THE Russian Revolution had been expected for a long time, not only by the Socialists of Western Europe, but by the capitalist class as well. Particularly had this been one of the basic considerations of the German General Staff.

The Socialist speculation was typified by the view of Friedrich Engels who believed that the outburst of the democratic revolution in Russia would deliver the final blow to German absolutism. For this reason, Engels emphasized that peace was more important to the German Socialists than war, since it was the reactionaries who were being forced to exclaim that peaceful legality was killing them. The advances of German capitalism were creating a socialist movement so vast that it was becoming irresistible. All that was needed was some outside stimulus, like the Russian Revolution, to weight the scales decisively in favor of the workers.

Considering this very element of danger, the German General Staff had, with the advent of Kaiser Wilhelm II, deposed Bismarck and his entire staff. The diplomacy of Bismarck had called for a solidification of Germany proper, unburdened by any great imperialist pretensions. A consolidated Germany could easily defend itself from revanche attacks from the side of France, could make friends with Russian Czarism, and thus be in a position to dominate the entire central portion of Europe.

To Bismarck, a monarchical alliance of Russia, Austria, Germany and Italy on the basis of fighting republican anarchical tendencies in Europe was far more important than fighting over the Balkans and risking war with Russia. He cautioned: “If the monarchical governments have no understanding of the necessity for holding together in the interests of political and social order, but make themselves subservient to the chauvinistic impulses of their subjects, I fear that the international revolution and social struggle which will have to be fought out will be all the more dangerous and will take such a form that the victory on the part of the monarchical order will be more difficult.” (*1)

Having seen the nightmare of the Paris Commune spring out of the soil of the Franco-Prussian War, Bismarck feared any future wars. Repeatedly he warned: “The danger of foreign wars, the danger that the next war on our west frontier might bring the red flag into the struggle, just as a hundred years ago it brought the tricolor, was present at the time of Schnaebele and Boulanger, and is still present.” (*2)

The new German General Staff had to face entirely different problems. As Czarism weakened internally, its value as an ally declined. To counter the inevitable democratic victory in Russia, it was necessary to strike fierce blows at the democratic West and to declare war to the bitter end against France and England. Thus the strategy of the imperialist military staff came to involve military offensive on the West, attack on Belgium, destruction of France—the opposite of what the opportunist Socialists had expected. (*3)

The explosion of the Russian revolution, which came as the World War placed an insuperable strain upon Czarism, was thus no surprise to the German military staff, and was even welcomed, since it paralyzed the Russian armies and released the Germans for concentrated violent attacks on the West, now all the more necessary as the United States entered the war. The German General Staff even permitted the Bolsheviks, Lenin and his group, to travel in a sealed train from Switzerland, through Germany, to Russia, to strengthen the forces of the revolution. This event more than anything else persuaded groups in the countries of the Entente that the Bolsheviks were paid agents and spies of the Germans.

The attitude of the socialist nationalists to the Russian Revolution varied in accordance with the capitalist interests of their countries, the French and English looking upon the Russian revolution with dismay, as a calamity, the Germans taking a more favorable stand. Within Russia, the Right Wing socialists, the Mensheviks and others, did their best, in spite of the revolution, to continue the war against Germany to the end.

All of these groups fatally miscalculated the dynamic forces let loose in the East. They had been prepared for a democratic revolution, but none of them had foreseen that the democratic revolution could not stop halfway, but had to be completed by a proletarian revolution. Since the Liberals, the Radicals, the Trudoviks (Laborites under Kerensky), the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks could not solve the most elementary needs of the masses, there was now no coercive force within Russia strong enough to prevent these masses from moving towards the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks now dominated the Soviets, which had been set up, and all power went to the Soviets. The workers’ rule began.

Once the Soviets had assumed full power and had enunciated as their goal the establishment of communism, once they had begun to socialize all industries, dispossessing the capitalist class, the situation entirely changed. All the socialists, whether adhering to the Right Wing or to the Centrists who had managed to keep some of their revolutionary prestige, now united in an attack against Soviet Russia.

As though foreseeing this very event, Friedrich Engels had written years before: “In any case our sole adversary on the day of the crisis and on the day after the crisis will be the whole collective reaction which will group itself around full democracy!” (*4) All the remnants of the Second International closed ranks behind the slogan of democracy to fight the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Within Russia, among the masses, the Mensheviks became the chief organizing force against the revolution which had brushed them so ruthlessly into the discard of history.

