A LESSON OF HISTORY.
H.—THE ANALOGY. READERS of what we wrote last week in regard to the genesis of the French Revolution may perhaps say: "But what has all this got to do with us ? The conditions are quite different, and could not possibly be reproduced in this country. Even at this moment, and when we are in the midst of a great Labour crisis, sane men must realize that the Railway Strike is only a peculiarly bitter dispute over wages, and not a scene or act in the Drama of Revolution." We are not so sure. No doubt the conditions arc very different, for there is never an exact analogy in history. At the same time, since in such matters we want to be absolutely sure of avoiding all danger, we must confess that there is more similarity in the conditions than appears at first sight, and a good deal more than is at all pleasant. To begin with, and leaving the strike out of consideration, though we have not got famine, or any real risk of famine, or of bankruptcy (which, by the way, was one of the chief bogies of the Revolution, though as events proved France was in no sense bankrupt but only financially mismanaged), we have got extreme unrest, and that unrest is largely based upon the fear of famine and of national bankruptcy. a fear strong enough indeed to make able and moderate men like Mr. Clynes talk about the need of a levy on capital —a remedy which, if put into practice, would very soon produce the national bankruptcy which it was intended to avoid. This unrest is no doubt natural after the great sacrifices endured by the nation, and in the extraordinary conditions under which we are living—i.e., of soaring prices and little production, and the incredible belief that somehow everybody is to get more by everybody producing less, and of our gaining our subsistence, not even by taking in each other's washing, but merely by not doing either our own or anybody else's ! But though of course this unrest is real, it has not yet affected the majority of the population or made them politically demented. The great mass of Englishmen deprecate the unrest and view it with alarm, and would, above all things, like to be free of it. But there it is, and if not properly handled it is bound to grow worse. What is more, it is a standing temptation to the conspirator. And now comes the most threatening fact of all. It is clear that, as in the French Revolution, certain men have been excited by the temptations offered by this unrest They see such an opportunity for carrying out their plans as never existed before and may never exist again in a country naturally so stable as Britain. Our conspiracies are, of course, different from those which took place a hundred and thirty years ago in France, but all the same they exist and are at work, and on roughly the same lines, though, as a rule, inspired with much less virulence. And here let us say that we use the word " conspiracy " both for movements which are bad in themselves and for others which are honest if deluded. Remember, " conspiracy" in its origin means a working together of a body of people for a particular object, be that object good or bad. In any case the conspiracies we mean are attempts by any possible means, legal or illegal, legitimate or illegitimate, to establish political conditions in this country which please the conspirators either on intellectual or, we might almost say, spiritual grounds, or for the furtherance of personal or class interests.
The first and most dangerous of these conspiracies is that of the Russian or International Anarchists ; i.e., the Bolsheviks. Sane and moderate people here are always inclined to pooh-pooh the notion of foreign conspiracy, • and no doubt in old days they were perfectly right andsafe in doing so. 'Members of the " International ' and of similar conspiracies could no more set fire to English public opinion than you can set fire to damp heather. Nowadays, however, the conditions are different. In Russia the remains of a powerful and rich, if corrupt and senile, Empire are in the hands of International.Anarchists. These men fully realize that their power in Russia cannot long be maintained unless •they can convert the rest of Europe. Many of them no doubt honestly desire to pass on the torch of Anarchy as a precious gift to the rest of the world. In other words, they are rich enough, fanatical enough, and have a sufficient instinct of self-preservation in them to believe that they can and must practise propaganda in Europe, and above all in Britain. The Anarchists of Petrograd feel just as strongly as did those of Potsdam that in the long run Britain is the enemy. If she can be -Bolshevized the conquest of the rest of the Continent will be easy. Accordingly tremendous `efforts' are being made in this 'country to get hold of the working classes. That of course is bound to be a complete failure, and probably Messrs. Lenin and Trotsky and Chicherin,. or whoever is top dog now in Russia, know it. But they know also that 'there are a good many people to be bought or bamboozled here, and that if they can only get a sufficient number of people on their side, their instruments may bounce and bluff and panic-strike the nation into revolution. We do not hesitate to say that at this moment there are thousands of British working men who without knowing it are reading and heeding newspapers and pamphlets kept going by Bolshevik money, though no doubt by Bolshevik money which is three degrees distant, and run by and paid for by Bolshevik agitators and organizers, also three or four degrees removed from the rouble which, in spite of its vast depreciation, is when it leaves Russia in millions still translatable into thousands here. But, besides the large groups of men who are being unwittingly pulled by Bolshevik strings, there are of course others who know exactly what they are doing and where the money and the orders come from. Some of these men no doubt are cynical hirelings, but others again are genuine fanatics, and think it no shame to take money from Russian comrades, even though they probably would not have the courage to announce the fact on a popular platform and risk the consequences.
