Radek entirely avoids those old declarations in which Lenin, very cautiously and very sparingly, but with all the greater emphasis, established my solidarity with Bolshevism in questions of revolutionary principle. Here it must not be forgotten for an instant that Lenin did this at a time when I did not belong to the Bolshevik faction and that Lenin attacked me mercilessly (and rightly so) for my con- ciliationism not for the permanent revolution, where he confined himself to occasional rejoinders but for my con- ciliationism, for my readiness to hope for an evolution of the Mensheviks to the Left. Lenin was much more con- cerned with the struggle against conciliationism than with "justifying" single polemical blows against the "conciliator" Trotsky.
In 1924, defending before me Zinoviev's conduct in October 1917, Stalin wrote: "Comrade Trotsky has not understood the letters of Lenin (on Zinoviev L. T.); their significance and their destina- tion. Lenin frequently used to rush ahead deliberately in his letters and to shove to the foreground the possible errors that might be made. He criticized them in advance with the aim of warning the party and insuring it against mistakes, or he often exaggerated a 'trifle' and, with the same pedagogical aim, made 'an elephant out of a gnat*...But to draw from these letters of Lenin (and there are no few such letters of his) the conclusion of 'tragic' differences of opinion and to trumpet this abroad means not to understand Lenin's letters, not to know Lenin." (J. Stalin Trotskyism or Leninism, 1924.)
However clumsy the formulation "the style is the man" the ideas are nevertheless essentially correct, even if they apply least of all precisely to the differences of opinion on October 1917, which do not quite resemble a "gnat". But if Lenin used to resort to "pedagogical" 48 ENFORCED CHAEACTEE OF WOEK exaggerations and to preventive policies towards the closest members ot his own faction, then surely all the more so towards one who stood outside the Bolshevik faction at the same time and preached conciliationism. It never occurred to Radek to allow for this corrective coefficient in the old quotations.
In 1922, I wrote in the foreword to my book 1905 that my prognosis that the dictatorship of the proletariat is likely and possible in Russia sooner than in the advanced countries, had been confirmed after twelve years, Radek, following a not very seductive example, describes it as though I had contrasted this prognosis with Lenin*s strategical line. From the foreword, however, it can be ' clearly seen that I considered the prognosis in those of its basic features in which it coincided with the strategic line of Bolshevism. When I speak in a footnote of the "re- armament" of the party at the beginning of 1917, then it is certainly not in the sense that Lenin recognized the previous road of the party as "erroneous" but rather that Lenin, even though after a delay, yet opportunely enough for the success of the revolution, came to Russia to teach the party to liberate itself from the outlived slogans of the "democratic dictatorship" to which the Stalins, Kamenevs, Rykovs, Molotovs and others were still clinging. When the Kamenevs grow indignant at the mention of the "re-arma- ment", it is comprehensible, for it was undertaken against them. But Radek? He first began to grow indignant in 1928, that is, only after he himself had begun to fight against the necessary "re-armament" of the Chinese Com- munist Party.
We would like to remind Radek that my books 1905 (with the indicated foreword) and The October Revolution played the role, while Lenin was alive, of the fundamental historical textbooks of the two revolutions. At that time, they went through innumerable editions in the Russian as well as in foreign languages. Never did anybody tell me that my books contain a contrast of two lines,.because at 49 PERMANENT REVOLUTION that time, before the revisionist change of course by the epigones, every normal-thinking party member did not consider the October experiences in the light of the old quotations, but the old quotations in the light of the October revolution.
In connection with this there is still another point which Radek misuses in an impermissible manners Trotsky did acknowledge he says that Lenin was right against him. True, he did acknowledge that. And in this acknowledg- ment there was not one iota of diplomacy. But I had in mind the whole historical road of Lenin, his whole theoretical position, his strategy, his way of building the party. This does not, however, relate to every single one of the polemical quotations which are moreover misused today for purposes alien to Leninism. In 1926, in the period of the bloc with Zinoviev, Radek warned me: Zinoviev needs my declaration that Lenin was right in order to. excuse a little his, Zinoviev's, wrong against me. Naturally, I understood this well. And that is why I said at the Seventh Plenum of the E. C. C. I. that I meant the historical right of Lenin and his party, but in no case the right of my present critics who strive to cover themselves with quotations plucked out of Lenin.
