A Black Reading of “The Parable of the Talents”

ABSTRACT

The explanation of Biblical texts has often been left unquestionable by both believers and unbelievers. This has led to absorbing problematic explanations. This culture of not questioning has become a problem of making the Bible a tool of miseducation, suppression and exploitation. Above everything, Black believers tend to read, translate and interpret the Bible through “White/masters eyes.” This article aims to conscientize Blacks or the working class to read the Bible from their perspective and experiences. In this context, Blacks are to be understood as the working class who should problematize “The Parable of the Talents.” The article will argue that “The Parable of the Talents” has been read wrongly and will propose a new way of reading this parable.

KEYWORDS:

• South Africa
• the Bible
• miseducation
• conscientization
• parable of the talents

1. Introduction

The article will engage Matthew 25: 14–30 and argue that the text contains the language and practice of exploitation of the workers mentioned as servants and that is why it is titled “A Black reading of the Parable of the Talents.” However, if I had to change my title, the title of Richard Rohrbaugh would be relevant and even much better and appropriate for my argument, “A peasant reading of the Parable of the Talents/Pounds: A Text of Terror.” But to set the record straight and not to create unnecessary confusion, my interest on this text is on the socio-class relations rather than on the exegesis of the text. The text reads as follows:

1.1. The Parable of the Talents

¹⁴ “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants^[a] and entrusted to them his property.” ¹⁵ To one he gave five talents,^[b] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. ¹⁶ He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. ¹⁷ So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. ¹⁸ But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. ¹⁹ Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. ²⁰ And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, “Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.” ²¹ His master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant.^[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.” ²² And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, “Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.” ²³ His master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.” ²⁴ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, ²⁵ so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.” ²⁶ But his master answered him, “You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? ²⁷ Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. ²⁸ So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. ²⁹ For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. ³⁰ And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25: 14–30 ESV).

The intent is to engage the above mentioned parable, specifically on how it has been interpreted and accepted. The parable is very common, at least in my church circles. It has been read many times through my upbringing in the church as every end of the year when the CWM (Christian Women Ministry) of the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa does their year-end fundraising known as ditalente (talents) and they utilize this scripture. I have then re-listened and re-read the text several times and realized the possible similarities with capitalism. One must not be naïve to disassociate the church from capitalism. It must be clarified without contradictions that Christian reference on economic disputes must never disremember that the church itself is no less free of sin than the world as a whole. In its own businesses, it has to wrestle with the same concessions (such as between freedom and equality) with those with which the economist grapples. The national and global economies are so all-pervasive that it is very difficult for anyone to live entirely outside their structures. Generally, capitalism in the church like elsewhere relies upon competition and it is for this reason why women break into different groups and different wards, it is to compete against each other even though the intention is to motivate. The institutional rules govern the nature of that competition. For example, free market rules allow profits and losses to reflect the discipline of the marketplace. Based on this background I will, therefore, make an interrogation and interpretation of Matthew 25: 14–30 through the lenses of a Black or a peasant reading.

Several question and queries are identified when reading this text; (1) the problem of servanthood, (2) the problem of inequality, and (3) the problem of capitalism.

2. The Problem of Servanthood

In my observation of this text, that there is a clear voluntary action, or even a shameful action taking place. While it is very clear that a servant is someone hired to do something and the slave is someone owned it must at the same time be clarified that the two concepts overlaps and at times the Bible has succeeded to camouflage the word slave under servant. MacArthur¹ argues

While it is true that the duties of slave and servant may overlap to some degree, there is a key distinction between the two: servants are hired; slaves are owned. Servants have an element of freedom in choosing whom they work for and what they do. The idea of servanthood maintains some level of self-autonomy and personal rights. Slaves, on the other hand, have no freedom, autonomy, or rights. In the Greco-Roman world, slaves were considered property, to the point that in the eyes of the law they were regarded as things rather than persons. To be someone’s slave was to be his possession, bound to obey his will without hesitation or argument.

