Dictatorship vs. Democracy (Terrorism and Communism): a reply to Karl Kantsky
Kant · en
The professional intelligentsia, brought up with a prejudice about the
omnipotence of the bourgeoisie, long would not, could not, and did not
believe that the working class is really capable of governing the
country; that it seized power not by accident; and that the
dictatorship of the proletariat is an insurmountable fact.
Consequently, the bourgeois intelligentsia treated its duties to the
Labor State extremely lightly, even when it entered its service; and
it considered that to receive money from Wilson, Clemenceau or Mirbach
for anti-Soviet agitation, or to hand over military secrets and
technical resources to White Guards and foreign imperialists, is a
quite natural and obvious course under the regime of the proletariat.
It became necessary to show it in practice, and to show it severely,
that the proletariat had not seized power in order to allow such jokes
to be played off at its expense.
In the severe penalties adopted in the case of the intelligentsia, our
bourgeois idealist sees the "consequence of a policy which strove to
attract the educated classes, not by means of persuasion, but by means
of kicks from before and behind." (Page 193.) In this way, Kautsky
seriously imagines that it is possible to attract the bourgeois
intelligentsia to the work of Socialist construction by means of mere
persuasion--and this in conditions when, in all other countries, there
is still supreme the bourgeoisie which hesitates at no methods of
terrifying, flattering, or buying over the Russian intelligentsia and
making it a weapon for the transformation of Russia into a colony of
slaves.