The chief theoretical opponent of the Russian dictatorship was the leader of the Centrist forces, Karl Kautsky. Posing as a Marxist, Kautsky could not deny that Marx had predicted the smashing of the capitalistic State and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was his task to interpret the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” so as to emasculate it. To him the term “dictatorship” could mean only a state of affairs, a form of government. The workers were to take over power by winning the majority of the people to their side in parliamentary elections. After they had won 51 per cent of the population, should any slave-holding minority rebel, then the majority could use ruthless methods against the minority—always in the name of democracy for all. A similar position was held by Morris Hillquit, leader of the Socialist Party of the United States. (*5)

Kautsky denied, indeed, that the revolution in Russia was even a working class one. The proletarian revolution could not come in a backward agrarian country; if it did come, then, like the boy who first saw a giraffe, one had to affirm “there ain’t no such animal.” More than a decade before, Daniel DeLeon had expressed the problem in an orthodox manner: “The theory hitherto has been that the Social Revolution would break out first in the most capitalistically developed nations, and then pull up the others. Was there a flaw in this theory? Are facts about to be produced to reverse the theory and show that the impulse is to come from the opposite direction?” (*6) Kautsky answered his problem dogmatically: “The more a State is capitalistic on the one side and democratic on the other, the nearer it is to Socialism… . In a number of industrial States the material and moral prerequisites for Socialism appear already to exist in sufficient measure…. But Russia is not one of these leading industrial States. What is being enacted there now is, in fact, the last of middle class, and not the first of Socialist revolutions.” (*7)

Thus Kautsky believed that the only working class policy possible in Russia was to overthrow the Czar and to establish capitalism in Russia. The Socialists should then attempt to prepare the Russian workers, through long years of education, for the taking over of power. The revolutionary workers were to act as coolies for the impotent capitalists and to hand over the power to their exploiters on a silver platter. All this in the name of Marxism! When the workers insisted on retaining the power they had won, Kautsky scolded them, forecasting that this premature action could lead only to a tremendous blood-bath similar to the Paris Commune. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Russia being abortive, the workers would be forced into the petty bourgeois methods of violent revolution rather than to solid peaceful methods which workers in every civilized country, of which Germany was the model, were expected to use.

To the old turncoat, Kautsky, the Bolshevik theory was the inevitable counterpart of the Blanquist adventurism which the Russians were repeating on a far wider scale. He refused deliberately to recognize the fact that the Bolsheviks had legitimately won a majority of the workers in the decisive Soviets of the country. This was not sufficient, evidently, for this German patriot who insisted the Bolsheviks win the peasantry too. He bemoaned the brutality of Lenin and contrasted it with his own humanity. “As we have only the two alternatives—democracy or civil war—I myself draw the conclusion that wherever Socialism does not appear to be possible on a democratic basis, and where the majority of the population rejects it, its time has not fully come.” (*8)

Kautsky charged the Bolsheviki with plundering the peasantry, with robbing the bourgeois, and with bureaucratic absolutism. Thus did the Centrists join hands with the Mensheviks in asserting the necessity for a new civil war in Russia. These people, desirous above all of peace and good ethical conduct, were most blood-thirsty in declaring for war and violence against the Bolsheviks. Yet if it were true, as Kautsky maintained, that the Russian Revolution was only a capitalist one, and if it were further true that Russia could reach only some stage of capitalism, no matter how hard the workers tried, then it would seem peculiar that the Centrists should have wanted to overthrow the very Bolsheviks carrying out capitalist processes. The fact is that the Kautskys stood in deadly fear of the proletarian revolution.

Within the Soviets, the Mensheviks were able to take control of the country of Georgia in Asia Minor. The Georgian Social Democrats had been the picked troops of Russian Menshevism after the first Russian revolution in 1905; Georgia had constantly returned them with the largest majority in the Dumas elections. Georgia was to furnish many of the Menshevik martyrs. (*9) Taking advantage of the October, 1917, Revolution headed by the Bolsheviks, which had declared that each nationality could determine its own future and could withdraw from the Soviets if it desired, the Mensheviks were able to persuade Georgia to declare her independence in May, 1918, and to quit the Soviets.

While it was one thing to declare that any nationality could leave the Soviets, it was another thing to turn over Georgia to a new exploiting group of capitalists who would reinstall wage-slavery and use it to launch interventionary armies to crush the Soviets.

