which it was given them, are not likely to have a chance of carrying
out their designs.

What seems to me to emerge from these considerations is this: That in
a democratic and politically educated country, armed revolution in
favour of Communism would have no chance of succeeding unless it were
supported by a larger majority than would be required for the election
of a Communist Government by constitutional methods. It is possible
that, if such a Government came into existence, and proceeded to carry
out its programme, it would be met by armed resistance on the part of
capital, including a large proportion of the officers in the army and
navy. But in subduing this resistance it would have the support of
that great body of opinion which believes in legality and upholds the
constitution. Moreover, having, by hypothesis, converted a majority of
the nation, a Communist Government could be sure of loyal help from
immense numbers of workers, and would not be forced, as the
Bolsheviks are in Russia, to suspect treachery everywhere. Under these
circumstances, I believe that the resistance of the capitalists could
be quelled without much difficulty, and would receive little support
from moderate people. Whereas, in a minority revolt of Communists
against a capitalist Government, all moderate opinion would be on the
side of capitalism.

The contention that capitalist propaganda is what prevents the
adoption of Communism by wage-earners is only very partially true.
Capitalist propaganda has never been able to prevent the Irish from
voting against the English, though it has been applied to this object
with great vigour. It has proved itself powerless, over and over
again, in opposing nationalist movements which had almost no moneyed
support. It has been unable to cope with religious feeling. And those