bring—to the Russian people, and what interpretation of the self-determination of nations it would give. It was also immaterial whether Russia was able, or not, to defend herself. The European revolution would be the best protection of the Russian revolution, and would bring complete and genuine self-determination to all the nationalities on the former Russian territory. A revolution in Europe which would have established there a Socialist order was also to become the means of removing those obstacles which were placed in Russia by the economic backwardness of the country to the realization of Socialist production… This was all very logical, and was very well thought out. It only was conditioned by one assumption, namely, that the Russian revolution would necessarily let loose a European one. But how if it did not happen? So far the assumption has not been justified, and the proletariats of Europe are now being accused of having abandoned and betrayed the Russian revolution. This is an accusation levelled against unknown persons, since who could be made responsible for the behavior of the European proletariat?" (p. 28.)
Kautsky then goes on to repeat again and again that Marx and Engels and Bebel were more than once wrong in their prediction of the forthcoming revolutions, but that they never were basing their tactics on the expectation of a revolution at a "precise date" (p. 29), whereas, forsooth, the Bolsheviks have "staked everything on the one card of a general European revolution."
We have purposely quoted this long passage in order to show the reader how cleverly Kautsky mimics Marxism by palming off under its guise the reactionary platitudes of a bourgeois.
First, he ascribes to his opponent an obvious absurdity, and then he refutes it. This is the method of not over-clever people. If the Bolsheviks were really basing their tactics on the expectation of a revolution in other countries at a given date, it would certainly be a great folly.
( 77 )