I should indicate that the distinction does not make it qualitatively better that one volunteers into being exploited, where the conditions of employment can be more or less the same, as they both produce for their master and his benefits only. A comparison is given between the first two servants and the third. Before I make my own comparison and argument, however, let me share with you a task given by Anthony Reddie in his book titled Is God Color blind? Insights of the Black theology for Christian ministry.

Reddie² did an exercise or an example on how to read the Parable of the Talents. He divided three groups to deal with each of the three servants. On the first servant he argued that:

… for some, who are the first servant, you do what you do for variety of reasons. For some is a question reward. If you work hard, then you know that you will be rewarded by your master. Others will state that the first servant does what he does because it is a tactical move. If you work hard and do what the master desires then he will not only reward you, he will give you greater responsibility and opportunity to progress. [However] we know the system is oppressive because-if you imagine yourself as the first servant-the fact of the matter is that you are ‘a servant’. In some commentaries ‘servant can be read as ‘slave’.³

On the second servant he argued:

Many reasons may well be similar to those given by the first servant. Fear, expectation of reward, a means of making progress, the possibility of working within the system in order to try and progress. I am sure that some of you will have noticed the prejudicial act of the master at the beginning of the situation, namely, that he gives the first servant more capital than you to begin with … Clearly, the master is not fair and most certainly looks like he has favourites.⁴

On the third servant he argued:

Whatever, the reason, you know that this, your master, is a demanding and selfish person. In fact when he confronts you about your actions, you tell him as much. You tell him that he is a hard-faced crook who takes what isn’t his and lives off the rewards of others. You, after all, did not cheat him. You did give him back exactly the same amount he gave you. But the master is hard and controlling and wants more … But you, the third servant, do not hide your lack of affection for him. Instead, you simply give him back his money and tell him to be happy with it.⁵

What is very clear is that the first two used and invested what the master had entrusted to them, respectively added to “their” master’s wealth. The third servant, however, buried what had been entrusted to him. The result of this behaviour was that he was effectively holding things in place for the master, while he was away. We must note the remote control form of exploitation taking place here. The management by the master is such that the two servants added his wealth even in his absence. This has been the common state of affairs in South Africa on the farms where the owner has been White yet the one who produces profit has been the Black labourers.

The three servants voluntarily returned to the master the amounts entrusted to them, but the other two returned the initial capital but with the added interest they had made in his absence. In this scenario, the relations of production are revealed through the inducement of human motion, that is, as interests, which are objective conditions of social and economic existence. The economic relations of a society, therefore, reveal themselves in the opening domicile, as interest.

In this text, the economic interest is reflected in the consciousness of the servants as set goals on behalf of or for the master and are further revealed through the efforts of the two servants towards achieving the goal for the master. Therefore, what is revealed or reflected is the interest of a particular class, and in this case, it is the master representing it. It must be clarified that economic interest is a profound cause of social movement and of the class struggle. Note the response of the third servant: “Master, he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not scattered seed’. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.” We observe that this servant knew the tendencies of his master by harvesting where he had not sown and gathered, which is a typical capitalist characteristic.

Power relations are problematic in this text, also, as the master holds authority, is flippant, gives commands to subordinates, and without hesitation, takes profit and credit for the hard labour of others or his servants. In this context:

The cost may be either pecuniary or nonpecuniary. A robber wielding a knife derives power to extract dollars from a shop owner from the ability to impose the non-pecuniary cost of injury or death. Parents may derive power over their children from their ability to impose the cost of withheld affection. The incentives to adhere to implicit terms of a relational contract can be thought of as the power of each party to constrain the behaviour of the other, which (as discussed earlier) derives from the ability of each to impose contract termination costs on the other. Note that power derives not from the imposition of costs but rather from the perceived ability and willingness to impose costs (that is, on the credibility of threats). Importantly, party A may have the power to constrain the behaviour of party B even if B can inflict greater costs on A (that is, B in some sense has more power). To illustrate, the United States has the weaponry to impose huge costs on North Korea, but because North Korea appears to have the capacity also to impose costs on the United States in retaliation (albeit smaller costs) the United States may not have the net power to force North Korea to comply with its wishes. The notion of power as the ability to impose costs can be used to analyse power relationships between an employer and an employee in an employment contract.⁶