The Georgian Mensheviks by no means established a dictatorship of proletarians. They allowed landlords, capitalists, priests, the entire management of the old order to vote, freely to express themselves and to take advantage of every difficulty in order to bring back the aristocracy into power. When they went so far as to make deals with the French and with the Germans against the Bolsheviks, it was time to carry the civil war outside of the immediate bounds of Russia and establish a workers’ rule in Georgia. In this the Bolsheviks were only acting on the old slogan: “Communism knows no boundaries. Workers of the world, unite.”

Shouting dire imprecations against this so-called invasion of Georgia, the Mensheviks did their utmost to mobilize international resistance against “Bolshevik tyranny” and to arm the interventionary forces striving to crush the proletarian Soviet regime.

All through the post-war period, the Centrists never let up in their deadly hostility to the proletarian revolution. In the United States, Morris Hillquit became the highly-paid attorney for anti-Soviet oil interests; only indignant working class pressure inside and without the Socialist Parties compelled him reluctantly to part from his clients. In Germany, Kautsky preached day and night the violent overthrow of the Bolsheviks. As against the Soviets, he proposed a democratic parliamentary republic with a gradual transition to capitalism. He urged organizers to unite the peasants with the soldiers in order to support peasant revolts against the Bolsheviks with a mutiny in the Red Army. Both were to be led by the Menshevik intellectuals. In this struggle, Kautsky proposed a united front between the Socialists and the bourgeois democrats against the Bolsheviks for the restoration of capitalism, with social reforms for the masses. (*10)

Once in power, and with the Bolsheviks overthrown, the Socialists declared they would end the monopoly of foreign trade, terminate most of the collectives, liquidate the Red Army, and join hands with Germany in the League of Nations for real disarmament. Such was the program of international Centrism in facing the Russian proletarian revolution.




The Russian revolution exploded the entire stability of capitalist relations throughout the world. Immediately after the war, communist revolutions occurred in Hungary and in Bavaria. In Germany the Kaiser was forced to flee and the government was placed in the hands of the Social Democrats. Even the victorious countries felt the impact of the revolutionary wave. Mutinies broke out in the army and navy in France. In England a vast general strike movement shook the entire country. As far off as North America, the general strikes in Seattle, Oregon, and in Winnipeg, Canada, showed that the old stability was no more. Outlaw strikes broke out in the United States on the railroads, in the coal mines, in the steel mills, etc., and a great movement for the nationalization of industry and for independent political action of labor took form.

In every case the socialists did pioneer work to preserve capitalism and to destroy the militant, insurrectionary proletarian movement. In Germany the Majority Socialists were able to induce the Centrists to join hands with them in taking over the government. The chief task of these Socialists was to put down the communist insurrections. So bloody was the massacre of the workers under the socialists that the Independent Socialists, to save their prestige, were forced to separate from those led by Scheidemann and Noske. As a desperate measure to stifle the incipient revolutionary movement of the communist spreading through the country, these Majority Socialists actually went to the extent of calling out a general strike of the workers under their control. The workers, of course, were under the belief that they were demonstrating against reaction. just as the socialists had used the general strike before merely for liberal and reformist purposes, so they were able to use it in 1918 for counter-revolutionary purposes. By the strike action, the communists were kept scattered and time given the government to handle the situation.

When the insurrectionary movement rose still higher, the socialist Noske personally took charge of the military forces, and placing the most reactionary Prussian Junkers at the head, went forward with wholesale plans to massacre militant workers. After the second general strike of the communists, Noske himself was responsible for the massacre in one week of fifteen hundred chained prisoners by machine gun fire in Berlin alone. (*11)

Never were there better saviors for capitalist society than the German socialists. Under the Kaiser, the bourgeoisie had never taken direct control over the government. After the Kaiser had fled, it was the socialists who assumed control for them. In neither case were the capitalists themselves able to administer Germany directly. “Without the fight put up by the organized German Socialist movement and the German trade unionists, Bolshevism would have gained the day in those dreary winter months. The German working class, and the working class alone, in those days saved Europe from Bolshevism. They received little assistance from the bourgeois classes—they had none to give at that time—and the only support they got from abroad was a continuation of the blockade.” (*12)

Once the revolutionary movement had been put down, the socialist government voluntarily relinquished its power, on the pretext that the general elections held showed that it lacked the support of a clear majority of the people. On the contrary, the elections had overwhelmingly demonstrated that a majority of the population were for a new social order and the abolition of capitalism, since the votes for socialists and communists swamped all others. However, the socialists refused to have anything to do with the communists and declared that since they themselves had not received the majority, history and decency compelled them to unite with the capitalists to form a coalition government to support the republic. Thus the socialists deliberately chose a capitalist alliance to preserve the system of exploitation rather than go with the communist workers for socialism.

