argument is.

In the first place, it assumes that those to whom it is addressed are
absolutely certain that Communism is desirable, so certain that they
are willing, if necessary, to force it upon an unwilling population at
the point of the bayonet. It then proceeds to argue that, while
capitalism retains its hold over propaganda and its means of
corruption, Parliamentary methods are very unlikely to give a majority
for Communism in the House of Commons, or to lead to effective action
by such a majority even if it existed. Communists point out how the
people are deceived, and how their chosen leaders have again and
again betrayed them. From this they argue that the destruction of
capitalism must be sudden and catastrophic; that it must be the work
of a minority; and that it cannot be effected constitutionally or
without violence. It is therefore, in their view, the duty of the
Communist party in a capitalist country to prepare for armed conflict,
and to take all possible measure for disarming the bourgeoisie and
arming that part of the proletariat which is willing to support the
Communists.

There is an air of realism and disillusionment about this position,
which makes it attractive to those idealists who wish to think
themselves cynics. But I think there are various points in which it
fails to be as realistic as it pretends.

In the first place, it makes much of the treachery of Labour leaders
in constitutional movements, but does not consider the possibility of
the treachery of Communist leaders in a revolution. To this the
Marxian would reply that in constitutional movements men are bought,
directly or indirectly, by the money of the capitalists, but that