Today, I am unfortunately compelled to extend these words to Radek. With regard to the permanent revolution, I spoke only of the defects of the theory, which were inevitable in so far as it was a question of a prognosis. At the Seventh Plenum of the E. C. C. I., Bucharin rightly emphasized that Trotsky did not renounce the conception in its entirety. On the "defects", I shall speak in another, more extensive work, in which I shall endeavour to present the experiences of the three revolutions and their applica- tion to the further course of the Comintern, especially in the East. But in order to leave no room for ambiguities, I wish to say here briefly: despite all its defects, the theory of the permanent revolution, even in the presentation of my earliest works, primarily in Results and Perspectives 50 ENFORCED CHARACTER OF WORK (1906) is permeated to an incomparably greater degree with the spirit of Marxism and consequently stands infinitely closer to the. historical line of Lenin and the Bolshevik party, than not only the present Stalinist and Bucharinist retrospective wisdom but also than the latest work of Radek. By this, however, I do not at all want to say that the conception of the revolution presents the same immovable line in all my writings. I have not occupied myself with the collection of old quotations I am forced to do it now by the period of party reaction and epigonism but I have plainly and honestly sought to analyze the real processes of life. In the twelve years (1905-1917) of my revolutionary journalistic activity, there are also articles in which the conjunctural relations and even the conjunctural polemical exaggerations inevitable in struggle, stand out in violation of the strategic line. Thus, for example, articles can be found in which I expressed doubts about the future revolutionary role of the peasantry as a whole, as a group, and in connection with this refused to characterize, especially during the imperialist war, the future Russian revolution as "national", for I felt this characterization to be ambiguous. But it must not be forgotten here that the historical processes that interest us, also in the peasantry, are far more obvious now that they 'have been accomplished than in those days when they were first developing. I would observe in passing that Lenin, who never for a moment lost sight of the peasant question in all its gigantic, historical magnitude and from whom we all learned this considered it uncertain even after the February revolution that we would succeed in tearing the peasantry away from the bourgeoisie and linking it with the proletariat. I might, moreover, say quite in general to my harsh critics that it is far easier to dig out in one hour the formal contradictions in a quarter of a century of another's newspaper articles, than it is to preserve, oneself, if even for a year, the unity of principled line. There remains but to mention in these introductory lines, 51 PERMANENT REVOLUTION an especially noteworthy supplement: had the theory of the permanent revolution been correct says Radek Trotsky would have assembled a large faction on that basis. But that did not happen. Consequently...the theory was false.
The argument of Radek, taken as a whole, does not contain a trace of dialectics. One could conclude from it that the standpoint of the Opposition on the Chinese revolution, or the attitude of Marx in British affairs, was false; that the position of the Comintern with regard to the reformists in America, in Austria and if you wish in all countries, is false. If Radek's argument is taken not in its general "historico-philosophical" form, but only as applied to the question that interests us, then it hits Radek himself; the argument might have meaning had I been of the opinion or, what is still more important, had events shown, that the line of Bolshevism is in conflict with it, and deviates from it ever further: only then would there be the ground for two factions. But that is just what Radek wants to prove. I prove, on the contrary, that in spite of all the factional polemical exaggerations and conjunctural accentuations of the question, the basic strategical lines were alike. Where should a second faction have come from? In reality, it turned out that I worked hand in hand with the Bolsheviks in the first revolution and later defended this common work in the international press against the renegades 5 criticism of the Mensheviks. In the 1917 revolution, I fought together with Lenin against the democratic opportunism of those "old Bolsheviks" who have today been elevated by the reactionary wave and fitted for the hunt against the permanent revolution.
Finally, I never endeavoured to create a grouping on the basis of the theory of the permanent revolution. My inner-party stand was a conciliatory one and when at certain moments I strove for groupings, then it was precisely on this basis. My conciliationism was derived from a certain Social Revolutionary fatalism. I believed 52 E N F On CED CHARACTER- OF 'WORK that the logic of the class struggle would compel both factions to pursue the same revolutionary line. The great historical significance of Lenin's stand was still unclear to me at that time, his policy of irreconcilable ideological demarcation and, when necessary, split, for the purpose of uniting and steeling the backbone of the truly revolutionary party. In 1911, Lenin wrote on this subject: "Conciliationism is the result of moods, endeavours and opinions which are inseparably bound up with the nature of the historical task put before the Russian Social Demo- cratic Party in the counter-revolutionary epochs of 1908-1911. That is why a whole series of social democrats deteriorated into conciliationism in this epoch, proceeding from the most variegated premises. Conciliationism was represented most consistently by Trotsky who, almost alone, endeavored to lay a theoretical foundation for this current." (Volume X7, part 2, page 371.)
