The Rationalists dogmatise their views on the impossibility of dogma and the absurdity never strikes them. Some radicals were once one with them, in this dogma of there being no dogma, but the Redicals prefer to avoid argument altogether. Experience has shown that intelligent and reasonable argument with persons as well practised as themselves and even less so is dangerous. Their way out has been the use of various distracting techniques. One of these has been a great vagueness: words of high emotive value undefined and liberally used like spices in bad cooking. "The People" fight for "freedom" and "democracy" against the "forces of reaction", the "fascists" and "warmongers" for the inevitable triumph of the "people's socialist democracy". Who knows for certain the meanings of any of these words any more than we know just exactly what Mr. Winchester means when he speaks of "socialism"?

A political fresher knows as surely as Mr. Winchester that "socialism" can mean at least three things and since the three of them cannot be wholly true, nor all intended, we are left to decide for ourselves what is meant and what Mr. Winchester would tell us is true. For him the word may have a preciseness of meaning which is satisfying enough to allow him to proclaim its truth without first telling us what he is proclaiming. This is not sufficient for those who may think it false, because they are also sure that some things are true, of which perhaps Mr. Winchester's particular brand of socialism may not be one. You can avoid definition for convenience but once avoided then it is a presumption to try by means as subtle as his to state the truth, the truth to be a word of at least three meanings.