imagine anything more vile, abominable, and treacherous than the behaviour of the overwhelming majority of Socialist and Social-Democratic deputies in parliament during and after the war. But it would be not only unreasonable but actually criminal to yield to this mood when deciding the question of how to fight against this generally recognised evil. In many countries of Western Europe the revolutionary mood is at present, we might say, a "novelty," or a "rarity," for which we have been vainly and impatiently waiting for a long time, and perhaps that is why we so easily give way to moods. Of course, without a revolutionary mood among the masses and without conditions favouring the growth of this mood, revolutionary tactics will never be converted into action; but we in Russia have been convinced by long, and painful and bloody experience of the truth that revolutionary tactics cannot be built up on revolutionary moods alone. Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective estimation of all the class forces in a given state (in neighbouring States and in all States, i. e., on a world scale), as well as on an estimation of the experience of revolutionary movements. To express one's "revolutionariness" solely by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, solely by repudiating participation in parliaments, is very easy; but, just because it is too easy, it is not the solution for a difficult, a very difficult, problem. It is much more difficult to create a really revolutionary parliamentary fraction in a European parliament than it was in Russia. Of course. But this is only a particular expression of the general truth that it was easy for Russia in the definite, historically very unique situation of 1917 to start a Socialist revolution, but that it will be more difficult for Russia to continue and bring it to its consummation than for the European countries. I had occasion to point this out even in the beginning of 1918," and our experience of the last two years has entirely confirmed the correctness of this argument. Certain specific conditions, viz., 1) The possibility of linking up the Soviet revolution with the ending (as a consequence of this revolution) of the imperialist war which had exhausted the workers and peasants to an incredible degree; 2) The possibility of taking advantage for a certain time of the mortal conflict between two world-powerful groups of imperialist robbers, who were unable to unite against their Soviet enemy; 3) The possibility of holding out in a comparatively lengthy civil war, partly owing to the enormous size of the country and to the poor means of communication; 4) The existence of such a profound bourgeois-democratic revolutionary movement among the peasantry that the party of the proletariat was able to adopt the revolutionary demands of the peasant party (the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the majority of the members of which were very hostile to Bolshevism) and at once realise them, thanks to the conquest of political power by the proletariat-these specific conditions do not exist in Western Europe at present; and a repetition of such or similar conditions will not come about easily. That is why, apart from a number of other causes, it will be more difficult to start a Socialist revolution in Western Europe than it was for us. To attempt to "circumvent" this difficulty by "skipping" the difficult task of utilising reactionary parliaments for revolutionary purposes is absolutely childish. You wish to create a new society, and

15 See Selected Works, Vol. VII, pp 281-82.-Ed.

yet you fear the difficulties involved in forming, a good parliamentary fraction, consisting of convinced, devoted, heroic Communists, in a reactionary parliament! Is not this childish? If Karl Liebknecht in Germany and Z. Höglund in Sweden were able, even without mass support from below, to set examples of the truly revolutionary utilisation of reactionary parliaments, why, then, should a rapidly growing revolutionary, mass party, under the conditions of the post-war disillusionment and exasperation of the masses, be unable to forge for itself a Communist fraction in the worst of parliaments?! It is just because of the backward masses of the workers and, to a still greater degree, of the small peasants in Western Europe are much more strongly imbued with bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices than they were in Russia that it is only within such institutions as bourgeois parliaments that Communists can (and must) wage a long and persistent struggle-undaunted by difficulties-to expose, dispel and overcome these prejudices.

The German "Lefts" complain about the bad "leaders" in their party, give way to despair, and go to the length of ridiculously "repudiating" "leaders." But when conditions are such that it is often necessary to hide "leaders" underground, the development of good, reliable, experienced and authoritative "leaders" is an especially hard task, and these difficulties cannot be successfully overcome without combining legal with illegal work, without testing the "leaders," among other ways, on the parliamentary arena also. Criticism-the sharpest, most ruthless, uncompromising criticism-must be directed, not against parliamentarism or parliamentary action, but against those leaders who are unable-and still more against those who are unwilling-to utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary tribune in a revolutionary manner, in a Communist manner. Only such criticism-combined, of course, with the expulsion of worthless leaders and their replacement by capable ones-will constitute useful and fruitful revolutionary work that will simultaneously train the "leaders" themselves to become worthy of the working class and of the toiling masses, and will train the masses to be able properly to understand the political situation and the often very complicated and intricate tasks that spring from that situation.18

VIII. NO COMPROMISES?

In the quotation from the Frankfurt pamphlet we saw how emphatically the "Lefts" advance this slogan. It is sad to see that men who