By striving for unity at all costs, I involuntarily and unavoidably had to idealize the Centrist tendencies in Menshevism. Despite the threefold episodic attempts, I arrived at no common work with the Mensheviks, and I could not arrive at it. Simultaneously, however, the conciliatory line brought me into an all the harsher position towards Bolshevism, since Lenin, in contrast to the Mensheviks, mercilessly rejected conciliationism, and could do no different. It is obvious that no faction could be created on the platform of conciliationism. Thence the lesson: it is inadmissible and harmful to bend back or weaken a political line in favour of vulgar conciliationism; it is inadmissible to gloss over Centrism zig-zagging to the Left; it is inadmissible, in the hunt after the will-o'-the- wisps of Centrism, to exaggerate differences of opinion with genuine revolutionary co-thinkers. These are the real lessons of Trotsky's mistakes. These lessons are very significant. They preserve their full force even today and it is precisely Radek who should meditate well upon them.
With the cynicism that marks him out, Stalin once said: 58 PERMANENT BBV OLUTIO.N "Trotsky must know that Lenin fought to the end of his life against the ffieory of the permanent revolution. But this does not disturb him." (Pravda, No. 261. November 12, 1926.)
This is a rude, disloyal, that is, a purely Stalinist caricature of reality. In an appeal to the foreign Com- munists, Lenin declared that differences of opinion among the Communists are something quite different from differ- ences of opinion with the social democrats. Such differences of opinion, he wrote, Bolshevism had already gone through before. But "...at the moment of the capture of power and the creation of the Soviet republic, Bolshevism was united and drew to it the best of the currents of socialist thought closest to it." (Vol. XVI, page 888.)
What closest currents of socialist thought did Lenin have in mind when he wrote these lines? Martinov or Kuusinen? Or Cachin, Thalmann and Smeral? Did they perhap^ appear to him as the "best" of the closest currents? What other tendency was closer to Bolshevism than the one which I represented in all the questions of principle, including the peasant question? Even Rosa Luxemburg shrank back at first from the agrarian policy of the Bolshevik government. For me, however, there was no question about it at all. We were together at the table when Lenin, pencil in hand, wrote down the draft of his agrarian law. And the interchange of opinions hardly consisted of more than a dozen brief rejoinders, the sense of which was about the following: a contradictory, but historically quite unavoidable step; under the regime of the proletarian dictatorship and in the extension of the world revolution, the contradictions will be adjusted we only need time. If a diametrical antagonism existed in the peasant question between the theory of the permanent revolution and Lenin's dialectics, how then does Radek want to explain the fact that, without renouncing my fundamental views on the course of development of the revolution, I did not stumble for an instant over the peasant 54 ENFORCED CHARACTER OF WORK question in 1917, as did the majority of the Bolshevik heads at that time? How does Eadek explain the fact that after the February revolution the present theoreticians and politicians of anti-Trotskyism the Zinovievs, Kamenevs, Stalins, Molotovs, etc., etc. adopted, to the last man, the vulgar-democratic but not proletarian -position? And once more: of whom and of what could Lenin have spoken when he referred to the fusion of Bolshevism with the best elements of the Marxist currents closest to it? And does not Lenin's conclusive judgment on the past differences of opinion show that in any case he saw no two irreconcilable strategical lines?
Still more noteworthy in this respect is Lenin's speech in the session of the Petrograd Committee of November 1-14, 1917. 5 There the question was considered of an agreement with the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionists. The supporters at that time of a coalition endeavoured, even there, very timidly, to be sure, to hint at "Trotskyism". What did Lenin reply?
"Agreement? I cannot even speak seriously about that. Trotsky has long ago said that unity is impossible. Trotsky has understood this since then there has been no better Bolshevik."
Not the permanent revolution, but conciliationism was what separated me, according to Lenin's views, from Bolshevism. In order to become the "best Bolshevik", I only needed, as we see, to understand the impossibility of an agreement with the Mensheviks.
