace Conference at Helsinki in July. 1965. On July 15 I. received a telegram signed by the "Delegation of Federal Republique of Germany" saying: "Speech of your personal sentative caused uproar. Strongly rejected by audience. Tremendous provocation of Peace Congress.
Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation discredited. Essential you dissociate yourself from Schoenman his speech. Friendly greetings." (The stops, absent in the telegram, are added by me.) Needless to say, I was exceedingly disturbed by this. As I knew nothing of what had gone on at the Congress, however, I felt that I must await further and, especially, Ralph's version of the matter, before taking any action.
Following the Conference, I received many conflicting reports Towards the end of July: Thank you for your 1 I replied to one correspondent:
letter of 26 July and its enclosure. It was kind of you to write expostulating with me directly about the difficulties at Helsinki. As I was not there, I find it hard to straighten out the conflicting reports which have come to me. The statement that you enclose "(which she said her letter was "the speech which caused a great deal of disturbance") "
was a message from me. From all that I can gather I make out that it was not this message but a later speech by Mr. Schoenman that caused the diffi culty. At any rate, the final resolu ton adopted by the Congress seems to me admirable-but not the first that they adopted, after the first meeting. It seems to me just possible that strong, obstructionist methods were needed to make the change between the first and the final resolution possible. If so, I am glad that they were taken, though I am sorrythattheFoundationhastobearthe burden of the disapproval of some of the delegates. As to whether the same end could have been achieved by another and more acceptable manner, I should think probably it could have been, but I was not there, I repeat, in the heat of conflicting points of view. I am glad that found the Conference a success from many points of view."
From this reply, it may be under stood how tangled, apparently pre judiced, and often mistaken, the criticisms were. Those who upheld Ralph's action were hardly clearer.
What I made of it all at the time, the above letter indicates. Moreover, as I have said above, the resolution of which I approved was adopted by the Conference after, and not before, Ralph's uproar and was probably owing to it.
A month later, a woman scientist, who had done very commendable work in Britain for international peace, wrote to my wife criticising Ralph's actions at the Conference very severely. She had not herself been present and based her remarks upon those of delegate who did not himself complain to me.
All these criticisms I took up with Ralph when he returned. He replied that he had gone to Helsinki not only as my representative but, also, as an appointed delegate in his own right. He said that, apart from reading my message, he had made it clear that he was acting and speaking not as my representative but as himself. He was convinced"-a favourite word of histhat had he not acted and spoken as he did, the Chinese delegates would have had short shrift. He was convinced that the Conference had been rigged by the Americans against the Chinese. It seemed to me, as I told him, that, even if this were so, he might have achieved his end by restraining his temper and being very much more tactful and quiet. He agreed reluctantly that possibly this was so and that he would try not to commit such impetuous and provocative again.
A few weeks later, I received a long letter from a friend, who had also been a delegate to Helsinki, describing Ralph's actions and describing how fantastic and fanatical they had appeared to be and, consequently, how harmful to our work They destroyed, she said, much good will towards it and achieved only an vietory for Ralph's point view. Again discussed these matters with Ralph, pointing out clearly that, while the end that he had wished to achieve might have been praiseworthy, his methods of achieving it had been altogether deplorable. He countered by I saying that no other methods would have been effective. I disagreed. He promised again to be less violent and ill-mannered in future "What is the hold this man has over Russell?"
I received a long letter from this same friend a year later. She had been in London for six weeks, during which time, she said, not fewer than twenty-six people, all of whom were sympathetic to my own work, had remarked on the way in which my "image was being tarnished" and my friends alienated by "Ralph's unfortunately personality plus attitudes and methods which are all too often open to question, I am told, from the standpoint of ethics.
These people had asked: *What is the hold this man has over Russell?
Is Russell now senile and unable to make his own decisions and so is accepting whatever is put before him? How is it Ralph seems to overrule Russell to continue doing the things Russell himself has personally repudiated?" To my request for specific facts backing up these charges, I received no reply, and they continued to seem quite unreal to me.