16 I have had very little opportunity to make myself familiar with "Left-wing" Communism in Italy. Comrade Bordiga and his faction of "Communist-Boycottists" (Comunista astensionista) are certainly wrong in defending nonparticipation in parliament. But on one point, it seems to me, Čomrade Bordiga is right-as far as can be judged from two issues of his paper, Il Soviet (Nos. 3 and 4, January 18 and February 1, 1920), from four issues of Comrade Serrati's excellent periodical, Comunismo (Nos. 1-4, October 1-November 30, 1919), and from isolated numbers of Italian bourgeois papers which I have come across. Comrade Bordiga and his faction are right in attacking Turati and his followers, who remain in a party which has recognised the Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, but who at the same time continue their former pernicious and opportunist policy as members of parliament. Of course, in tolerating this, Comrade Serrati and the whole Italian Socialist Party are committing a mistake which threatens to do as much harm and give rise to the same dangers as it did in Hungary, where the Hungarian Turatis sabotaged both the Party and the Soviet government from within. Such a mistaken, inconsistent, or spineless attitude toward the opportunist parliamentarians creates "Left-wing" Communism on the one hand and justifies its existence, to a certain extent, on the other. Comrade Serrati is obviously wrong when he accuses Deputy Turati of being "inconsistent" (Comunismo, No. 3), for it is really the Italian Socialist Party itself which is inconsistent, since it tolerates such opportunist parliamentarians as Turati and Co.

doubtless consider themselves to be Marxists, and who want to be Marxists, have forgotten the fundamental truths of Marxism. Let us cite what Engels-who, like Marx, was one of those rare and very rare authors whose every sentence in every one of their great works was of remarkably profound content-wrote in 1874, in opposition to the manifesto of the thirty-three Communard-Blanquists:

"We are Communists" (wrote the Communard-Blanquists in their manifesto) "because we wish to attain our goal without stopping at intermediate stations, without any compromises, which only postpone the day of victory and prolong the period of slavery."

The German Communists are Communists because at all the intermediate stations and in all compromises, which are created, not by them, but by historical development, they clearly perceive and constantly pursue the final aim, viz., the abolition of classes and the creation of a society in which there will be no private ownership of land or of the means of production. The thirty-three Blanquists are Communists because they imagine that merely because they want to skip the intermediate stations and compromises, that settles the matter, and if "it begins" in the next few days-as has been definitely settled-and they once come to the helm, "Communism will be introduced" the day after tomorrow. If that is not immediately possible, they are not Communists. What childish innocence it is to present impatience as a theoretically convincing argument." In the same article Engels expresses his profound esteem for Vaillant, and speaks of the "undeniable merit" of the latter (who, like Guesde, was one of the most prominent leaders of international Socialism up to August 1914, when they both turned traitor to the cause of Socialism). But Engels does not allow an obvious mistake to go by without a detailed analysis. Of course, to very young and inexperienced revolutionaries, as well as to petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, even though very experienced and of a very respectable age, it seems exceedingly "dangerous," incomprehensible and incorrect to "allow compromises." And many sophists (being super or excessively "experienced" politicians) reason precisely in the same way as the British leaders of opportunism mentioned by Comrade Lansbury: "If it is permissible for the Bolsheviks to compromise, then why should we not be allowed to compromise?" But proletarians schooled in numerous strikes (to take only this manifestation of the class struggle) usually understand very well the very profound (philosophical, historical, political and psychological) truth expounded by Engels. Every proletarian has gone through strikes and has experienced "compromises" with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers had to go back to work without having achieved anything, or after consenting to a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian owing to the conditions of the mass struggle and of the sharp intensification of class antagonisms in which he lives-notices the difference between a compromise which one is compelled to enter into by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, extreme hunger and exhaustion), a compromise which in no way lessens the revolutionary devotion and readiness for further struggle of the workers who agree to such a compromise, and a compromise by traitors who ascribe to objective reasons their own selfishness (strikebreakers also effect a "compromise"!), their cowardice, their desire to fawn upon the capitalists and their readiness to yield to threats, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery on the part of the capitalists. (Such cases of traitors' compro

17 Frederick Engels, in Volksstaat, 1874, No. 73, "Programm der blanquistischen Kommune-Flüchtlinge."

mises by trade union leaders are particularly plentiful in the history of the British labour movement; but in one form or another nearly all workers in all countries have witnessed similar things.)