Next to the foreign Bolshevik conspiracy there is a genuine native Socialist conspiracy, though a conspiracy —perhaps we ought here in fairness to call it movement— run by convinced Socialists. The Fabians, who thirty years ago determined that they would shunt the Trade Union movement on to Socialist lines, now see in the social and political unrest caused by the war a magnificent opportunity for shunting the nation itself on to Socialist lines. These men and women of course hate and dread the Anarchist revolutionaries beyond words, but at the same time they cannot resist the temptation of, to a certain extent, encouraging and fomenting any signs of unrest which will produce the revolutionary atmosphere, for out of that they hold they can alone get salvation. Did not Madame Roland work with Danton ? Just as in the French Revolution, our antagonistic conspiracies have a certain inter-sympathy on the old Jacobite principle of " Box it about and it will come to ourselves."
Another conspiracy which is openly and confessedly making Britain's restless condition its opportunity is the Sinn Fein movement, a movement which combines the interests of the international atheist and those of the visionary Socialist with those of the most sordid of what we may call the revolutionists of plunder. Alongside the Sinn Fein movement, and in affiance with it for the -time, is one of the most dangerous conspiracies of all, though it is difficult to name it without incurring the risk of being called "persons of obscurantist prejudices." We mean the conspiracy of the Roman extremists, not only in Ireland, though there are many of them there, but all over Europe—a conspiracy which is closely allied to that of our old German enemies. The ordinary English Roman Catholic has of course absolutely nothing to do with this conspiracy, and is indeed intensely averse from it, but it exists nevertheless. A proof of that existence may be found in Mr.' de Valera's unguarded words when he said that he and his were naturally the allies of Germany because the Germans would restore the temporal power of the Papacy. There are still many advocates of that extreme Vaticanism, and they all instinctively -hate Britain as opposed to restoration of 'the Papal States Therefore, though this we admit will sound far-fetched to most readers, the political Jesuit, the political Ultramontane, and the political Vaticanist are all working to overthrow this country. It is a hopeless little conspiracy? It may be, but all the same it has a certain weight and a certain influence. When we see persons like Dr. Clifford and newspapers like the Daily News, owned by. Radical Quakers, joining with Roman -Catholic extremists to strip the Protestants of North-East Ulster of all protection, the engineers of unrest may well, from the artisticpoint of view, be proud of their work.
Yet another conspiracy is that of certain restless sections of organized Labour to introduce direct action or "the hold-up of the State " as a substitute for the ballot-box in the work of government. We' are 'not to be ruled by -votes but by the necessity of having coal won for us, railway trains run, and bread baked. The nation is to shape its Policy, not on the will of the majority, but on the necessity of getting miners, stokers, and bakers to work for the community. The fallacy upon which this policy rests is evident enough, but nevertheless the conspiracy is a very flourishing one, and a very potent one for a people some of •whom are, unfortunately, inclined to be ruled by panic. and entirely unable to give the good old British answer to the blackmailer, " You be d----d ! " Lastly come the Syndicalists and Guild Socialists, who wish to shunt us back on to the siding of the Mediaeval Guilds; just as the Fabians willed to shunt the Trade Unions on to Fabian lines.
(To be concluded.)
Previous page