A month or two later in this same year, a letter of resig nation from one of the Directors of the Foundation. In it he said:
"My sympathies and engagement in your work and the aims of the Foundation are what they always were. I feel as strongly about the war in Vietnam Bertrand dation-with extraordinary example of your life and work-could become dependent intellectual force in the world today.
*The reason for my resignation is personal. I feel that Ralph Schoenman has captured the Foundation and turned it into a monolithic expression of his limited interests and abilities.
"Before my resignation becomes official, I would strongly urge that an independent group examine Mr Schoenman's competence to continue further his sole leadership of the Foundation. I also feel that an independent group of accountants should make a report to the board of directors concerning both income and disbursement over the last three *Believe me, Lord and Lady Russell, that resigning at this moment is painful. I also find it painful to be unable to conclude the film about you which I have begun I have notified Schoenman of this on four separate occasions in writing; I believe that the raw materials of the film, as now unedited. is of great value As of today, Shoenman has not answered any of my letters concerning its dis position. I feel that it is improper for me to continue physical ownership of negative and film Will you be kind enough to let me know what should be done with it."
I should at that time willingly have consulted accountants and an independent group of individuals as to Ralph's administration of funds and general competence. But where could I find such a group? As to the matter of the film, Ralph and his colleagues told quite a different story from that told above. We were find. ing it difficult to extract the film from its maker in spite of many letters to him asking to have it sent to the Foundation.I made clear my belief that it was necessary to have accountants audit the accounts of the Foundation.
Until that time, though I had re ceived other complaints, few had given me precise information that could not, and was not, explained away by Ralph. A good example, and of this sort of vague accusation, came to me from a young man unknown to me in May, 1967: "I have an unusual letter to write, so may I in advance beg your patience have been engaged in the activities of the Hampstead C.N.D and the Camden Committee for Peace in Vietnam during the past two years and, more recently, Hampstead Labour Party. "Inside and outside committees I have met a great many people hold
you, doubts concerning his dedication to your work, it is his public presentation that is question. I wish I could give you specific examples of what I mean, but this is very difficult. There is a certain conceit, certain unwarranted hostility towards people that goes ill with his position. My impression of Mr. Schoenman general, as are the impressions of most people, but such as it is it is a bad one. would not presume to write to you thus were I alone in this feeling.
• "I am vague on the cause, perhaps I can better illustrate effect.
have a friend who holds a very responsible position, has most pleasant disposition, and excellent opinions. I remarked to him on the photograph of you on your verandah in the Observer earlier this year. He agreed with me, an excellent picture, but added that Ralph Schoenman was probably just out of sight propping you up. He was half in jest, but others make similar remarks and are serious. The spite, or cynicism, of such remarks is not directed at you but at Mr. Schoenman.
"My purpose is to bring to your atten tion something that I find very disheartening. Had I not met many other people who share my opinion I would not presume te write to you.
"I must say I intend no harm For calumny to Mr. Schoenman, but knowing how widespread my feeling is I think it has to be of some importance.
hope you will nOt think me impertinent, for I am sir, with the greatest respect, yours most faithfully."
Such generous and obviously sincere criticisms as the foregoing were extremely disturbing and carried entire conviction. But it was quite impossible to make Ralph understand them. His reply was to the effect that anyone who worked with energy for the ends that I desired would be more than likely to incur.
such criticism. And it seemed to me that there was a great deal of truth in this reply. I could only beg Ralph to be gentler nd more tolerant in his it views and bellefs.
The War Crimes Tribunal As I watched the development of the War Crimes Tribunal in 1967 doubt became even stronger in my mind.
Ralph was appointed the Secretary General of this Tribunal. I watched his doings with greater objectivity than I had been able to do formerly since was acting, not as my secretary or representative, but as executive of an organisation which I entirely supported though in the running of which I took no active part. I had been increasingly aware for some time that, though Ralph was invaluable in developing an idea to the point of practicability, he was disastrous that idea when he attempted, himself, to carry it out. This belief was confirmed by his actions as Secretary General and by the unnecessary quarrels and muddles largely created, understood, by him. Again, the dichotomy was visible: it is quite possible that the Tribunal would never have got off the ground had it not been for his intense efforts: but had his efforts been accompanied by even a little restraint and considered planning and with less provocation to those who did not approve of his methods or of the Tribunal itself, the latter might have accomplished as great-and it was great -a work as it did with far in human frustration and futile work as well as in money.
