the bourgeoisie. And this in the teeth of all that Marx and Engels said when comparing the bourgeois revolution in France, in 1789–93, with the bourgeois revolution in Germany in 1848!
Before taking up the chief "argument" and the leading ideas of the so-called "economic analysis," let me point out that the very first sentences in Kautsky's disquisition show a curious confusion or superficiality, of thought. Our sage says: "Agriculture, and, to be more precise, small peasant production, has hitherto been the economic foundation of Russia. About four-fifths, and even perhaps five-sixths of the population live by it" (p. 45).
First of all, most respected theoretician, have you replected upon how many exploiters there might be among this mass of small producers? Of course, not more than 10 per cent, of the total number, and in towns still less, because production on a large scale is more highly developed there. Take even an incredibly high figure, and suppose that 20 per cent, of the small producers are exploiters, who, therefore, lose their franchise. You will then arrive at the fact that the 66 per cent, majority of Bolsheviks at the fifth Congress of the Soviets were reppresenting the majority of the population. To this must be added that a considerable section among the Left Social Revolutionaries were in favor of the Soviet régime, and when a section of them raised, in July, 1918, the adventurous banner of an insurrection, two new parties split away from them, the so-called "Populist Communists" and the "Revolutionary Communists," consisting of prominent Social-Revolutionaries whom the old party had been putting forward for important posts in the Government, as, for instance, Gacks and Kolegayeff respectively. Hence Kautsky has himself unwittingly refuted the ridiculous story of the Bolsheviks being supported only by a minority of the population.
Second, my dear theoretician, has it ever occurred to
( 87 )
