have any very clear conception of the political convictions of the supporters of the Soviet government in Russia.  To have that you would need to think and read a little, whereas to use the word as a vague term of abuse, you need only to feel, which many people find much easier.  Some people use the word capitalist in the same way, as a term of abuse, meaning really only ‘rich person.’  If they stopped to think of the meaning of the word, they would remember that it means merely a person who uses what money he has productively, instead of hoarding it in a stocking.

But ‘capitalist’ and ‘Bolshevist’ were both flung about freely during the strike, by the different sides.  Emotional unrest, I suppose.  People get excited, and directly they get excited they get sentimental and confused.  The daily press did, on both sides.  I don’t know which was worse.  The Pinkerton press blossomed into silly chit-chat about noblemen working on under ground trains.  As a matter of fact, most of the volunteer workers were clerks and tradesmen and working men, but these weren’t so interesting to talk about, I suppose.

The Fact became more than ever precise and pedantic and clear-headed, and what people call dull.  It didn’t take sides:  it simply gave, in more detail than any other paper, the issues, and the account of the negotiations, and had expert articles on the different currents of influence on both sides.  It didn’t distort or conceal the truth in either direction.

I met Lady Pinkerton one evening at Jane’s.  She would, of course, come up to town, though the amateur trains were too full without her.  She said, ‘Of course They hate us.  They want a Class War.’

Jane said, ‘Who are They, and who are Us?’ and she said ’The working classes, of course.  They’ve always hated us.  They’re Bolshevists at heart.  They won’t be satisfied till they’ve robbed us of all we have.  They hate us.  That is why they are striking.  We must crush them this time, or it will be the beginning of the end.’

I said, ’Oh.  I thought they were striking because they wanted the principle of standardisation of rates of wages for men in the same grade to be applied to other grades than drivers and firemen.’

Lady Pinkerton was bored.  I imagine she understands about hate and love and envy and greed and determination, and other emotions, but not much about rates of wages.  So she likes to talk about one but not about the other.  All, for instance, that she knows about Bolshevism is its sentimental side—­how it is against the rich, and wants to nationalise women and murder the upper classes.  She doesn’t know about any of the aspects of the Bolshevist constitution beyond those which she can take in through her emotions.  She would find the others dull, as she finds technical wage questions.  That’s partly why she hates the Fact.  If she happened to be on the other side, she would talk the same tosh, only use ‘capitalist’ for ‘Bolshevist.’