This wobbling has been peculiarly plain in Russia. The middle peasants supported the workers against the landlords and the rich peasants. Then, growing afraid lest they should not be so well off in the “commune,” they listened to the advice of the rich peasants and opposed the workers. Still later, when danger threatened from the side of the landowning class (Denikin, Kolchak), they were once more inclined to espouse the cause of the workers.
The same vacillation has been displayed in the party struggle. At one time the middle peasants would adhere to the party of the workers, the party of the communist bolsheviks; at another time they would adhere to the party of the rich peasants, the party of the essers (social revolutionaries).
The working Class (the Proletariat). This class consists of those who “have nothing to lose but their chains.” Not only are they exploited by the capitalists; but in addition, as we have already learned, the very course of capitalist development leads to their solidarisation into a homogeneous power, consisting of persons accustomed to work together and to fight together. For this reason, the working class is the most progressive class in capitalist society. For this reason, likewise, the party of the working class is the most progressive, the most revolutionary party that can possibly exist.
It is natural, moreover, that the aim of this party should be to bring about the communist revolution. To this end, the proletarian party must be absolutely uncompromising. Its function is not to chaffer with the bourgeoisie, but to hurl the bourgeoisie from power and to crush the resistance of the capitalists. This party must “reveal the absolute conflict of interests as between exploiters and exploited” (the words were used in our old program, which was signed by the mensheviks; but, alas, the mensheviks have quite forgotten them, and are now hand in glove with the bourgeoisie).