Two Builders of States

Lenin. By D. S. Mirsky,_mustapha Kemal. By H. E.

Wortham. (The Hohne Press. 58. each.) Ms. OSBERT BURDETT, who edits this series of "Makers of the Modern Age," has been fortunate in having two such men as these for a beginning. Each of the two has completely changed the government of his country. It takes more than a revolution to change the nature and character of a people but a revolution may so alter the political and economic

conditions that the outward circumstances of ordinary life may be changed, and in the course of generations the inner spirit of the inhabitants may be affected. I doubt if the outward change brought about by a single man has ever in the history of the world been so great as that made by Lenin in Russia in less than ten years, or by Mustapha Kemal in Turkey in even shorter time. We may applaud the revolutions or deplore them, but there can be no question of their effect.

That two men should have done this by their own strength of character and mental insight appears to contradict the doctrine of Herbert Spencer and other philosophers of last century who attributed great changes only to the necessary movements of human nature in the mass, and scornfully repudiated Carlyle's gospel of hero-worship( and beliefin the great individual. However we may judge the means or the results of their action, no one now doubts that it was each of these two men alone who altered the course of his country's history in such a way as to affect every class, and not merely to alter the form of government at the top.

The position of Prince D. S. MirSky especially is inter-

esting because he is one of those " intellectuals " of the old aristocracy who have been content to become in exile "a more or less unemployed proletarian." He is one of those who, ELS he says, have revised, their originally hostile view of the Communist policy. He recognizes that the Communists have preserved the independence of the country

from foreign intervention, have restored the limits of the Russian Empire, and made of Russia a cultural and political force of universal significance. And of Lenin he writes :—

" For my own part, I must acknOviledge that it was only in the course of the present work—especially in the process of a systematic reading of his writings—that I was able to gauge the full extent of his greatness."

Certainly, he depicts Lenin rightly as an immensely powerful, though not an attractive figure. We are shown in him, as in many Russians, a devout believer in theory—the Marxist theory—but, unlike many Russians, one possessing the energy and practical force to carry the theory into realities. With iron and ruthless will he clung to the Marxist theory and followed the course that Marx had laid down for its develop- ment. For what we English call freedom he had no care. As the author says, "'No revolutionary Socialist ever had any

respect for abstract rights and liberties." The revolutionary Socialist on Marxist lines would advance with Mussolini 'over the putrefying corpse of liberty." Lenin's object, we

are told, was to give more concrete liberty to the masses than they had • before. And, certainly, I, having known Russia under the Tsardom can hardly imagine the masses either in town or country living with less concrete liberty than

they had then. •

As I was present at the great General Strikes in Russia in 1903. at the formation of the first Soviets under Nosar " ; and the abortive revolution in Moscow just before the Christ- mas of that year, I read with interest that "the insurrection of the Moscow 'workmen was One of the most heroic episodes in the revolutionary history of the world. But it remained isolated." I agree that it was heroic, but it was utterly

futile, chiefly because the promoters believed the regular troops would "fraternize," whereas they took the foremost part in a horrible massacre of revenge. For my part, I have not ceased to honour the men and women whose courage and sacrifice shook the despotism at that time and for forty years before—such people as Kropotkin, Tchaikovsky, Tcherkesoff, Vera Sassoulitch, and even Miliukoff, for whom Lenin felt a special contempt. And I admit that Miliukoff was an extreme Imperialist, for he told me in the middle of the War, he hoped it would continue ten years longer so that all the coasts of the Black Sea, besides Constantinople, would fall to Russia's share.

But honour to the earlier revolutionists, whether Social or Democratic, has been wiped out under the fulfilment of the Marxist theory, and so has their comparative moderation.

Prince Mirsky defends Lenin's action in "the Terror" on the ground that "it is difficult for a Revolutionary Government to discriminate between the actual and the potential counter- revolutionary, and it is forced with tragic necessity to use methods whose effectiveness is not proportioned with their formal justice." One can only hope that the thousands Of advanced and intelligent men and women who have been put to death in fulfilling the Marxist doctrine would be consoled by the knowledge that their fate was more effective than just. Similarly, in regard to the Georgian patriots, for instance, who were massacred after seeing their country's independence destroyed in spite of a definite treaty, would be consoled by Prince Mirsky's statement that "Lenin's policy disarmed local nationalism and turned it to the profit of the Soviets ; for it was the only policy that could satisfy at once all nationalisms."

Difficult as was Lenin's task in introducing a new and theoretic conception of economics into his enormous country, yet he had something to go upon in the nature of his people. He had their love of theoretic discussion, and the principle of Communism traditional in their village holdings. Mustapha Kemal had no such advantages in theory or practice. He came up against stubborn traditions of life, government, and religion, and he overthrew them all. As Mr. Wortham says :—

"Under Kemal's leadership a whole nation has turned its back upon the past, has changed its beliefs, its customs and cos- tumes, its calendar, its very language. It does things previously forbidden, abstains from things previously recommended."

And all this was the doing of a man who was, distinguished only as a soldier until he took upon himself to overthrow the Sultanate, the Caliphate, the Turkish script, the Turkish fez, polygamy, the women's veils, and their long skirts. I do not know which enterprise would have seemed the most impossible when first I knew Turkey under the Red Sultan ; yet all have been accomplished. As he said to that most remarkable Turkish woman, Halide Edib : "I don't want any considera- tion, criticism, or advice, I will have only my own way. All shall do as I command." That is the great general's manner, and as a general he was the chief .agent in causing that final repulse of our forces at which I was present in Suvla Bay. It is also the manner of the dictator who is carele.ss of freedom and as ruthless to the individual as the worker

bees or the white ants. In many respects, Lenin and "The Ghazi " have similar qualities and aims. Only it is noticeable that, while Kemal's first object is to make his country as like Western Europe as possible, Lenin proposed to eschew all the Western ideals of economics and government in the hope of producing an equality which the class war would end because there would be no classes.

HENRY W. NEVINSON.