But how is the abrupt character of Radek's turn precisely in the question of the permanent revolution to be explained? I believe I have one element of the explanation. In 1916, as we learn from his writings, Radek was in agreement with the permanent revolution, but in the Bucharinist interpretation, according to which the bourgeois revolution in Russia is terminated not only the revolutionary r61e of the bourgeoisie, and not even the historical role of the slogan of the "democratic" dictator- 55 PERMANENT REVOLUTION ship, but the bourgeois revolution as such and that the proletariat must therefore proceed to the capture of power under a purely socialist banner. Radek manifestly also interpreted my position at that time in the Bucharinist manner: otherwise he could not declare his solidarity with Bucharin and me at one and the same time. This also explains why Lenin polemicized against Bucharin and Radek, with whom he did work together, having them appear under the pseudonym of Trotsky. (Radek admits this also in his article). I remember that also M. N. Pokrovsky, a co-worker of Bucharin, and a tireless constructor of historical schemata, Marxistically colored with great skill, alarmed me in Paris, in conversation on this question, with his dubious "solidarity". (In politics, Pokrovsky was and remains an anti-Cadet, which he honestly believes to be Bolshevism.)
In 1924-1925, Radek apparently still lived upon spiritual recollections of the Bucharinist position of 1916, which he continued to identify with mine. Rightly disillusioned by the hopelessness of his pisition on the basis of a fleeting study of Lenin's writings, Radek, as frequently used to happen in such cases, described an arc of 180 degrees right over my head. This is very probable because it is typical. Thus Bucharin, who in 1923-1925 turned a complete somersault himself, that is, transformed himself from an ultra-Leftist into an opportunist, constantly attributes to me his own ideologi- cal past, which he palms off as "Trotskyism". In the first period of the campaign against me, when I often still managed to look over Bucharin 's articles, I would frequently ask myself: where did he get this from? but soon guessed that he had glanced into his diary of yester- day. And now I wonder if the same psychological foundation does not lie at the bottom of Radek's con- version from a Paul of the permanent revolution into its Saul. I do not presume to insist upon this hypothesis. But I can find no other explanation.
56 ENFORCED CHARACTEE OF WORK One way or the other, according to a French expression: the flask is uncorked, the wine must be drunk. We are compelled to undertake a pretty far excursion into the realm of old quotations. I have reduced their number as much as was feasible. Yet there are many of them. Let this fact serve as justification: that I strive through- out to find in the enforced rummaging among old quotations the threads to the burning questions of the present.
57 CHAPTER TWO THE PERMANENT REVOLUTION IS NOT A "LEAP" OF THE PROLETARIAT, BUT THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE NATION UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT RADEK WRITES: "The essential feature that distinguishes the train of thought which is called the theory and tactic [observe: tactic too L. T.] of the 'permanent revolution' from Lenin's theory lies in mixing up the stage of the bourgeois revolution with the stage oj the socialist revolution."
I Intimately connected with this fundamental reproach, or resulting from it, there are other, no less serious accu- sations: Trotsky did not understand that "under Russian conditions, a socialist revolution which does not grow out of the democratic revolution is impossible". From which results of itself the "skipping of the stage of the democratic dictatorship." Trotsky "denies" the r61e of the peasantry which is where "the community of views of Trotsky and the Mensheviks" lay. As already said, all this is to prove by the system of circumstantial evidence the incorrectness of my position in the fundamental ques- tions of the Chinese revoution.
