tion. In those October days, Kamenev found himself in opposition to Lenin and the majority of the Central Committee and, as a consistent man, he drew the practical conclusions from the theories he developed at the April conference in opposition to the theories of Lenin. Others who followed Kamenev, consistently or inconsistently, also did nothing else but take the consequences of the first "friendly" attempt at the theoretical revision of Leninism. Indeed, if the capture of power by the proletariat signifies inevitable conflict with, the peasantry, then it is impossible to participate in a government of the proletarian dictatorship; it is impossible to call upon the proletariat to revolt; for its defeat can be foretold with astronomical precision. From this follows also the letter published against calling the workers to revolt and from this follows also the resignations from the Central Committee and from the Council of People's Commissaries.
Observe the leitmotif that runs through all these documents which are supposed to "elucidate", and "explain" these disgusting desertions and resignations, this violation of Party discipline, this flight from the field of battle. The following, for example, is an extract from a document signed, among others, by comrade Shliapnikov:
