that the main social air

of the Communist Party

is a sound social aim."

Then he proceeds to his conclusions:

"3. I agree with seven Bishops

three of whom are Archbishops,

that the Communists are not sound

when they advocate class struggle

and proletarian dictatorship

as the best practical means

to realize their sound social aim."

Maurin's conclusion is his own, though its truth must be challenged, for he is obviously wrong when he says that the Communists' "advocate class struggle." They do not. They say that the class struggle is a fact and that only the dictatorship of the proletariat can end it. That is not the same thing as what Maurin, says, but it is Marx or Lenin. Maurin has the especial merit of stating a point of view so badly that it stimulates the reader to examine closely his every word. Thus he acquaints us with the opinions of many persons less articulate than he, and the discussion of his essays among imperfectly educated people whose occupations do not allow them time for prolonged intellectual work always provides the occasion for the rapid raising of vital questions.

Maurin is useful even if one rejects all the essays. They inform both the extreme Right and the extreme Left of the views which men and women in the midway hold concerning what they want or think they want from a new social order. Information of that sort is now becoming increasingly hard to get wholesale.