Page:The Lessons of the German Events (1924).djvu/43

 MacDonald government in England. This will be a Labour government.

(: No.)

It is, or else you are against the decisions of the Fourth Congress. At the Fourth Congress we even quoted the case of Australia. Compare Saxony with MacDonald. Saxony is a bagatelle in comparison. But on the eve of the proletarian revolution in Germany it is a great episode. Compare the two. What do we see? Either the workers' government is a pseudonym for the proletarian dictatorship, or it is what the MacDonald government will be, a translation into English of the Scheidemann government. What did we have in Saxony? It was said objectively that it was an attempt on the part of the Communists to march together with the Social-Democrats, and objectively it resulted in a banal hoteh-potch.

Comrade Fischer quite rightly reminded us yesterday that the news of the entry of the Communists into the Saxony Government came during the Fourth Congress.

(: It was rejected.)

Rejected in Germany. The authoritative representatives of the Party, about twenty comrades including Thalheimer, Meier, and others were in Moscow. It is a fact that they favoured entry. We spent a whole evening fighting them, and the Russian Party leaders, including Lenin and Trotsky, unanimously resolved that we could not permit this, it would be opportunism. Why? I was and am of the opinion that the moment we entered this government, we would lose the practical possibility of utilising this watchword for the purpose of agitation. We take the workers' government as a pseudonym for proletarian dictatorship, and the moment it is achieved, it will damage the possibility of utilising this word agitationally.

The position with regard to the united front was similar. You will remember at the time the united front was resolved on came the idea of the Executive of the Three Internationals. I was of the opinion that this should be delayed as long as possible, for immediately we came together it would weaken the forces of the united front agitation. Nothing would come of it. Either we would make concessions to the Social-Democrats or nothing would come of it, and the centre of attraction of the united front would be lost. For it is nothing more than a method of agitation.

We must understand to apply it under varying conditions. He who expects more than this, stands on the position of the Social-Democracy. Yesterday Comrade Brandler said something that to me was most interesting. He said: we must admit that as a result of the application of the united front tactics the psychology of the masses has produced something in the nature of an evolutionary theory—first comes the bourgeois coalition, then the Social-Democratic Government supported by the Communists, and perhaps something will come after. Is it true