The text naturalizes the parasitical role of the aristocratic class within the agrarian mode of production. The master is depicted as a willing benefactor of the exploitation of servant labour. While the three servants keep, protect, and/or multiply his talents, he, however, takes full credit. In this scenario we experience that “ … labour and capital meet in a marketplace where one party is ebullient mood and the other traumatized. Capital can increasingly take its pick as to where it deploys.”⁷ Matthew 25 Verse 18 already starts by identifying and making class distinctions between the referred participants palpably clear. The other is called “the master” while the others are called “servants.” By being named “the master” (classification), it enforces the tendency of superiority versus inferiority, to an extent that the narrative reinforces an aristocratic “born to rule” attitude. A close reading of the interaction between the master and the servants’ shows where the locus of power remains: not with the lowly and submissive servants but with the exalted and elevated master.

As I have indicated there is a grey line between a slave and a servant. I understand slavery and servanthood as a legal and economic system in which principles of property law can apply to humans so that people can be treated as property, They can be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement. While a person is a slave or servant, the owner is entitled to the slave or servant’s labour, without any remuneration. It is for this reason why even in this parable there is no reference or an indication to compensation or remuneration for the said slaves except for the rewards indicated in verses 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, and 30. The two first servants were rewarded, in fact enslaved, with more talents or responsibility to reproduce and multiply more for their master. The third servant was rewarded with punishment because he was unprofitable. It is very clear and evident that the master’s reaction to the third servant was very harsh. The servant was mocked and thrown out and treated as useless and unproductive. Servanthood just like slavery was justified and glorified and this is deduced in the augments of David Meagerin Slavery in Bible.⁸ This particular epoch justified and humanizing slavery stating:

Some people are shocked that slavery was an accepted practice in the Old Testament. However, it must be remembered that the slavery sanctioned in the bible is very different to the slavery that occurred in the Americas in the 17th and 18th Centuries which is perhaps the popular view of slavery. Old Testament treatment of slaves was also generally more humane that the slavery practiced in other ancient civilization.⁹

The title of the book edited by Thomas Schirrmacher captures correctly what Meager was trying to argue and advance; the title of the book is; The humanization of Slavery in the Old Testament.¹⁰ Now my question is, namely, how can it possible be the case that we can succeed in making slavery become humanely, irrespective of its dosage? Beavis,¹¹ counter argument is one that disapproves of Meager, exposing the belief that slavery yesterday and today share similar and indeed the same characteristics. He states: “Before the pax romana, the slave population was largely drawn from war captives. After Augustus, other sources of slaves, such as kidnapping, debt enslavement (see Matt 18: 24), self-sale, home breeding, and the rescue of foundlings were more prominent.” And “like land and livestock, slaves were objects to be used to best advantage by their masters. Ancient slavery was intrinsically oppressive and was maintained solely for the benefit of the privileged (slave owners).” It must however be noted that Rome was a slave society, in that “many of the accomplishments of the upper classes depended upon the leisure time which accompanied the exploitation of a servile labour force.”¹²

3. The Problem of Inequality

Our point of departure and question in our attempt to expose Matthew 25: 14–30 should be how this story was perceived in first century Palestine?

As soon as we ask, however, how this story might have been viewed by a peasant of first-century Palestine, if indeed such were among the hearers of Jesus, other questions immediately arise. Could such a story possibly have been good news to a peasant? Good news is, of course, always a two-sided affair: good news for a thanksgiving dinner is obvious bad news for the turkey. If this parable is somehow expected to offer someone good news about the kingdom of God, it is clearly not from a peasant perspective. It may have been good news to someone, but to a peasant it would have been nothing less than what Phyllis Trible has termed, in another context, “a text of terror.”¹³

I concur that this text exposes terror instead of good news to a peasant because it praises, promotes, and normalize inequality between the master and servants and between the servants themselves. It is very clear when reading the text that the master had no intention of sharing the profits with his servants and moreso the master did not offer equal treatment and opportunity to his three servants in the first instance. The first servant received five talents, the second servant received two talents, and the third servant received only one talent, the distribution was unequal from the onset.

This unequal distribution was problematic because it denied the value of equality. We must note that equality has a value and Samuel Scheffler¹⁴ argues this point asking: “Why is equality a value? … the basic reason it matters to us is because we believe that there is something valuable about human relationships that are-in certain crucial respects at least-unstructured by differences of ranks, power, or status.” MacEwan add another dimensions from that of intrinsic value to a human right stating: “material equality, or at least the absence of extreme inequality, has intrinsic value and is in some sense a human right.”¹⁵

A major cause of economic inequality within economies is the determination of labour by the master(s). However, in our era, economic inequality is caused by the differences in the supply and demand for different categories of labour and where rivalry is flawed. In all these contexts, information is irregularly dispersed. This is often exemplified in the breaks to attain education, which is manifested in unequal skills. Since many such flawed circumstances occur in virtually every market, there is in fact, little presumption that markets are in general efficient. This means that there is a mammoth probable role for some mechanism or regime to correct these market failures.

We must, however, note and recognize that unlike in the agrarian mode whereby the workers conditions are controlled by the employer (the Master), in a capitalist mode the markets will determine the control of labour conditions. Remunerations work in the same way as prices for any other goods. Thus, remunerations can be considered as a function of market value of skill. Therefore, inequality is driven by this value. Under the law of supply and demand, the value of skill is determined by a race between the demand for the skilled worker and the supply of the skilled worker.

Conversely, markets can also concentrate wealth; pass environmental costs on to society, and abuse workers and consumers. Markets, by themselves, even when they are stable, often lead to high levels of inequality, outcomes that are widely viewed as unfair. Employers who offer a below market wage will find that their business is chronically understaffed. Their competitors will take advantage of the situation by offering a higher wage to snatch up the best of their labour. For a businessperson who has the profit motive as the prime interest, it is a losing proposition to offer below or above market wages to workers.

The parable of the talents exposes a job where there are three workers and two of them willing to work a large amount of time (high supply) competing for a job that few require (low demand) which will result in no-compensation or a low wage for that job. This is because competition between workers drives down the wage or no wage, and in this context, is seen in what happened to the third servant, whose “talent” was taken away. An example of this would be jobs such as dish-washing or customer service. Competition amongst workers tends to drive down wages due to the expendable nature of the worker in relation to his or her particular job. A job where there are few able or willing workers (low supply), but a large need for the positions (high demand), will result in high wages for that job. This is because competition between employers for employees will drive up the wage. Examples of this would include jobs that require highly developed skills, rare abilities, or a high level of risk. Competition amongst employers tends to drive up wages due to the nature of the job, since there is a relative shortage of workers for the particular position. Professional and labour organizations may limit the supply of workers which results in higher demand and greater incomes for members. Members may also receive higher wages through collective bargaining, political influence, or corruption. These supply and demand interactions result in a gradation of wage levels within society that significantly influence economic inequality.

The master created an uneven society or an economically unequal society. Economic inequality refers to how economic metrics are distributed among individuals in a group, among groups in a population, or among countries. Economists generally think of three metrics of economic disparity; wealth (wealth inequality), income (income inequality), and consumption. The issue of economic inequality can implicate notions of equity, equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. And the second and the third servants are the exact examples of suffering the consequences of economic inequality or unequal distribution of wealth. In this unequal distribution we see power equally at play. This is because:

The degree of inequality in a society and what it means for people’s day-to-day lives is often examined through the lens of relational power. Reports of economic inequality are concerned with the hierarchical structure of incomes. Income deciles, purchasing power parity, and even Gross Domestic Product are all means of understanding the position of people or groups of people in relation to others.¹⁶

In telling the story, Jesus made it clear that the amount entrusted to each servant was determined by the servant’s ability, at least as the master saw or observed things.

