the arguments of the opportunists who have simply fled from the solution of the problem in the same way as they fled from the revolution itself.
The third group of objections, which appeared to be the most popular, was presented in the form of a theory which was intended to prove that the proletariat cannot capture power at all, for the reason that it represents an arithmetical minority of the population. The capture of power, dictatorship of the proletariat, capture of power by the political party of the working class, construction of Socialism, transition from capitalist society to Socialist society, all this, according to the Social-Democratic critics, absolutely presupposes that the proletariat is in the majority. This question has been discussed in detail in Bolshevik literature and so there is hardly any need to dwell upon it here. Particularly well-known is the argument used against Kautsky on this question by comrade Lenin: {{dhr}
"The principal cause of the failure of the 'Socialists' [read, petty bourgeois democrats] of the Second International" wrote comrade Lenin, "is their failure to understand that political power in the hands of one class, the proletariat, can and must become an instrument for attracting to its side the non-political toiling masses, an instrument for winning over these masses away from the bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties."[1]
A concrete combination of social forces is conceivable in which the proletariat while being in the minority of the population may lead the mass of the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand it is
- ↑ Lenin: "The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Collected Works, vol. 16, p. 447, Russian edition.
