BOLSHEVIK THEORY

only wage-earners, the State will cease to have any
functions. And so, through a period of dictatorship,
we shall finally arrive at a condition very similar to
that aimed at by Anarchist Communism.

Three questions arise in regard to this method of
reaching Utopia. First, would the ultimate state fore-
shadowed by the Bolsheviks be desirable in itself?
Secondly, would the conflict involved in achieving it
by the Bolshevik method be so bitter and prolonged
that its evils would outweigh the ultimate good?
Thirdly, is this method likely to lead, in the end, to
the state which the Bolsheviks desire, or will it fail at
some point and arrive at a quite different result? If
we are to be Bolsheviks, we must answer all these
questions in a sense favourable to their programme.

As regards the first question, I have no hesitation in
answering it in a manner favourable to Communism*
It is clear that the present inequalities of wealth are
unjust. In part they may be defended as affording an
incentive to useful industry, but I do not think this
defence will carry us very far. However, I have argued
this question before in my book on

^
and I will not spend time upon it nowrOnthis matter,
I concede the Bolshevik case. It is the other two ques-
tions that I wish to discuss.
Our second question was: Is the ultimate good
aimed at by the Bolsheviks sufficiently great to be
worth the price that, according to their own theory,
will have to be paid for achieving it?
If anything human were absolutely certain, we
might answer this question affirmatively with some
confidence. The benefits of Communism, if it were
once achieved, might be expected to be lasting; we
might legitimately hope that further change would be
102