Essentially, the same situation occurred in Austria. “In Austria the Socialist movement, probably the strongest in the world in relative numbers, discipline, and organization, deliberately refrained from any attempt to capture and hold the powers of government as a minority party.” (*13) Here the situation was even stronger than in Germany, since Austria was flanked on either side, both in Bavaria and in Hungary, with communistic elements that had actually taken the power. The old Austrian empire had been shattered into fragments by its defeat in the World War. The Austrian socialists, therefore, were compelled to use the most revolutionary phrases and to pretend to act as the extreme Wing of the Socialist Centrists, yet with all their talk, they steadfastly refused to join with the genuine revolutionary forces and stopped midway, after the flight of the emperor, with a capitalist democracy, using the specious argument that this was the “will of the people.”

In their arguments against the Russian Revolution, the German socialists had affirmed that, according to Marxism, socialism could appear only in the most highly developed countries first of all, and thus the revolution in Russia was a mere putsch. It was now the turn of the Russians to reply that, since Germany was the most advanced industrial country, it was up to the German socialists to start their revolution there. The very arguments of Kautsky against the Russian Revolution should have led him to support the revolution in Germany.

However, the German socialist Centrists were all too eager to denounce the revolution, not only in Russia, but in Germany as well. True, Germany was the most industrialized country and should have socialism first. But socialism could not come through violence. The workers were still a minority of the population; they had to be educated farther. The balloting showed that 51 per cent of the population had not voted for the socialists. It was therefore the workers’ fault that socialism had not arrived. During the war, the Kautskys had declared that the socialists had no arms to revolt and could not defeat the trained army of the Kaiser. The workers were engaged in war and would be shot down in a wholesale fashion. In short, conditions were not right for revolt. After the war, when the socialists had power, they declared that now that they were disarmed, they were surrounded by hostile victorious powers that would invade Germany and shoot down the revolution were it attempted. Thus, neither in Russia nor in Germany, either before or after the war, was revolution appropriate.

Centrist theoreticians like Kautsky, in justifying their position, were forced to make an un-Marxian analysis of the world economic situation in which they found themselves. Imperialism was not an era of capitalism; it was merely a policy by which the militarist industrialist countries imposed their will upon the backward agrarian colonies. Imperialism was not inherent in the capitalist system itself, nor was it necessarily controlling throughout a whole period of time.

To Kautsky, it was quite possible that imperialism would yield to a new policy of world capitalism which for convenience might be called ultra- imperialism. Just as within a country small industry had given rise to large monopolies that had put order and system where competitive chaos had existed previously,—as, for example, the United States Steel Corporation in the steel industry in the United States,—so international capitalism could evolve to the extent that it could eradicate all violent fluctuations and contradictions and establish a uniform system of order throughout the world.

Such socialists also believed that it was quite possible that from the war there would emerge several dominant powers conceiving their interests best subserved if they were to join together in some international body for the partition of the world and the regulation of markets, prices, conditions of labor and production. Such powers would therefore become super-powers and would do away with competition forever. Under such conditions of ultra-imperialism, world harmony would prevail. War would disappear. Thus society could witness a peaceful civilization ordering its life according to some plan, and constantly improving its standards.

The establishment of the League of Nations seemed to these socialist dreamers a verification of their predictions. The League of Nations would really be a family of nations that would do away with competitive clashes and regulate the world harmoniously. There would be established an international world court of justice, a gradual disarmament, a widespread education. Ultra-imperialism would wipe out the possibility of violent revolutions; it would gradually ease itself into a world socialist society.

Socialist Centrists, like Hillquit and Kautsky, eagerly allied themselves with all the theories of Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations. They would not admit the League of Nations and the World Court to be merely instrumentalities of the victorious powers to dictate their will forever upon the defeated. They repudiated all idea that under capitalism, even world monopoly could not do away with competition, rivalry, and nationalism, but only intensified these aspects of economic and social life.

