analysed the internal forces of our development, throws doubt upon everything else: the Socialist character of our State enterprises, the Socialist character of our dictatorship, the Socialist character of the driving forces of our economic development and the Socialist character of the driving forces of our State. For if we reply in the negative to the question of constructing Socialism on the ground of the internal state of class forces in our country, then the development of the forces of production in our country must inevitably coincide with such a development as will, in a more or less degree, result in the predominance of capitalist elements. This will "guarantee" such a character of development as will inevitably transfer the centre of gravity to the peasantry against the working class. This will inevitably be accompanied by such, a regrouping in the system of our State apparatus as would justify one proclaiming from the tribune that on top we are becoming converted into a bureaucracy, isolating ourselves from the masses of the workers, while the lower floors of our State apparatus are being filled with kulak elements. In other words, the whole "position of the opposition," which is now clearly becoming a position of opposition to the Party on the ground that we are degenerating, emerges from the fact that our comrades have thrown doubt on that passage from Lenin in which he says directly that we possess all that is necessary and sufficient for the construction of Socialist society.
By separating the two sections of the question, we obtain a genuinely revolutionary-Marxian, a genuinely international presentation of the question.
To speak of international revolution on every possible occasion does not necessarily express the maximum of revolutionary spirit. The question of
