strikes without passion on either side. Can you distinguish such a Socialist from the typical Liberal bureaucrat?
And so, relying upon such "facts," that is, deliberately ignoring with contempt numerous facts, Kautsky concludes: "It is doubtful whether the Russian proletariat has obtained under the Soviet Republic more, in the sense of real practical acquisitions and not of mere decrees, than it would have received under the Constituent Assembly, in which, as in the Soviets, the Socialists would have been in a majority, although of a different school" (p. 58).
A gem, is it not? We should advise the worshippers of Kautsky to circulate this sentence as widely as possible among the Russian workers, since no better material for gauging his political decadence could have been supplied by Kautsky himself. Kerensky, comrades and workers, was also a "Socialist," only of a different school! Kautsky, the historian, satisfied with the title which the Right Social-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks have appropriated Kautsky, the historian, refuses even to hear about the facts which loudly proclaim that under Kerensky, the Mensheviks and the Right Social-Revolutionaries were supporting the Imperialist policy and profiteering practices of the bourgeoisie, and discreetly suppresses the fact that it was just those heroes of the Imperialist war and bourgeois dictatorship, who were represented in the Constituent Assembly by a majority. And this is called an "economic analysis"!
In conclusion, let me quote another sample of that "economic analysis": "After an existence of nine months the Soviet Republic, instead of spreading general well-being, has seen itself compelled to explain the causes of the general distress" (p. 41).
We are accustomed to hear such arguments from the lips of the Cadets. This, in fact, is the argument of all the flunkeys of the bourgeoisie in Russia. They all want to see a general well-being brought about in nine months after a ruinous war of four years, and under a sabotage
( 112 )
