2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Now about the role of the editorial note and its alleged "approval" of particular pieces. It is useful to start with a preliminary point. Logically it is completely erroneous to believe that a journal can promote debate only if its editors hold no positions of their own. We do have views and positions of our own which we have articulated from time to time. As Marxists we believe that there is no such thing as "no position"; indeed the "no position" claim is itself tantamount to taking a position. But taking a position does not mean shutting out debate; on the contrary, precisely when one is convinced of one's position is one prepared to engage in and encourage debate. Positions get refined and enriched through debate. The purpose of debate is to identify the exact terrian of differences, to trace differences, in other words, back to certain irreducible first principles; once this is done then it is for history to decide which set of first principles is correct. But to clear the smoke to be able to see differences better, we welcome debate. So there is no contradiction whatsoever between our having a position and still wanting a debate. What the editorial note is meant to do is to introduce the prob-lematics of the various articles, and to underline their significance. Why is this necessary? For the following reason, apart from the general usefulness of our introduction: precisely because we wish neither to pretend that we are jelly fish umpiring over a match, not to "impose particular political views", we would like to have the freedom both to publish articles we disagree with and to demarcate ourselves from their problematics. This the editorial note in principle allows us to do. Clearly therefore we do not necessarily share the problematics of all the articles we publish. Even when we do share the problematics of certain articles, we do not necessarily agree with each and every statement made in those articles. So to hold us responsible for all the statements made by an author on the grounds that the editorial note in a general sense endorsed his problematic would be patently unfair. The editorial note cannot be a running commentary on each statement of each article. For an illustration, consider, the article on Poland in this number. This is the first of a series of articles we propose to publish on that crucial and complex issue. The authors would not necessarily agree among themselves, as we would not necessarily agree with them. With the present article too we have our points of difference; but we are glad to be able to publish it because it raises important points which might start a debate. We are happy to say that after receiving our reply the reader who had raised these questions has agreed to write a rejoinder to the particular pieces which he objected to. We hope to be able to publish his rejoinder in a forthcoming number.