But perhaps it will be said that I am caricaturing the Bolshevik
doctrine of revolution. It is urged by advocates of this doctrine,
quite truly, that all political events are brought about by
minorities, since the majority are indifferent to politics. But there
is a difference between a minority in which the indifferent acquiesce,
and a minority so hated as to startle the indifferent into belated
action. To make the Bolshevik doctrine reasonable, it is necessary to
suppose that they believe the majority can be induced to acquiesce, at
least temporarily, in the revolution made by the class-conscious
minority. This, again, is based upon Russian experience: desire for
peace and land led to a widespread support of the Bolsheviks in
November 1917 on the part of people who have subsequently shown no
love for Communism.

I think we come here to an essential part of Bolshevik philosophy. In
the moment of revolution, Communists are to have some popular cry by
which they win more support than mere Communism could win. Having thus
acquired the State machine, they are to use it for their own ends. But
this, again, is a method which can only be practised successfully so
long as it is not avowed. It is to some extent habitual in politics.
The Unionists in 1900 won a majority on the Boer War, and used it to
endow brewers and Church schools. The Liberals in 1906 won a majority
on Chinese labour, and used it to cement the secret alliance with
France and to make an alliance with Tsarist Russia. President Wilson,
in 1916, won his majority on neutrality, and used it to come into the
war. This method is part of the stock-in-trade of democracy. But its
success depends upon repudiating it until the moment comes to practise
it. Those who, like the Bolsheviks, have the honesty to proclaim in
advance their intention of using power for other ends than those for