Of course, individual cases of exceptional difficulty and intricacy occur, when it is possible to determine correctly the real character of this or that "compromise" only with the greatest effort; just as cases of homicide occur when it is very difficult to decide whether the homicide was fully justified and even necessary (as, for example, legitimate self-defence), or unpardonable negligence, or even a cunningly executed plan. Of course, in politics, in which, sometimes, extremely complicated-national and international-relationships between classes and parties have to be dealt with, very many cases will arise that will be much more difficult than the question concerning legitimate "compromise" during a strike, or the treacherous "compromise" of a strikebreaker, or of a treacherous leader, etc. It would be absurd to concoct a recipe or general rule ("No Compromise!") to serve all cases. One must have the brains to analyse the situation in each separate case. Incidentally, the significance of a party organisation and of party leaders worthy of the name lies precisely in the fact that with the prolonged, persistent, varied and all-sided efforts of all the thinking representatives of the given class,18 the necessary knowledge, the necessary experience and-apart from all knowledge and experience the necessary political instinct for the speedy and correct solution of intricate political problems may be acquired.

Naïve and utterly inexperienced people imagine that it is sufficient to admit the permissibility of compromise in general in order to obliterate the dividing line between opportunism, against which we wage and must wage an irreconcilable struggle, and revolutionary Marxism, or Communism. But if such people do not yet know that all dividing lines in nature and in society are mutable and, to a certain extent, conventional they cannot be assisted in any other way than by a long process of training, education, enlightenment, and by political and every-day experience. In the practical questions of the politics of a given or specific historical moment, it is important to single out those questions which reveal the principal type of impermissible, treacherous compromises embodying the opportunism that is fatal to the revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to explain them and combat them. During the imperialist war of 1914-18 between two groups of equally predatory and rapacious countries, the principal, fundamental type of opportunism was social-chauvinism, that is, the support of "defence of the fatherland," which, in such a war, was really equivalent to defence of the predatory interests of "one's own" bourgeoisie. After the war, the defence of the robber "League of Nations," the defence of direct or indirect alliances with the bourgeoisie of one's own country against the revolutionary proletariat and the "Soviet" movement, and the defence of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois parliamentarism against the "Soviet power" became the principal manifestations of those impermissible and treacherous compromises,

18 In every class, even in the most enlightened countries, even in the case of the most advanced class, placed by the circumstances of the moment in a state of an exceptionally high upsurge of all spiritual forces, there always are and, as long as classes exist, as long as classless society has not fully entrenched and consolidated itself, has not developed on its own foundation, there inevitably will be-class representatives, who do not think and are incapable of thinking. Were this not so, capitalism would not be the oppressor of the masses that it is.

the sum total of which represented the opportunism that is fatal to the revolutionary proletariat and its cause.

To reject most emphatically all compromises with other parties . . . all policy of manoeuvring and compromise,

write the German Lefts in the Frankfurt pamphlet.

It is a wonder, that, holding such views, these Lefts do not emphatically condemn Bolshevism! Surely, the German Lefts cannot but know that the whole history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of manoeuvring, temporising and compromising with other parties, bourgeois parties included!

To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, prolonged and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manœuvre, to utilise the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies, to refuse to temporise and compromise with possible (even though transient, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies-is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not as though, in the difficult ascent of an unexplored and heretofore inaccessible mountain, we were to renounce beforehand the idea that at times we might have to go in zigzags, sometimes retracing our steps, sometimes abandoning the course once selected and trying various others? And yet, several members of the Dutch Communist Party found it possible to support-it matters not whether directly or indirectly, openly or covertly, wholly or partially-people who are so ignorant and inexperienced!! (It will not be so bad if this ignorance and inexperience are due to their youth; God Himself ordains that young persons should talk such nonsence for a certain period.)

After the first Socialist revolution of the proletariat, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in one country, the proletariat of that country for a long time remains weaker than the bourgeoisie, simply because of the latter's extensive international connections, and also because the small-commodity producers in the land which has overthrown the bourgeoisie restore and regenerate capitalism and the bourgeoisie spontaneously and continuously. It is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy only by exerting the utmost effort, and by necessarily, thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skilfully taking advantage of every, even the smallest "fissure" among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie of the various countries, among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie in the various countries; by taking advantage of every, even the smallest opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this fail to understand even a grain of Marxism and of scientific, modern Socialism in general. Those who have not proved by deeds over a considerable period of time, and in sufficiently varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to assist the revolutionary class in its struggle for the emancipation of the whole of toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and the period after the conquest of political power by the proletariat.

Our theory is not a dogma but a guide to action, said Marx and Engels; and the greatest mistake, the greatest crime such "patented" Marxists as Karl Kautsky, Otto Bauer, etc., commit is that they