4. The Problem of Capitalism

It is very clear that in reading the text of Mathew 25 (14–46), the issue regarding labour exploitation cannot escape interrogation. This arises because in South Africa, there is a clear marriage between Capitalism and Labour. This marriage is exposed by Wolpearguing that:

… the capitalist mode of production in which (i) the direct labaourers, who do not own the means of capital production, sell their labour-power to the owners of the means of production who are non-labourers and (ii) the wages the labourer receives for the sale of his labour-power are met by only a portion of the product he actually produces, the balance being appropriated as unpaid labour (surplus value) by the owners of the production means.¹⁷

Moreover, Rohrbaugh observation and conclusion on the marriage between capitalism and Matthew 25: 14–30 is very important when he argues that:

It should not take a great deal of thought to recognize a striking similarity between the parable’s fundamental ideas we listed above and the basic tenets of modern capitalism-or, at least, so it seems to minds conditioned by the capitalist societies of the West. Indeed commentators of the nineteenth centuries have genuinely reveled in the parable’s seeming exhortation to venturous investment and diligent labor. It appears to be nothing less than praise for a homespun capitalism on the lips of Jesus. Even though such treatments of the parable can be seen as far as back as John Chrysostom, and running forward as well into the exegesis of John Calvin, it is a treatment that has been own time, who rarely question this alleged capitalist motif.¹⁸

Based on the argument of Wope and Rohrbaugh there is then a clear indication and exposition of labour power or human capital. Labour power can appear upon the market as a commodity, and in our case, the possessor, the individual whose labour power it is, forced by the circumstances to offer it for sale, or sells it as a commodity. Generally, “industrial relations views the employment relationship as an exchange in which employees receive tangible and intangible rewards in return for selling their labour and/or knowledge power to be used largely at the employer’s discretion.”¹⁹ It must also be indicated that in most cases it appears that the possessor sells only labour. This is a disguise and illusion, as what they actually sell and exchange is their labour-power. Once this bargaining or exchange happens, exploitation is unavoidable.

We must note that exploitation is not unique to capitalism. It has been a feature of all societies, which are divided into two main classes, an exploitation class that produces the wealth and an exploiter class that expropriates it. The servant is forced by the system to work for the master, who provides just enough to keep the servant and/or the slave alive-all the rest of the fruits of their labour are forcefully appropriated by the servant/slave owners. I am using the two word servants and slave sometimes synonymously because the concept of slavery in the Scriptures have been completely hidden to the English reader.

Now this was by design because the word “slave” is the most important, all-encompassing, and clarifying word to describe a Christian used in the New Testament, and yet whenever a Christian is in view, it’s not translated as “slave.” The word is doulos. In the Greek, that word means “slave” – it never means anything but “slave.” It does not mean “servant”; it does not mean “worker”; it does not mean “hired hand”; it does not mean “helper.” There are six or seven Greek words that mean “servant” in some form. Doulos never means “servant.” A servant is someone hired to do something. The slave is someone owned. Big difference – huge difference – and yet all through the New Testament the word “slave” is masked by the word “servant,” or some form of synonym for the word “servant.” There is too much stigma with the concept of being a servant and a slave. It is too humiliating, too belittling to be used. So they opted to cover the word by replacing it with “servant,” “bondservant,” and eliminated the word “slave,” except when the New Testament talks about an actual, physical slave, or an inanimate object, as I said, like slaves of sin or righteousness. Basically, it is too troubling to use the term slave in ordinary biblical discourse due to the negativity associated with the term.

In the epoch of feudalism, as it arose in its classical form in Europe, the servant worked on a plot of land that belonged to the Lord. They work for part of the time for themselves, producing their means of subsistence, and for the remainder of the time, the produce that arose belonged to the Lord. The terms of exploitation are clear to the servants and lord alike; the servant labours for the Lord, and receives nothing from the Lord, in return.