With such theories, however, the socialist Centrists became mere adjuncts to the diplomatic machinery of their respective governments.


In 1918 there occurred an Interallied Labor and Socialist Conference which undertook to lay the base for a general conference of the Second International, the first since the war. This conference was held in February, 1919, in Berne, and included also trade union groups. However, the nationalist hostility that prevailed among the socialists prevented the conference from having any genuine international character. Some socialists refused to attend because of nationalist reasons, such as the Belgium Labor Party and the American Federation of Labor; others refused because they would have nothing to do with the Right Wing socialism embodied in the Berne Conference. Such groups as the Italian, Serb, Swiss, Roumanian, Bulgarian and Russian, were busy building a new or Third International.

The Conference at once broke up into factions reflecting the wartime hostilities. Each side tried to place the blame of the War upon the other, the socialists representing the countries that had won the War being successful in placing the blame on those which had lost the War. All of the groups, however, were strongly in favor of a League of Nations constituted by delegates from the parliaments of each country. They declared for the principle of self-determination of every nationality. Also, they drew up an International Labor Charter to present to those meeting at Versailles. In fact, the whole Conference was only a labor lobby to influence Versailles.

While endorsing the League of Nations, the majority at the Conference did not neglect to attack the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A minority, however, maintained that labor should take no part in any attack against Soviet Russia. The Conference adjourned after setting up a permanent commission, which, in a formal statement, declared that the League of Nations was “the first effective international organ.” (*14)

In the meantime, a deep split was taking place among the socialists. On the one hand, in a number of countries, the socialists were becoming the Government and, as governmental agents, were using their power to bolster up capitalism. Employers did little to prevent the vast swing of labor behind the socialists. The International Federation of Trade Unions that had numbered approximately fifteen million increased to forty-five million immediately after the war, Germany alone springing from a little over two million to over thirteen million in a short time. On the political field, the turning over of power to the Socialist Parties without too great resistance by the capitalists had induced large numbers of the middle class and strata of workers affected by them to rush into the Socialist Parties.

In England, the Labor Party was able to adopt a program dealing with the relationship of labor and the new social order in which the Labor Party called for a national minimum wage, the democratic control of industry and nationalization, and a complete revolution in national finances, with exceedingly heavy income taxes on the higher brackets, and for the utilization of surplus wealth of the nation for the common good. The Independent Labor Party came out with a program of “Socialism in our time.” The Laborites were able to obtain 192 seats in the House of Commons in 1923, and, under the premiership of Ramsay MacDonald, formed the first Labor Government which lasted nine months. In 1924, although the Labor Party lost its governmental position, it was able to muster four and one-half million votes and practically wipe out the Liberal Party.

In Denmark, the Socialist Party took over the government under the Premiership of Stauning. In Sweden, obtaining almost half the seats in Parliament, the Socialist Party put forth as Premier its leader, Branting. In Belgium, the Socialists received over 40 per cent of the votes cast and established Vandervelde as their Minister in the Cabinet. Everywhere they were becoming dominant forces for the maintenance of capitalism.

After the War, a tremendous revolutionary ferment spread among the workers of Europe. In this period the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions were born. Against this Red International, a Trade Union Conference was called in Washington in 1919 for an eight-hour day. Another was convened in London in 1920, calling for the cancellation of war debts and the socialization of land, mines, and transports under the workers’ control. But these congresses seemed exceedingly pale in comparison to those held in Moscow.

On the extreme Right, the American Federation of Labor organized its Pan-American Federation of Labor to carry out from the labor angle the imperialist scheme of American capitalists to dominate Latin America. Conferences were held in Laredo, Mexico City and elsewhere, in which the A. F. of L. completely dominated the scene and made it plain that it would rule the labor conferences in the Western hemisphere, as the United States imperialists in the capitalist world.

Later, with the defeat of the communist forces on a world scale, on the one hand, and stabilization within Russia on the other, after the death of Lenin, the Soviet Union became recognized by various capitalist governments. This change of front was reflected within the trade union ranks as well, and, in 1924, the International Federation of Trade Unions invited the Russian trade unions to join them and there was established an Anglo-Russian Trade Unity Committee. The events following the General Strike of 1926 terminated this venture.

