Answers to Correspondents

L. J. SIMONS (Stoke Newington).—No room in this issue. Letter will appear in next.
V. WILSON (Manchester).—Next month.
F. D. (London, N.W.)—We had seen the S.D.F. definition of “Impossiblists” in Justice and were much amused thereat. We also recognise “that tactics are necessarily determined by circumstances,” but we include as chief item among these circumstances the object to be attained. We also know that policy is not synonymous with principle, but we, however, believe that policy should be consistent with principle. We know of none who hold that “if we cannot find a perfectly straight road to a place we ought not to go there !” But we do not at all believe in going the longest and most treacherous road or indeed going toward an entirely different and undesirable goal in order that the interests of leaders and place hunters may thereby be served. Nor indeed do we believe in using “any available means” but only those means which lead in the quickest and surest way to Socialism irrespective of capitalist blandishments, leaders’ interests or legal forms. We are, then, not “Impossiblists” if Justice’s definition be correct, but we doubt its correctness for we have usually seen what is described as “Impossiblism” associated with Socialist science, working-class sincerity and correct tactics.