As several of these essays deal with the effect of Socialism on modern life, it is important to know exactly what the words "Socialism" and "Socialists" mean. The dictionary defines Socialism as a policy of social organisation which advocates the redistribution of wealth, together with the ownership by the State of all means of production, of capital and of land. This is a reasonably accurate description as far as it goes, but there is a further level of meaning which one must reach in order to understand what Socialism really means. As Socialism runs strongly counter to human nature, and no one (apart from very small groups) has ever accepted it voluntarily, in order to exist it must be imposed by coercion. Such coercion can consist of brute force, as was the case behind the Iron Curtain and is still the case in China, or it can take a more subtle but perhaps even more sinister form - the ruthless undermining of traditional institutions by the very people to whom they have been entrusted, combined with a persistent and continuous public attack on all traditional values and ideas. This is of course what has been taking place throughout the Western World, and particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world, over the last 30 years. The means used to accomplish this, although falling short of the use of actual force, are completely ruthless. They include threats, intimidation, the smearing of reputations, the ostracising of all opponents, violent demonstrations and, above all, a torrent of continuous "disinformation" (commonly known as lies). I would suggest that only those who approve and take part in these activities are Hard Socialists, (although they often call themselves by many other names). Those who take the first step, but have no stomach for the second, are only Soft Socialists.

Now it is very important to understand that the Labour Party is not Socialist, despite the famous Clause 4, because, the majority of the people who vote Labour are actually more conservative than many of those in Westminster who masquerade as Conservative MPs. If they vote Labour, they do so only because they expect to benefit materially thereby. Anyone who has any doubts about that has only to have a conversation with a lorry driver or a docker for a few minutes. Furthermore, many of the leaders of the Labour Party are not Hard Socialists - most of them are Soft, and some are not Socialist at all. Imbedded within the Labour Party, however, there is a strong core of Hard Socialists - it is they who control the Party behind the scenes, and it is they who use the Party as the operating vehicle with which to achieve the society that they desire.

The question arises, if the Hard Socialists are not a majority within the Labour Party, how have they gained such effective control over the Party's machinery? The reasons are not so difficult to see - firstly, they are much better organised and more efficient than any other group in the party; secondly they are absolutely ruthless in attacking and smearing anyone who opposes them; but the most important reason is perhaps another one. If one pays lip service to goals that cannot be attained without coercion, it is then very difficult to oppose those who are prepared to implement that coercion to attain those goals. Inherent in Socialism is the belief that "the end justifies the means". As Lenin said, "... morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle..." and therefore scruples and principles are irrelevant in the fight to attain their goals. That is why Soft Socialists can never stand up to the Hard ones.