BOOKS.
THE BOLSHEVIK MENACE.* X Mrrarxov, the well-known Russian Liberal, has written an instructive account of the origin of Bolshevism and of its develop- ment as an international conspiracy against all existing insti- tutions. We are somewhat disappointed to find that he does not discuss the purely Russian aspects of Bolshevism, which, as he says, has had parallels in Russian history. But he gives a lucid account of the events of 1917, when the Russian people, after spontaneously freeing themselves from the corrupt auto- cracy of the Tears, submitted themselves a few months later to the equally corrupt autocracy of Lenin. M. Miliukov attributes the failure of the revolution to the dense ignorance and utter inexperience of the masses. " Revolutionary Socialism repu- diated State institutions ; but the Russian peasants have never- learnt to defer to the State. They were, so to say, born anarch- ists, and Tolstoy reflects very adequately the soul of the Russian peasant" " Revolutionary Socialism execrated ' imperialism' and ` nationalism ; but the Russian masses simply did not know anything about the international situation. They were unable to consider the interests of the State as a whole, and as opposed to the interests of other State units. They practically had not reached the stage of conscious nationalism and patriot- ism." This is a truism to those who know anything of Russia, but the Western public finds it hard to realize that behind the fagade of twentieth-century civilization in Russia the peoples still had the mental outlook of the twelfth or thirteenth century. Yet it is as great a mistake to ignore the mediaevalism of the Russian peasant as it is to pretend that the caste system is not the fundamental fact of the Indian peasant's life. The Bol- sheviks triumphed over their adversaries because they did not underestimate the stupidity of their people, and because they had definite aims and no scruples.
M. Miliukov examines in some detail the controversies and intrigues within the Socialist movement during the war, which led to the promotion of the " Third Internationale " under Bol- shevik control. It is hard for English readers to take all this very seriously. We know that in this country the extreme Socialists number at most a few thousands, that they are divided into four little groups, and that these groups expend most of their energy in quarrelling among themselves. We learn from the Morning Post of Saturday last that the " Socialist Labour Party " has solemnly expelled thirteen of its members because they had suggested that the " British Socialist Party " need not immediately disown the Labour Party. The domestic differences in a wasps' nest seem to concern the British Empire just as much and just as little as these Socialist Tweedledums and Tweedledees. Yet it must be remembered that on the Conti- nent, which has felt the war much more acutely than we have, poverty breeds anarchy, and the extreme parties, though they are always small minorities, are, numerically, much stronger than they are here. Moreover, Lenin's whole doctrine is based on the right of the minority to dominate. " If Socialism can only be enacted when the intellectual development of all will permit it," he said at a congress in November, 1917, " we shall not see the advent of Socialism even after five hundred years. But more advanced elements—such as the Bolshevik Party in the present case—must carry with them the masses without letting themselves be stopped by the fact that the average mentality of the masses is not what it ought to be." " Only when the revolutionary party firmly and unflinchingly speeds to its goal," says Trotsky, " can it help the working masses to overcome all the slavish instincts inherited from centuries, and lead the masses to victory." In other words, it is not the will of the people that is to prevail but the will of a small minority which knows what is good for the people. The political wheel has come full circle. Lenin's doctrine is precisely the same as that of Rameses or Nebuchadnezzar or Napoleon or their modern imitators, the ex-Kaiser and the late Tsar. President Wilson's idea of " making the world safe for democracy " is as repugnant
• Balelmoism. an International Dwyer: its Doctrine and its Practice through War and RCOOlidi011. By Paul }Minicoy. London : G. Allen and Cowin. [Me. 6d.
net.4 to Lenin as it would have been to these earlier despots. How, then, does it come about that many Socialists who believe in democracy, and even some amiable Liberals who do not profess Socialism, have persuaded themselves that Lenin is not what he says he is, and that he should be regarded as a brother-democrat ?
X Miliukov answers this question by pointing to the moral weakness of moderate Socialists. They suffer from what X Hervis has called the " disease of unity." " All of us," said another French Socialist, K Fourniere, " beginning with extreme Anarchists and ending with genuine Parliamentary Socialists, drag along the same chain, the chain of fear, lest we
should appear not so advanced as people who lead." They are afraid of being called " bourgeois " by the violent men. It seems a ridiculous fear, when we know that Lenin himself is denounced for his • half-heartedness by the still more crazy Anarchists who inhabit Moscow slums. Yet it is a fact that
even in Great Britain and still more at Socialist Congresses abroad, the more moderate Socialists have repeatedly approved of resolutions in which they did not and could not believe, so as to preserve an appearance of Socialist concord. Like the ostrich hiding his head in the sand, they thought that the world would not see behind this mask of unity. Thus in England we have often seen Mr. Clynea pretending to agree with Mr. Smillie,
just as we have seen Mr. Asquith denouncing Labour in a Paisley by-election and then elsewhere suggesting Liberal co-operation
with Labour against a Liberal coalition with Unionists. Lenin has been clever enough to make the most of the average Social- ist's preference for party over principle, and has skilfully induced many Socialists to applaud the " Russian Soviet Government " without knowing, or wishing to know, that the " Soviets " an the nominees of a small group of tyrants.
X Miliukov describes at some length the Bolshevik schemes for promoting a world-revolution, beginning with Germany.
The American Radical, Mr. Raymond Robins, says that Lenin told him that " the Russian revolution will probably fail. We have not developed far enough in the capitalist stage, we are too primitive to realize the socialistic stage. But we will keep the flame alive in Russia until it breaks in Europe." Lenin's plan was to use the accumulated wealth of Russia to promote insur- rections in other countries. K Miliukov's summary account of the conspiracies is of value. He seems to have been surprised at the tolerance with which our Home Office has regarded open Bolshevik propaganda in London and elsewhere, but we would remind him that the chief result of this criminal nonsense has been to weaken the political Labour Party in the constituencies and to send the women electors, who would suffer most from Bolshevism, into the Coalition camp. K Miliukov describes the Bolshevik influences at work in Ireland, where the Roman Catholic Bishops have been slow to understand that they would be " expropriated " with all other " capitalists " if the revolutionaries succeeded. He is, unfortunately, wrong in describing the Countess Marckiewicz as " a Russian," though this Irishwoman who is now a Pole by marriage is unquestionably " a turbulent type." But his general sketch of the Irish situ- ation is accurate enough. Since he wrote, the inevitable struggle between the Sinn Fein " capitalists " and the Communists formerly led by the late James Connolly seems to have begun: Sinn Feiners of the " bourgeois " type appear to object to the " expropriation " of land and goods belonging to them. IL Miliukov concludes his review of this widespread plot by blaming the Allies for their failure to stamp out Bolshevism at the outset by the swift occupation of Moscow. He does not make allow-
ance for the possibility that a foreign invasion might have rallied all Russian parties to the Bolshevik standard. If it be a fact that General Denikin's cause was hampered politically by the very liberal support which he had from the Allies, it was surely to be expected that Allied armies on Russian soil would excite still keener opposition. No doubt the Bolsheviks constitute a danger to civilization in general, but they are far more dangerous to Russia than to any other country, and the Russian people must free itself from their cruel despotism se best it may.
Previous page
