BOOKS.

.BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA.*

WE know nothing of the authors of this little book, but we find no difficulty in recommending it to our readers. As far as we have been able to verify them, the hots are carefully stated. Though the anti-Bolshevik sympathies of the writers are strong, and never concealed, there is nothing rhetorical about their appeal. There is no attempt to create undue prejudice by highly coloured personal attacks on the Bolshevik leaders. Best of all, the book, though small in size, is thoroughly well documented. Whenever possible, the actual words of Lenin or the other chiefs are given. This is far better than having to rely upon generalized descriptions of their views. Again, as an appendix we have the text of the Russian Soviet Constitution which was adopted by the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets at its Sitting of July 10th, 1918. Further, we get practically the text of that very remarkable document, published in the Times of July 30th, 1920, which contained the answer of the Executive Committee of the Moscow International to the series of twelve questions put to them by the British Independent Labour Party. It will be remembered that the sting of the answer to the twelve questions was contained in the answer to Question 2. That question .was :— " Will the Third International state how they conceive the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat as applied in Great Britam 4 " " Whoever tells the British working class that it can overthrow the capitalist dictatorship in the British Empire through any other means than the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, by taking the full power into their own hands, by depriving of political power all those who defend capitalist exploitation and by organizing a Red labour army, deceives himself and others. . . . Had the British working class gained power by means of Parliamentary elections, by means of so-called democracy ... the Communists are not for a moment freed of their duty of saying to the workers the following :—(1) That it is most un- likely that the. British bourgeoisie, the most energetic and most skilful oppressor of national movements, the richest in the world, the ruler not only of millions of British workers, but of hundreds of millions of the peasants and the workers of the Colonies—it is most unlikely that this bourgeoisie will give up its power without a struggle and become subject to the paper will of a Parliament ; (2) that, therefore, the workers should prepare not for an easy Parliamentary victory but for victory by a heavy civil war ; (3) that should the workers have suc- ceeded in gaining power without this civil war, that would only signify that the necessity of civil war would confront the work- ing class so soon as it set out to realize its will to defend itself from capitalist exploitation and speculation ; so soon as it began to liberate the masses in the Colonies now oppressed by British Imperialism."

Another very useful document whioh we get wellnigh verbatim is the message to the British Delegation which visited Russia last summer. This was the message handed to Alderman Turner, the Chairman of the Delegates. A more plain-spoken document was never put forward, and one can only say that the very small amount of opposition or even irritation which was displayed by our Labour leaders here is proof of that curious willingness to humble themselves before physical power which so often appears in minor revolutionaries.

Here is Lenin's contemptuous dismissal of the men who for want of a better term we may term the Girondins of the Trade Societies

"I was not surprised to find that the view-point of some of the members of your Delegation does not coincide with that of the working class, but coincides with the view-point of the boumeoisie, the class of exploiters. This is because in all capitalist countries the imperialist war has again exposed the inveterate abscess, namely, the desertion of the majority of Parliamentary and trade-union leaders of the workers to the camp of the bourgeoisie. Under the oblique pretence of the defence of the country, actually defending the spoliatory interests of one of the two groups of the world bandits, the Anglo-French-American or the German group, they entered into an alliance with the bourgeoisie against the.revolutionary struggle of the proletariat ; they covered up this treason with sentimental shopkeeper, reformist, and pacifist phrases about peaceful evolution, about constitutional measures, about democracy, Ste. This was the case in :all countries. It is not surprising that this very tendency existing in England has found' xpression in the composition of your Delegation."

As if this was not insulting enough, Lenin later in the message added the following :— " Such people are not capable of anything except the adoption of `sweetened resolutions' against intervention, which are • Bolshevik Rusks. By G. B. Rains and R. Laboff. London: Nisbet•

net.)

made up merely of shopkeepers' phrases. In a certain respect these resolutions are useful inasmuch as the `old leaders' (the partisans of bourgeois democracy, peaceful methods, ado., &c.) will make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of the masses, exposing themselves the sooner the more resolutions they pees, which, being empty and non-committal, are unattended by revolutionary notion."

Unless we are much mistaken, it was writing of this kind that produced the Council of Action. There was real anxiety amongst the leaders here to show Lenin that they were not so abjectly moderate as he supposed.

We might go on to point out many of the other striking and self-revealing phrases with which Lenin's message is salted. For example :-

" The freedom of Press and assembly in a bourgeois democracy is tantamount to the freedom of the well-to-do to plot against the working people. It means freedom of bribing and buying up newspapers by the capitalist. I have so often explained this in the Press that it was not very entertaining to me to repeat myself."

Mr. Turner, in an interview published by the Yorkshire Post, contributed quite a good answer to Lenin, but it must be admitted that though Mr. Turner bad the better of it in common sense, Lenin is the much more amusing writer. He is quite merciless and seems deliberately to prefer insult to courtesy.

In the introductory chapter there is quite an anthology culled from the out-pourings of the Soviet machine and of their leader. Many of Lenin's remarks will require a good deal of interpretation by the Pacifists and Socialists in this country. A signal example of this is the announcement of the suppression of the Mir :— At the pressnt moment the requirements of the population of the Federal Soviet Republic for means of daily information are adequately met by the Soviet publication. . . . The Press Department, therefore, considers it impossible to permit the further publication of the Mir, and has decided to suppress this paper for ever."—(/reiestya, October 17th, 1918, No. 228.) There is something quite Napoleonic here. It has the ring of those Bulletins that used to shake Europe by means of such phrases as " The House of Braganza has ceased to reign." Another most interesting example of how the Soviet deals with the Press is to be found in the following Russian wireless of February- 26th, 1919:— "The Central Executive Committee has confirmed the decision to close the newspaper Vsegda Vperiod, as its appeals for the cessation of civil war appear to be a betrayal of the working classes."

We may wind up with a quotation from a speech made by Lenin at the Serpukhovo on June 26th, 1920 :- "' Freedom is a bourgeois notion. . . What Russia wants is an iron government of a few determined men, and that she happily has' (reported in the Proletarian Echo, June 28th, 1920)."

With so much of notice we must leave Bolshevik Russia. Before doing so, however, we desire once more to advise our readers not to be satisfied with reviews, but to purchase the book and keep it by them. In the course of this year they are pretty sure to be told all sorts of fairy tales about Russia and the virtues of the Soviet Government, and will need the corrective of the actual words and deeds of the Soviet.

They will fiud many interesting things upon such subiects as the blockade, the treatment of the peasants, and, above all, the amazing justice and mercy dealt out to the Trade Unions. For example, the full text of the decree for Compulsory Labour is given. It is a very precious document. What is quoted in the work before us is the verified translation which was signed by Lenin and issued by him for publication in Great Britain. We particularly like the frankness of Clause 11, which begins :- " The Socialist regime repudiates categorically the principle of freedom of labour' proper to the Liberal Capitalistic regime ; a principle which in bourgeois society represents freedom for some to exploit others, and freedom for others to be exploited."