ism in our country so presented is the question of the character of our revolution. Since our revolution pre-supposes a state of affairs in which the construction of Socialism is possible and since we possess "all that is necessary and sufficient" for the construction of Socialism, it follows that there can be no point in the process of this Socialist construction at which this construction can become impossible. If within our country we have such a combination of forces that each year we make progress in the direction of preponderance of the Socialistic sector of our economy and that the socialised sectors of our economy grew more rapidly than the private capitalist sectors, then it follows that each succeeding year we operate with an increasing superiority of strength. Taking the "average," leaving out for the time being possible zigzags and accidents which mutually eliminate each other, our progress would be marked by a rising curve. Whence such forces could emerge inside the country as would make further Socialistic construction impossible, it is impossible to conceive. As, however, real life proceeds not only in the territory of the Soviet Union, as the dictatorship of the proletariat operates not on an isolated island, but on territory comprising one-sixth of the globe and is surrounded by the remaining capitalistic five-sixths of the globe, then a whole series of dangers of an international character arises. If it were asked: have we absolute guarantees against possible intervention, we should have to reply, we have not. And as in real life everything is mutually connected and each thing influences the other, Lenin was right when he said that the final victory of Socialism in a single country, in a capitalist environment, is impossible. But the attempt of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Smilga and others try to reduce this