To be sure, in the formal literary respect, Radek can refer here and there to Lenin. And he does that: every- body has "at "hand" this part of the quotations. But as I shall soon demonstrate, these contentions of Lenin in regard to me had a purely episodic character and were incorrect, that is, in no sense did they characterize my real position in 1905. In Lenin himself there are quite 58 NOT A "LEAP" BUT A "GROWING-OVER" different, directly contrary and far better grounded remarks on my attitude in the principled questions oi the revolution. Radek did not even make the attempt to unite the various and directly antithetical remarks of Lenin, and to elucidate these polemical contradictions by a comparison with my actual views In 1906, Lenin published, with his own foreword, an article by Kautsky on the motive forces of the Russian revolution. Without knowing anything about this, I also translated Kautsky's article in prison, provided it with a foreword and included it in my book On the defense of the Party. Both Lenin and I expressed our thorough accord with Kautsky 's analysis. To Plechanov's question: Is our revolution bourgeois or socialist? Kautsky had answered that it is no longer bourgeois, but not yet socialist, that is, it presents the transitional form from the one to the other. To this, Lenin wrote in his foreword: "Are we confronted by a bourgeois or a socialist revolu- tion, in its whole character? That is the old schema, says Kautsky. That is not how the question should be put, that is not Marxism. The revolution in Russia that is not bourgeois, for the bourgeoisie is not a driving force of the present revolutionary movement of Russia. But neither is the revolution in Russia socialist." (Volume Yet not a few passages can be found in Lenin, written before and after this foreword, where he categorically calls the Russian revolution bourgeois. Is that a contradic- tion? If Lenin is approached with the methods of the present critics of "Trotskyism", then dozens and hundreds of such "contradictions" can be found, which are clarified for the serious and conscientious reader by the difference in the posing of the question at different moments, which in no way violates the unity of Lenin's conception.
On the other hand, I never disputed the bourgeois character of the revolution in the sense of its actual 59 PERMANENT REVOLUTION historical tasks, but only in the sense of its motive forces and its perspective. My fundamental work of those days (1905-1906) on the permanent revolution, begins with the following sentences: "The Russian revolution came unexpectedly to every- body but the social democracy. Marxism long ago foretold the inevitability of the Russian revolution which had to come as a result of the collision of the forces of capitalist development with the forces of inflexible absolutism. By characterizing it as bourgeois, it pointed out that the immediate objective tasks of the revolution consisted of the creation of 'normal' conditions for the development of bourgeois society as a whole. Marxism was right. This can no longer be disputed today, nor need it be demon- strated. The Marxists are confronted with a quite differ- ent task: by an analysis of the internal mechanics of the developing revolution to disclose its 'possibilities.'
"The Russian revolution had a quite peculiar character which is the result of the peculiarities of our whole socio- historical evolution and which, in regard to it, opens up quite new historical perspectives." (Our Revolution, 1906, article Results and Perspectives, page 221>.)
"The general sociological characterization bourgeois revolution in no way settles the politico-tactical problems, contradictions and difficulties which are raised by this given bourgeois revolution''. (Ibid, page 2J+9.)
In this way, I did not dispute the bourgeois character of the revolution that stood on the order of the day and mix up democracy and socialism. But I endeavored to show that with us the class dialectics of the bourgeois revolution would bring the proletariat to power and that without its dictatorship not even the democratic tasks could be solved. In the same article (1905-1906) it says: "The proletariat grows and consolidates itself with the growth of capitalism. In this sense, the develop- ment of capitalism signifies the development of the proletariat toward the dictatorship. But the day and 60 hour when the power passes into the hands of the pro- letariat do not depend directly upon the state of the productive forces, but upon the conditions of the class struggle, upon the international situation, and finally, upon a series of objective factors: tradition, initiative, readiness for struggle...
"In an economically backward country, the proletariat can come to power sooner than in the economically advanced countries. The conception of some sort of automatic dependence of the proletarian dictatorship upon the technical forces and resources of the country constitutes An extremely over-simplified 'economic' materialism. This view has nothing in common with Marxism.
"The Russian revolution, in our opinion, creates such conditions under which the power can pass over to the proletariat (and with a victorious revolution it must) even before the policy of bourgeois liberalism acquires the possibility to bring its state genius to a full unfolding". (Ibid, page 245.)
These lines contain a polemic against that* vulgar "Marxism" which not only prevailed in 1905-1906 but also gave the tone to the conference of the Bolsheviks in March 1917 before Lenin's arrival, and found its crassest expression in Rykov at the April conference. At the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, this pseudo-Marxism, that is, "common sense" debauched by scholasticism, constituted the "scientific" basis of the speeches of Kuusinen and many others. And this, ten years after the October revolution!
Since I have not the possibility of describing here the whole train of thought of Results and Perspectives, I should like to adduce one more clearly expressed quotation from my article in Natchalo (1905): "Our liberal bourgeoisie comes forward as counter- revolutionary even before the revolutionary climax. In every critical moment, our intellectual democracy only demonstrates its impotence. The peasantry in its entirety represents an elementary rebellion. It can be put at the 61 PERMANENT REVOLUTION service of the revolution only by the force that takes over state power. The vanguard position of the working class in the revolution, the direct connection between it and the revolutionary village, the spell by which it conquers the army all this pushes it inevitably to power. The complete victory of the revolution means the victory of the proletariat. This in turn means the further uninterrupted advance of the revolution." (Our Revolution, page 179.)
The perspective of the dictatorship of the proletariat consequently grows here, precisely out of the bourgeois- democratic revolution in contradiction to all that Radek writes. That is just why the revolution is called permanent (uninterrupted). But the dictatorship of the proletariat does not come after the completion of the democratic revolution, as Radek would have it in such a case, it would simply be impossible in Russia, for in a backward country the numerically weak proletariat cannot attain power if the tasks of the peasantry have been solved during the preced- ing stage. No, the dictatorship of the proletariat appeared probable and even inevitable on the basis of the bourgeois revolution precisely because there was no other power and no other way to solve the tasks of the agrarian revolution. But this alone opens up the perspective of the democratic revolution growing over into a socialist revolution.
"Entering the government not as impotent hostages, but as the leading power, the representatives of the proletariat already destroy by that alone the boundaries between the minimum and maximum programs, that is, they put collectivism on the order of the day. At what point on this road the proletariat will be halted depends upon the relation of forces, but not upon the original designs of the party of the proletariat. That is why there can also be no question of some sort of special form of the proletarian dictatorship in the bourgeois revolution, namely, the demo- cratic dictatorship of the proletariat (or of the proletariat and peasantry). The working class cannot assure the democratic character of its dictatorship without over- 62 stepping the boundaries of its democratic program.
"If the party of the proletariat takes over power, it will fight (for this power to the end. If one of the means of this struggle for the maintenance and consolidation of the power is agitation and organization especially in the village, then the other means will consist of the collectivist program. Collectivism will not only be the inevitable consequence of the fact that the party is in power but also the means of insuring this situation based on the pro- letariat." (Results and Perspectives, page %59.)
Let us go further: "We know the classic example (I wrote in 1908 against the Menshevik, Tcherevanin) of a revolution in which the conditions for the rule of the capitalist bourgeoisie were prepared by the terrorist dictatorship of the victorious sansculottes. That was in an epoch when the principal mass of the urban population was composed of artisans and tradesmen, that is, of the petty bourgeoisie. It followed the leadership of the Jacobins. The principal mass of the urban population in Russia is composed today of the industrial proletariat. This analogy alone points to the possibility of such an historical situation in which the victory of the 6 bourgeois' revolution is granted only by the conquest of revolutionary power by the proletariat. Does the revolution thereby cease to be bourgeois? Yes and no. This does not depend upon the formal designation, but upon the further development of events. If the proletariat is overthrown by the coalition parties, among them also the peasantry it liberated, then the revolution retains its limited bourgeois character. Should the proletariat, IJiowever, find it possible to set in motion all the means of its political rule in order to break through the national limits of the Russian revolution, then it can become the prologue to the socialist world era. The question: What stage will the Russian revolution attain? permits naturally only a conditioned reply. Only one thing is absolutely and in- dubitably correct: the naked characterization of the 63 63 PERMANENT REVOLUTION Russian revolution as bourgeois tells us nothing about the type of its internal development and in no case signifies that the proletariat must adopt its tactic to the conduct of the bourgeois democracy as the only legal claimant to state power. " (L. Trotsky, 1905 page 263, Russian edition).
From the same article: "Our revolution, which is a bourgeois revolution ac- cording to the immediate tasks it grew out of, knows, as a consequence of the extreme class differentiation of the in- dustrial population, of no bourgeois class which could place itself at the head of the popular masses by combining its social weight and political experience with revolutionary energy. The suppressed worker and peasant masses 9 left to their own resources, must take it upon themselves to create, in the hard school of implicable conflict and cruel defeat, the necessary political and organizational pre- conditions for their triumph. No other road is open to them." (L. Trotsky, 1905, pages 267-S.)
One more quotation from Results and Perspectives on the most violently assailed point on the peasantry must be adduced. In the special chapter The Proletariat in Power and the Peasantry, the following is said: "The proletariat will not be able to insure its power without broadening the base of its revolution.