of the war confirms this more and more. The misery of the masses is terrible, and the efforts of the governments, bourgeoisie and opportunists to conceal the misery meet with frequent disaster. The profits of certain groups of Capitalists are scandalously high.
The intensification of contradictions is enormous. Suppressed indignation of the masses, vague longing of the stupified and lowest strata of society for kindly ("democratic") peace, the beginning of revolt "below"—all these are evident. And the more war is prolonged and intensified the more governments develop and are obliged to develop the activity of the masses, call them to exceptional, extraordinary efforts and sacrifices. The experiences of war like the experiences of every crisis in history, of every misery and catastrophe in the life of man, stupifies and breaks down some, but at the same time hardens and enlightens others. In general besides, in the world's history, the numbers and strength of the latter exceeds the former, with the exception of certain instances of breakdown and destruction of this or that government. The conclusion of peace not only is unable "at once" to put an end to these miseries and to all this intensification of contradictions, but on the contrary in many respects makes the misery even more burdensome, and especially more evident for the most backward masses of the people. In a word, a revolutionary condition in the majority of the leading countries and great powers of Europe is at hand. In this respect the expectations of the Basel manifesto have been fully realized. To deny this truth directly or indirectly or to be silent about it as do Cunow, Plekhanov, Kautsky & Co. means to be telling the greatest untruth, to deceive the working class and to serve the bourgeoisie.
III
How did it come to pass that the most eminent representatives and leaders of the Second International betrayed Socialism? We shall discuss this question at greater length when we review the various attempts which were made to justify that betrayal. Let us analyze the social-patriotic theory whose exponents are: Plekhanov, who like to repeat the arguments presented by the Anglo-French chauvinists, Hyndman, and his new school, and Kautsky, whose arguments are extremely "thin" but give the appearance of great theoretical strength.
All of them resort to the argument of self-defense. We were attacked, we are defending ourselves; the cause of the proletariat de-