I felt that his display of egoism and flouting of advice, especially of advice given by his colleagues, at this time and in the following months when he flew about the world, as it seemed to me, heedlessly, rendered him only a liability to the Foundation. But the Foundation had become, in November. 1966, limited com bany. The change had my entire approval. The company Ralph except : he ceased to be my secretary in 1966.
I felt that Ralph should be dismissed in from the Foundation I felt that Ralph should be dismissed from the Foundation. I had for some time insisted that he should not speak either as my secretary or my representative except on such is occasions as we had specifically agreed that he should do so. • I retiterated this in letter in 1966. He assured me that he honoured this decision of mine. I constantly, however, heard and read of his having made pronouncements as my secretary or representative. He pointed out that this was not his fault, that, in spite of his denials, others took it for granted that he was still my secretary. Perhaps this was true. In any case, I could do no more than urge him to make it very clear that he was not speaking or acting for me. I felt that I might or might not agree with what he said or did. I wrote to him in 1967 on this subject in categorical terms, such as I had used only in speech theretofore.
= Polaris The Directors of the Foundation company were not even yet fully convinced that he could no longer be useful to the work and was harming it. I had frequent discussions with some of them about the They appeared to feel that it would make their position as colleagues of Ralph more difficult were I myself to break with him. They feared also, I learned, that if I did so, he would retaliate in ways that would not only hurt my feelings but would harm my work. I did not know at this time that this was one, and perhaps the chief, of their reasons for their cooler than lukewarm reception to my wish to break with him. Nevertheless, I now think I should have broken with him several years ago. Instead, I temporised made a grave tactical mistake: in my desire to put my attitude towards efficiency work as the directors had made me feel I might do, I agreed with my wife that she should make the criticisms to him in my presence and that I would mere ly agree with them. It was a foolish plan. Unfortunately, his assurance was such that he took refuge in the soon realized that all I was doing by this roundabout method conhim When, in 1969, I learned of what I had not suspected hitherto, that, consciously or, again, through overoptimism, he was indulging on behalf of the Foundation in what can only termed dishonest means accumulating funds for his work, I could no longer continue to support him in any way. He was, without authority, selling the rights of books refusing to send on funds owing to the Foundation in London, attempting to divert funds payable to it from sale of my archives, insisting that English tax laws be flouted, and employing other such discreditable means. Perhaps I should have recognised this tendency towards financial unscrupulousness in Ralph earlier, for I had had occasion to remon strate with him a number of times when it seemed to me that he was sailing very close to the wind. For inOne journal to pay a certain sum fo the right to publish statements and articles by me hitherto unpublished He then sent these articles and we re ceived the money for them. But he sent them to other journals which occasionally, owing to their dates of appearance, published them before the editor with whom he had made the original contract could get them out. Naturally, this editor was angry And was I. I quarrelled with Ralph about it, but failed to convince him. At the time I felt that I had to support Ralph. I now believe that I was mistaken in this.
During the past two years, since he been forbidden entrance to Britain, he seems to have been attempting to carry out his ideas without reference to the advice and needs of his colleagues in the Foun dation. Certainly, he has flouted my criticisms, paying no attention them save to pronounce them based. His actions have reinforced the confirmation that War Crimes Tribunal had given to my be lief as to where his value lay when he was still valuable. But his actions since 1967 have become so egregious that he appears to me no longer to have any value in carrying on the work that I believe the Foundation to be engaged in and which I think should be done. It is for his colleagues to give the facts of their difficulties in working with him. My own reasons for breaking with him I have tried to make clear this memorandum and to indicate to a slight degree in my autobiography. I have given them directly to Ralph himself in the past, especially on the few occasions when he has visited me here in the last three or four years. I have referred to them in my last letters to him, copies of which I think are in my files along with other correspondence addressed to me by him and others. I am particularly sorry to have had to make this oper breach with Ralph because I fear that it will distress his parents whom I both like and respect-unless, of course, they can take refuge in the who surround me.