Under capitalism, working class people, who do not own the means to produce and sell commodities, have but one commodity they can sell, namely, their labour power, their ability to work. In this way, workers are forced to sell themselves to some capitalist in order to acquire money to buy the necessities of life. It is very interesting to note that the workers’ right to the fruits of their labour has always been the natural basis for private property appropriation. Thus, capital production, far from being founded on private property, in fact denies the natural basis for private property appropriation. It must be noted, however, that the complexity of capitalism “ … has become a liability to itself, and abrupt. Simplification is immanent. It’s about to downsize; hard. Some people hope and pray for tis collapse. But it will not collapse. The machine will be simplified, but it will still run. Unless we destroy it, capitalism will destroy the world”²⁰ I would assert that the third servant is giving us an example on how to destabilize, misplace, and destroy an exploitive system. It was because he had realized that labour-power consists of control of the labour process and the ownership of the products workers create during it. And for us to destabilize, misplace, destroy or attack it, we must realize and understand the following:

• The capitalist system is evil and inimical to freedom.

• It will not disappear or collapse by itself. If allowed to continue, it will devour all life on

• Capitalism can only be eliminated by overthrowing it in a collective revolutionary process.

• It cannot be reformed out of existence, escape, or replaced from within.

• Capitalism is a continuous expanding mode of production. Capital struggle for its own self-reproduction. Capitalist accumulate surplus value, which is converted into more capital, through the exploitation of workers as they convert the natural world into commodities.

• The Fundamental contradiction of capitalism is capital vs. labour. Its manifestation is the social relationship of domination of one class (workers) by another (capitalists). Its expression is class struggle.

• The working class, or proletariat, is in an antagonist and strategic position in relation to capital. In liberating itself, it liberates all the dominant classes.

• The proletariat is the only class able to offer an alternative to capitalism. All other classes will tend to reproduce it or some other form of class society.

• In the current crisis of global capitalism, objective conditions are ripening for revolution, but subjectivity (ideology, or consciousness) is lagging behind, weakening popular mass struggles.

• In order to fulfil its historical mission, the proletariat must become class conscious and appropriate its own theory, which is the synthesized knowledge gained from its own struggles.

• Theory is collectively constructed in the process of class struggle. It cannot develop separate from practice, practice is primary and determinate. Theory is for the purpose of practice, to transform social relations.²¹

5. Conclusion

The article has revealed that an innocent reading of a biblical text can lead to beautification and justification of injustice, such as exploitation, inequality, classism, etc. The text has been read and promoted within a White colonialist, capitalistic gaze, in order to condone the exploitation of the poor. The article aimed at proving that there is a need, even today, to read the biblical text with an open eye and a marked hermeneutic of suspicion. There must always be suspicion whenever a biblical text justifies injustice, inequality, and classism. I trust that I have managed to unsettle this text in this subversive reading.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

B. B. Tumi Senokoane

B. B. Tumi Senokoane is an Associate Professor in Theological Ethics at the University of South Africa. He is a Reverend in the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa. He is also a General Secretary of a trade union called APSA and an NEC member of the South African Federation of Trade Union (SAFTU). He is an activist who participated in #OutsourcingMustFall fighting for the insourcing of the vulnerable workers. His field of interest is Black Theology, Labour Politics, Ethics, Race, and Politics.

Notes

1 MacArthur, Slave, 438.

2 Reddie, Is God Colour-Blind?

3 Ibid., 80.

4 Ibid., 81.

5 Ibid., 82.

6 Hogbin, Power in employment relationships, 11.

7 Shelley, Exploited, 4.

8 Meager, Slavery in Bible.

9 We need a reference for this qouation.

10 We need a reference for this book as well.

11 Beavis, “Ancient Slavery,” 37.

12 Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire, 14.

13 Rohrbaugh, “A Peasant Reading,” 33.

14 Scheffler, Equality and Tradition, 225.

15 MacEwan, An End in Itself, 4.

16 Bruce, “Power, Economic Inequality,” 18.

17 Wolpe, “Capitalism and cheap labour-power.”

18 Rohrbaugh, “A Peasant Reading,” 33.

19 Sisson, Putting the record straight, 23.

20 McMillan, Capitalism Must Die, 14.

21 Ibid., 5.