RUSSIA : THE REVOLUTIONARIES AND THE CRISIS.
ALL news from Russia points to the fact that the movement for liberation is now passing over a watershed. Probably there are but few Russians who could give us a definite suggestion as to the direction which events will take. On this high, flat ground, where prominent landmarks are few, we are at least free from bias and pressure of political dogma. From the newspaper point of view, we may say that a fertile source of sensa- tional news has been cut off, and public interest in Russia is therefore less than it was. " People in England," as has been said, "are getting tired of revolutions that don't come off." But much depends on what meaning we attach to the word " revolution." If it means a diversion for the fireside in happier countries, then we may even claim that the daily crop of murders is now more plentiful than it was when terrorism, both reactionary and revolutionary, submitted to a short silence in order to hear the voice of the first Russian national Assembly. Speaking from a different standpoint, we may say, in the words of the Liberal leader, M. Petrunkyevich, that the moral revolu- tion in Russian minds has already taken place. There is no doubt that Russia can never again be exactly as she was before the Japanese War. But if revolution is to mean the overturning of both the political and the social structure which still exist in Russia, the majority of the nation would contemplate the future rather in the mood of Falkland than in that of Voltaire. This radical difference between France in 1792 and Russia in 1906 has not been sufficiently emphasised. If we are to write our history in parallel columns, the Dissolution of the Duma brought Russia to that crisis which was met in France by the Tennis Court oath. The Russian Deputies did indeed defy the Government by travelling to Viborg ; they did indeed draw up an appeal to the nation, in which they asked that no taxes should be paid and no recruits supplied until another Puma was called ; but even at Viborg Liberal Deputies who had freely condemned the Government in the Duma wavered before signing an appeal which, after all, only claimed rights that have existed in England for many centuries, and instead of remaining as a corporate unit to lead the national resist- ance, the Duma Members shook their heads and passed away into private life. They knew that once more they were handing over the task of proclaiming the need of reform to the revolutionaries ; yet it is precisely in their refusal to take a step where the footing might be insecure that Russia differs from the hot-headed France of the Revolution. It may be disappointing; but we must wait for the final event before we say that Russia was wrong.
The frankly revolutionary organisations, which were thus forced into unnatural pre-eminence, represent but a very small minority of the nation, nor have they the impact of a single purpose. The two chief bodies are the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats. The former, who are by far the more individualistic, have done their Thief work amongst the peasants, whilst the Social Democrats are far stronger amongst the working men of the towns. Up to the Japanese War the task of the Socialist Revolutionaries was all uphill work, whilst their rivals had already achieved a very respectable measure of success. But the Social Democrats notoriously failed at many of the chief crises of the liberation movement; On January 22nd, 1905, some of them joined in a haphazard way the procession of Gapon and his followers towards the Winter Palace ; and though on this day the organisation of Gapon received a blow which was almost final, the Social Democrats profited very largely by the discontent which the action of the Government aroused all over Russia. They did not plan the great national strike of October, but later tried to apply it as the regulation weapon in causes which cannot appeal strongly to the majority of the people. They claim to have played the chief part in the abortive rising of December in Moscow. But the whole of that story is a miserable record of failures, in which the utter absence of any political instinct is a most damning feature.
Before the Duma met they split into two factions, one of which refused to acknowledge the Duma, at all, and boycotted the elections. This division is by no means healed. The Social Democrats, if triumphant, would introduce State Socialism, than which nothing could be more offensive to the peasants' craving for personal property. The Socialist Revolutionaries after years of failure made a great political success by the organisation of the Peasants' Union, which took for its simple formula the demand that " all land should belong to those who labour." But though it was the ideas of the Union which also created the Labour Group in the Duma, the Socialist Revolutionaries never absolutely controlled the direction of this party. On the contrary, the Labour Group adopted the principle that all propagandism within its ranks was permissible, and that it tied itself to no political formula, whether monarchical or republican. When the Duma was dissolved a new Committee was appointed which was more definitely pledged to revolutionary tactics ; but the champions of Parliamentary procedure at once stood down, and, further, the Socialist Revolutionary Party is itself threatened by the probability of a split within its own ranks. We can then be quite clear that the two Socialist parties do not command the majority of the nation, and that they represent only the smallest fraction of its common-sense and its political instinct. This is evident from the party programmes, which, while not absolutely chimerical, show no memory of the past and no compre, hension of the peculiar characteristics of the Russian people. The village community is undoubtedly a very important part of the social structure in Russia; but if we ask almost any peasant who has not yet associated himself with a given party, his answers will prove that, excellent as it is as a social unit, the system by its practical community of property hinders the development of personal initiative and personal character. The tactics of the