Book: Childhood disease "leftism" in communism

The monopolistic position of England singled out "labor aristocracy", promisance, opportunistic, from the "masses". The leaders of this labour aristocracy moved permanently to the side of the bourgeoisie, was, directly or indirectly, on the contents of it. Marx won himself the honourable hatred of the bastards for what was openly branded them traitors. Modern (twentieth century) imperialism created a monopoly-a privileged position for a few advanced countries, and on this basis everywhere in the II international described the type of leaders traitors, opportunists, social-chauvinists, defending the interests of his profession, his stratum of the labor aristocracy. Created isolation of the opportunist parties from the "masses", ie from the widest layers of workers, most of them, from Nahodka paid workers. The victory of the revolutionary proletariat is impossible without a struggle against this evil, without disclosure, opatrenia and expulsion opportunistic, social-traitorous leaders.

We must learn to distinguish the person who gave the bandits money and weapons to reduce brought by bandits evil and to facilitate the capture and execution of criminals, from a man who gives bandits money and weapons to participate in the division of the bandit production. In politics it is not always as easy as in childishly simple example. But those who want to invent work for this recipe, which would give pre-ready solutions for all occasions, or who promised that the policy of the revolutionary proletariat will have no difficulty and no complicated provisions that would be just a charlatan.

Currently, when I hear the attacks on our tactics in signing the Brest peace-side, such as "socialists-revolutionaries", or when I hear the remark of the comrade Lansbury made in conversation with me: "our English leaders of the trade unions say that the trade-offs are acceptable for them, if they were valid for Bolshevism", I respond usually first of all simple and "popular" comparison:
Imagine that your car is stopped by armed bandits. You give them money, passport, revolver, car. You get rid of a pleasant neighborhood with gangsters. The compromise there, of course. "Do ut des" ("give" you the money, weapons, car, "you gave" me the opportunity to leave while the going's good). But it's hard to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise "fundamentally unacceptable" or declared the person who has entered into such a compromise, an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits, sitting on the car, could use his weapons for new robberies). Our compromise with the bandits of German imperialism was such a compromise.