have a question of tactics, which will be decided by the very necessities of life and by the social and political evolution that will inevitably occur, a question hardly serious enough to call forth mutual recriminations and schisms in the party.
And just as tactics are subject to change, the programme, which is after all a part of the tactics, can be modified, revised, and completed. For my own part, I think it utterly incomplete and strangely inadequate. I think that it does not correspond any longer to the degree of development of the proletariat, and that it ought to be supplemented by a whole series of measures gradually admitting the working class to power and beginning half-communism in peasant production. Some, on the other hand, object violently to any plan of action which would, as they express it, run the risk of weakening the class-consciousness of the proletariat by giving it a definite place in the present organisation. We may look for much controversy on this point whenever both sides are willing to think clearly. But here again we are dealing with a question of tactics, that is, as Liebknecht says, a question naturally open to controversy. A schism on this subject is therefore harmful and unnecessary.
If Liebknecht was in the right, if the appeal to force runs the risk of being counter-revolutionary in character, if we can and ought to succeed by means of propaganda, organisation, clear think-