Between the two international groups of trade unions, and between the communists and socialists, a third Centrist grouping had crystallized, popularly known as the Two-and-a-half International, made up of such elements as the Independent Socialist Party of Germany, the Socialist Party of the United States, etc.

These Centrists attempted to close the breach in labor’s ranks and to bring together the communists of the Third International and the socialists of the Second International into one joint organization. This they were unable to do, since under Lenin the communists refused to enter into any class collaboration schemes. Pretending to be indignant at the treachery of the Right Wing, and unable to join the communists, the Centrists formed their own group in Vienna, called the Vienna Union, in 1921. This independent grouping lasted until the end of the revolutionary wave and the beginning of the decline of the Communist International, when it quietly made peace with the Right Wing and joined forces with the very governmental agency it had denounced before. In 1923, the Vienna Union capitulated and fused into the present Socialist and Labor International.

This had always been the classic procedure of the Centrists. With the Left Wing, in Germany for example, they had pretended to be against the War, and, after 1916, they had formed an Independent Socialist Party, refusing to vote for war credits. When the revolution came in 1918, the Centrists hastened to join forces with Scheidemann and Noske for a government that would uphold capitalism. In 1919, posing as indignant at the brutal treatment administered the Sparticides and at the wholesale massacre of the workers, the Centrists again broke with the Right Wing. The chief role of these Centrists then became to prevent the German masses from joining the communist organizations of Karl Liebnecht and Rosa Luxemburg. Just as Scheidemann in open court declared he had led the general strike of German workers in 1918 only in order to behead it and to save the German social order, so did the Kautskys organize their Centrist Independent Party only in order to channelize and to control the discontent of the workers and to lead them back to the Right Wing socialists of the Second International. What the Centrists did in Germany was done on an international scale by the Vienna Union.

In the United States, the Socialist Party joined the Viennese Union for different reasons. But being composed to a great extent of foreign-born workers, especially those who had lived under the terror of Czarism, the Socialist Party could not avoid expressing the greatest sympathy with the Russian Revolution. The tactics of the Socialist Party leadership were a classical illustration of the methods of the Centrists. The Socialist Party came out for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as advocated by Hillquit, that is, socialists were peacefully to obtain 51 per cent of the votes, and then revolutionarily to crush any minority pro-capitalist rebellion.

The Socialist Party announced it was willing to support all the conditions laid down by the Third International and, indeed, tried to affiliate to that body. However, there was one condition it refused to accept, namely, the establishment of an authoritarian international center that would control the program and actions of the various national sections formed under its banner. In phrases, the Centrists were willing to yield to every point of the program of the Communist International; all that they asked was that in practice they should be left alone, that no one should interfere with their interpretations of the program, with their leadership, with their mode of organization, or with their professed strategy and tactics. In short, what they desired was to appear as revolutionists but to be free to act as reformists.

Of course, the Communist International rejected such Centrist approaches and refused to accept the applications for affiliation. After the communists were removed from the Socialist Party, that organization rapidly moved farther and farther to the Right in the United States.

The rewards of government leadership given to the socialists for their salvage of the old order were not to last very long. The contradictions of capitalism were to make impossible the rule of the skilled worker as it had made impossible the rule of the petty bourgeoisie. The social reforms demanded by the socialists and the trade unions as the price of their anti-revolutionism proved too costly. Capitalism had to dismiss these agents and socialism was doomed to die as a counter-revolutionary force, as it had died as a revolutionary one.


1. O. Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman, II, pp. 251-252 (1899 translation under A. J. Butler).

2. Bismarck, work cited, p. 285.

3. Compare Munroe Smith: Militarism and Statecraft.

4. Marx and Engels: Correspondence, Letter of Engels to Bebel, Dec. 1884, p. 433.

5. See, M. Hillquit: From Marx to Lenin.

6. D. DeLeon: Russia in Revolution, Pamphlet, p. 30.

7. K. Kautsky: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, pp. 96-97.

8. K. Kautsky: Terrorism and Communism, p. 220.

9. See, K. Kautsky: Georgia, p. 20, pamphlet.

10. See, Kautsky: Bolshevism at a Deadlock, p. 156 and following.

11. See, W. H. Crook: The General Strike, p. 507.

12. M. J. Bonn: The Crisis of European Democracy, p. 45.

13. M. Hillquit: Loose Leaves from a Busy Life, p. 281.

14. R. P. Dutt: The Two internationals, p. 18.