The question of cardinal import ance that has been put to me is why did I not break with him earlier.
did not do so because, until the last few years he was the only person who could and would carry out the work that I thought should be done The balance of his accomplishments over his drawbacks has only gradually been reversed. His faults and mistakes of less importance than his ability to turn vision to practicable effect and his courage and optimism in carrying out our ideas. When, sometime after the Cuban debacle, he finally took the bit in his teeth and later careered away unrestrained as Secretary General of the War Crimes Tribunal, I became increasingly doubtful of his usefulness to the work and remonstrated with him both frequently and severely. Since his methods, however have become importunately open to question and, consequently, intolerable, during last two years, and during the last year can only be termed dishonest, I have felt it necessary to make a definitive break with him I did this in my letter to him of July, 1969, to which I received no reply. Towards the end of November, 1969, I was obliged to write again in an endeavour to extract an under taking that he would cease using either my name or my wife's as he has been doing to support his own work. And in the past few days, have found it necessary to prepare a public statement of repudiation, since I must, if possible, dissociate myself and my wife from all Ralph's actions in the minds of all men who will listen. Russell Posteript:
Had I seen the letter which Ralph wrote to two of his co-directors on 29 June, 1968, earlier would have unhesitatingly broken definitively with him at once But I was not shown this until late in November, 1969. It is a preposterous document. But in it he presents his point of view on our association at length. It there fore deserves examination. In it he objects to what I said of him in my autobiography on the ground that i is "a betrayal of all the years I have devoted to the Foundation and to Bertie, years in which I have worked flat out • Possibly he is referring to the autobiography. I was, and still am he risked his lite either for unaware of occasion upon which my sake or that of the Foundation. If he is referring to his travels in Africa, the dangerous part of those were made without authorization from either me For the Foundation. The same is true if he is referring to his second jour ney to Bolivia when he got himself imprisoned and shot at. In both cases he was begged to return to London or stay in London as he had been away many weeks longer than hac been intended and all the work of th roundation was held up by efforts t straighten out wildl ne naa begu and abandoned. Much of the rest of is letter, three closely typed page s a diatribe against my wife who. h states, has been against him. In the course of this utters nonsense, saying that "she has tried to deny me help of the Foundation when I have been in prison or in need of assistance to recover my passport. She has manoeuvred to prevent my return to Britain and when I did return she dissociating a vicious Press statement Bertie from me which only a miracle prevented Bo a maP scandalm Bourgeois Press blowing up All this is, of course, untrue. She has often helped Ralph, and would have helped him in prison had there been anything that she could have done for him. She has never put out Press statement of any sort, vicious or otherwise. Moreover, he says that 'she has harassed and bullied and tormented Bertie secure his acquiescence in her efforts. I have optimistic about Ralph for a longer time than I did. Ralph thinks that it was she who made me demand that he should not be my secretary. "The and scarcely existent public support of Bertie for me when I have banned been in from grave Britain danger is owing and now to her. culminate And In her "harmful" nefarious remarks actions that I make about him autobiography. I had been under the impression that I had helped Ralph think that i have been ungenerous to much I could, and I do no him in my autobiography There follows in this letter a long te ry revealing paragraph. He sums up in the introductory sentence:
"the truth is that every major political initiative that has borne the name of Bertrand Russell since 1960 has been my work in thought and deed." He continues, naming he considers these major political initiatives. To all this he says that I have agreed enthusiastically. I have referred to my wite's evil campaig against him 'with anguish apologising assuring even crying This is tentirele imagination. himself, he says has been "trapped in the dilemma o not tearing him (that is me) apart b fighting Edith.
I should ask Ralph to reflect on his past speeches concerning the duties of a good secretary And also upon the number of times that I have urged him to work and publish in his own name. Further, I should ask him to mare the paragra bom (Allen Unwin himself to the book which he edited edition) the Preface written first published in 1967. entirely subscribe to what he says in that paragraph, as does my wife. - should think that the change that he finds to have taken place in one year Ralph to be 1967-68, • unlikely. I suppose that would seem even he has invented my wife's campaign as a face saving device against my torn apart by conflicts between my wife and Ralph.
