cording to the strength of the desires and views of one group or party, according to its degree of class consciousness and readiness for the struggle.
That the Hendersons, Clynes, McDonalds and Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary is true. It is also true that they want to take the power into their own hands (preferring, however, a coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to govern according to the same old rules of the bourgeoisie, and that they will inevitably behave, when in power, like the Scheidemanns and the Noskes. All this is true, but it does not necessarily follow that to support them means treason to the revolution; on the contrary, in the interests of the revolution, the revolutionaries of the working class must render to these gentlemen a certain parliamentary support.
To make this thought clearer, I shall take two contemporary English political documents, (1) the speech of Lloyd George, on March 18, 1920, as published in the Manchester Guardian on the following day, and (2) the arguments of the "Left" Communist, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, in her above-mentioned article.
Lloyd George in his speech argued against Asquith (who was specially invited to the meeting, but refused to appear) and those Liberals who desire, not a coalition with the Conservations, but a closer connection with the Labor Party. (In the letter of Comrade Gallacher we also find mention of the fact that Liberals are going over to the Independent Labor Party.) Lloyd George sought to prove that a coalition of the Liberals with the Conservatives, and a close one at that, was necessary, otherwise victory would be on the side of the Labor Party, which Lloyd George prefers to call "Socialist," and which strives towards collective ownership of the means of production. "In France it was known as Communism," the leader of the English bourgeoisie explained to his hearers (members of the Liberal Party who probably up to that time had been unaware of it), "in Germany it was known as Socialism, and in Russia it is known as Bolshevism." For the Liberals, explained Lloyd George, this is unacceptable on principle, as the Liberals on principle are for private property.
