Loria's theory of revolution, and the rôle of the intellec­ tual is no longer the one which he assigns. It is not those intellectuals who are dissatisfied with their reallot­ ment of income, not those who are discontented with their ration of loaves and fishes, not those who sigh for the vanishing cakes and ale, who will help the coming of the definitive social revolution. Rarely indeed, too, is the function of the socialist intellectual the function of leadership. To an increasing extent, under the new conditions, he tends to be no more than the fifth wheel of the revolutionary coach. The right sort of intellectual had a function in the past ; it was to help the workers to overcome their division and disorganisation, to help them to be sure of themselves, to help them to clear views of the ends they must attain. That work is afoot. The ferment has been created : created by such men as Marx, whose abilities would have secured him ease, comfort, wealth, had he made his peace with bourgeoisdom, but who was a revolutionist by deliberate choice ; by such men as Engels, a well-to-do manufacturer ; by such men as Loria himself, a university professor ; by such men as the American, Scott Nearing, who recently forfeited his academic position because he would not keep the class struggle out of his lectures on economics. Can it be said that men like Herzen, Bakunin, and Kro­ potkin, have been, or that men like Trotzky and Lenin are, the disgruntled intellectuals of Loria's theory of revolution ? Quite apart from leadership under such peculiar conditions as obtain in Russia, there is work for socialist intellectuals, the work of promoting independent working-class education, the work of assisting in the spread of the ferment generated by the writings of earlier revolutionary thinkers. Our conviction that we ourselves, declassed bourgeois, have a modest function, that though