said that Radek is a Menshevik, but he is not. Of course, he is a Bolshevik. But frequently he makes mistakes of a Menshevist character. If he were a Menshevik and I were a Bolshevik, our light would be conducted quite differently. That is the position, comrades, Radek says: Zinoviev would be right if the position in Germany was the same as it was in Russia. Well, comrades, you, as foreigners, are not obliged to recognise this policy, but Radek should be. It is not merely a question of the Mensheviks. There was also Purishkevitch. He was the Russian Hittler. It was a great movement, reactionary—Black Hundreds as they were then called. In fact it was a Russian Fascism with the large addition of social demagogy. The Black Hundreds were formed from this Party. It was a pillar of the monarchy. It had branches in every village and town, do you know that, Comrade Radek?
(Petnitsky: And workers belonged to it.)
House porters, working women and such like belonged to it in large numbers. They utilised religion to a certain extent. It was in some ways a popular, revolutionary movement, with strong propaganda against the Jews. It was a big movement which had a following of tens of thousands. It had the petty bourgeoisie and a following in the villages, in the towns and everywhere. Therefore, if you wish to make this comparison, you must not lose sight of this third tendency. And you have overlooked it.
(Radek: With regard to the petty bourgeoisie, I stand completely on the ground that Zinoviev has quoted.)
Radek is right. He has emphasised the importance of the petty bourgeoisie. We must help the petty bourgeoisie. In this we are obliged to Radek. It is indeed one of the most important tasks. Your dealings with these small business men was good, it shows that you really have contact with the people. Of course this task still confronts us, and we must understand how to win the petty bourgeoisie to our side. I have not heard that the Left are against this. When, however, a great distinction is made in the resolution of the National Committee between Wittelsbachern and Hohenzollern, we say this is opportunism. If we will construct the working-class policy on this, and regard this as a great factor in the revolution, it will be a great error.
What was the point of the controversy between Lenin and Martov? Not over taking advantage of the nuances, but over the fact that Martov, absorbed in seeking for these fine nuances, completely forgot the main point. The three divisions of the people: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. He was a menshevik, and he should serve as a warning example. This must not be overlooked,
And then there is the position taken up by Radek: either a Communist agitation party or a fighting party; a pure agitational policy; sect or mass party. This is a very bad position to take up. I do not say that Radek's position is the same as that of Levi, but in the main the error is the same, the starting
( 46 )