two Socialist parties are equally unconvincing. Some of us have even reason to conclude that the methods of terrorism are adopted chiefly as a means of advertising for foreign sympathy. Though there are many serious and devoted workers in both parties, every one appears to know more than he ought to, and secrecy of procedure is little more than nominal. It would almost seem as if desperate plans were attempted in the full recognition that they cannot be kept secret, and with the definite aim of attracting as much public attention as possible, especially from newspaper correspondents who are in search of sensa- tions. The disagreements, and consequent impotence, of the various Socialist sections only need a little pub- licity to be clearly exposed to the world. If only the Government could have understood this, it would never have suppressed Socialist newspapers or stopped Socialist meetings. During the period of comparative freedom such a meeting was held at Teriski. It began with violent attacks on the Labour Members in the Duma. One speaker after another advertised some little group as the only one that was either efficient or sincere. The Communist-Anarchist claimed that he alone could satisfy the needs of working men, and a working man Cot up and said that of all parties he most distrusted the mmunist-Anarchists. We must go further. If we except the comparatively small number of Terrorist- Anarchists, the terrorists are limited to a few members of the two Socialist parties, who by no means enjoy the confidence of the whole body to which they belong, and are simply unleashed now and then to keep alive the cry of discontent. It is not difficult for a single man of no political ability to loom very large in the public eye by means of a successful attempt on the life of some official. But we in England. have even less right than other people to take such methods as necessarily representing the instincts of a whole nation. They may interest us as signs of a disease, but logically they are not even proofs of any general discontent. They prove hysteria and nothing more. Nor can we have any confidence in a movement which bases its hopes on an appeal to the neurotic side of us„ Fortunately, there are in Russia very much more serious signs of the development of a political instinct in the people. The revolutionaries themselves represent 8. by no means ignoble attempt to bridge the gap between the educated classes and the proletariat, and the work which, many of them have done in informing the public mind and in awakening political interest will always deserve a very honourable mention in history. Educated Russians, whether students or ex-students, are remarkable for their unusual generosity in devoting themselves to the cause of another class than their own. The terrorists have never been important except when they have really repre- sented the national discontent It is quite possible that the Dissolution of the Dania may lead to the creation of a. strong Radical Party. The elements for such a, party exist, and, it might even obtain that representation and. that authority which in the last Duraa lay with the Cadets. This is all the more reason why we should condemn the short-sightedness of the Government in dissolving an Assembly iu which the Centre had a majority. Whether the Radicals will ever definitely associate themselves with the Socialists or with the proletariat is another question. Another more hopeful sign of the future is a development which has been proceeding on and off in the proletariat itself. M. Chrustalydff, a lawyer of great ability, succeeded in November last in organising the so-called Council of Working Men Deputies, which definitely repre- sented a desire on the part of the working men to keep free of political abstractions, to create a party pledged to their own interests, and to take such a part in the discus- sions of the Dwza as might secure their own interests without intruding too much into the province of others. Of course, the Government threw M. Chrustalyiff into prison ; but the movement which he initiated is not by any means finished. Very similar was the character of the Peasants' Union, and in this case the refusal to pledge the party to any particular system of government was most significant. It meant that those Socialist Revolutionariee who bad helped to create the Union were sensible enough to see the limits of their own influence. Even the proga- ganda in the Army has to a certain extent had to follow these lines. The list of the grievances, say, of the Preo- brazhensky Regiment of the Guards divides itself into two halves. There are statements of Socialist formulas which, so to speak, even have to be translated into ordinary language for the benefit of the petitioning soldiers, and there are economic demands of the crudest and simplest kind. After the Dissolution, all the Socialist parties issued a common appeal, from which one would have gathered that a universal rising was already upon us. Directly afterwards the same authorities, who had told the peasants to rise first, altered their plan and gave the initiative to the Army. It was because they very well knew that the peasants would not rise at all. Soon after this the different bodies split on the milder question of whether there should be another general strike. The Social Democrats, being left alone, tried to carry the strike through by themselves, and the result was that there was no strike worthy of the name. The Socialists confidently maintain that with every new levy of conscripts they are filling the Army with men of their own opinions ; but they themselves admit that the Army is not yet ripe for general action on Socialist lines. We shall, however, make a better guess if we look for the promise of the future to the immense spread of political education which is due to the continued mistakes of the Government. After all, the Government is the best friend of reform. And those who estimate, not by the list of murders, but by the slow signs of political education, have every reason to be sure that while despotism can only be kept alive by the revolutionaries, the triumph of reform in Russia is only a matter of time.
Previous page
