was here decided that the principal enemy is the Left Social Democracy, and that we must fight apart, without and against the Social-Democracy. I must confess that I said in this article, when in Berlin in the middle of October, some of our comrades had sat a week with these rascals, and drew up a programme; and the next day they said postpone the meeting for two days, we will come with a new programme.
Now, comrades, comes the question of the united front. Speaking generally, are there differences of opinion on this question in the Communist International? Yes, we have shades and nuances. We have not fought them out. Now, however, they must be fought out to the end.
Where is my mistake in having said at the meeting of the Enlarged Executive, that the workers' government is a pseudonym for the dictatorship of the proletariat. I was attacked by a representative of the majority. It was said: "You are spoiling our agitation, we cannot put forward this motto." I conceded, because I agreed that in practical agitation there is no need to blab at all. Now, however, it is clear that the objection was not made out of consideration for practical agitation, but an error in principle. Absolutely, however, the workers' government is nothing else than a pseudonym for the proletarian dictatorship—or else it is a Social-Democratic opposition.
Radek will assert that, immediately after Leipsic, I said: "Here we have either a great deviation in style or a great political deviation." Soon, I believe a week after, the conference of the Czecho-Slovak Party took place. The same formulations of democracy. It was clear that Brandler had united with them.
My mistake lay in not having fought the matter out. I said to myself wait, the thing is new, perhaps it can be fought out in a friendly way.
Well, the cry about the "pseudonym," the Leipsic decisions, then the decisions of the Czecho-Slovak., Party Conference, all these were opportunist deviations. We must watch this carefully and correct it, otherwise we shall corrupt our Party.
What is the united front? In the theses brought in by the Politbureau of our Russian Party, we say: "The united front is a method of revolution and not of evolution, a method of agitating and of mobilising the masses in the present period against the Social-Democracy," and nothing more. He who believes that it implies more is giving a finger to the devil. It is not and cannot mean any more than this. He who believes otherwise, makes a concession to the counter-revolutionary Social-Democracy. This must be fought out to the end.
Well, comrades, we must fight this question out now not nationally but internationally. I stand absolutely on the position of the Fourth Congress. What did the Fourth Congress say? Not every Labour government is a proletarian government. Look at the situation as it is now. In a few days, we shall have the
( 40 )