The letter leaves me with the impression that Ralph must be well established truth is, I suppose, -Inl C80208 that I have never The taken Ralph as seriously as he liked to think I did. I was fond of him in the early years. But i never looke upon him as a man of parts and weight and much individual importance. Russell
The mass media sensationalises Womens liberation. In this issue of the Black. Dwarf, a group of women militants have taken the opportunity to speak for Anna Hodgkin, Irene Matthis, Liz Merrington, Juliet Mitchell,Marcia Rothenburg, themselves.
This special five page When womens liberation militants are confronted by the traditional left, tions are posed: their relation to and to the working class. The first question presents no problems. At a time when politiWomen's Liberation dynamic revolutionary developments. Women are organising all over the country and engaging in intellectual and actional combat.
The relationship of Women's Liberation to the working class is more problematic. As a political gel. Its members do not belong to Women's socially novel. hitherto recognisable political forces-thougt there are considerable numbers class women, there are few Blacks and surprisingly, fewer students than would be expec ted in Women's Liberation. ration is not confined to the middle class intelligentsia as its detractors Probably the greatest proportion membership is housewives (working lower middle and middle children.
The practical relationship of the Women's Liberation movement to the working class has two aspects-working class women are housewives of working class men and/or they Jenny Stern, Hazel Iwort, Janet Williams. two major ques "the left" even here problems of straightforward. question of the yet more difficult. It is clear that women, as a The majority o suffer both oppression and exploitation. It is clear that the women and the working Liberation is complex dialectic between exploitation oppression. As if working women's organisation and the relationship of been fully developed.
Women's Libeselected presentation of some of the aspects of claim. Women's Liberation here and abroad; of its questions class, worked through. class) with young present movement is described in the first article, lines for analysing women's oppression. Then two articles illustrate the rience aspects of women's oppression-one on going out to work. the other on staying at section was compiled by Anne Bacchelli,Rosalind Delmar, are the masses of women in working class jobs (the two are not always coincident) so organising are not At a theoretical level the relationship of a non-class based movement to the revolutionary class is talist world ex, are oppressed, not, as a class, exploite internationalism women in Britain France relationship of revolutionary class involves robust and yet the theory and practice which can handle both the need for distinct ssedits history this to the class struggle as a whole has not 'emancipation For women.
This supplement has no ambitions beyond a tancy. some that are being asked and The state and type which sets up some tentative guidefrom personal expe- ssion. This collectivelv.
MUSI Black Dwarf Sth September 1970 page 11 home to work. They reveal a disturbing similarity-the family and its hierarchical domestie structure clenches the woman in its iron grip wherever she goes.
Women's Liberation is a heterogenous movement developing rapidly in the advanced capiWe have chosen to illustrate its manifestos from widely divergent countries: selecting reports with Catholicism cultural validation of 'the feminine'; Sweden with its social-democratic traditions of spurious 'equality' for all; America, Imperia list oppressor and land of the militant oppre Black and feminist, and England with of gradualism on the long road to , whether of the working class Women's Liberation is unified by its miliWhatever the national, historical or social differences women are uniting together to comprehend and combat their oppression. The achievement of a collectivity is a prime necessity of women's liberation—it is an integral part of the struggle against the isolation which is a specific quality of women's oppre supplement reflect this need articles were discussed and written Don't he
----- pull-quotes -----
that he made on my behalf or on that of the Foundation to twice, or much more, the length that they had been
Linked to, and perhaps causing, this failure to bring promises and schemes to fruition is his failure to
ANGLO- AMERICAN AM Prime Minister of Ceylon.
it. It provides an obvious example of the dichotomy of Raph's work, admir-
told me of the Chinese episode, upon his return and I pointed out that I thought that he had been greatly at
ANGLO- AMERICAN BUTCHERY
him and my criticisms quite clearly the retim and yet in no way harm
belief that my wife was persuading me to oppose and mistrust him.
firming characteristics that I most deplored.
I am particularly sorry to have had to make this open breach with Ralph
belief that I have been persuaded, or even forced, to make it by my wife and the other wicked peopl
never been harassed or bullied or tor med in hen The a is site.
criticisms. There is no slightest dan- ger, and never has been, of my being