* * * * *

 +---------------------------------------------------+ | Transcriber's Note: | | | | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. | | For a complete list, please see the end of this | | document. | | | | Bold text is marked like so: =bold text=. | | | +---------------------------------------------------+

 * * * * *

_Second Edition. _ PRICE TWOPENCE. 

BOLSHEVISM:

A CURSE & DANGERTO THE WORKERS. 

BY

H. W. LEE

(_Editor of "Justice"; Author of "The First of May: InternationalLabour Day"; "A Socialist View of the Unemployed Question";"Social-Democracy and the Zollverein"; "The Triumph of the Trustunder Free Trade"; "The Great Strike Movement of 1911"; and"Why Starve? Britain's Food in War--and in Peace. "_). 

WITHFOREWORD BY WILL THORNE, M. P. 

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY PRESS (1912), LIMITED. (TRADE UNION AND 48 HOURS), 37, 37A AND 38, CLERKENWELL GREEN, LONDON, E. C. 

_February, 1919. _

FOREWORD BY WILL THORNE, M. P. 

I have been asked to write a brief introduction to the pamphlet whichmy old friend and comrade H. W. Lee has written on the undercurrent ofBolshevist propaganda going on in this country, of which the recentunauthorised strike outbreaks are outward and visible signs. I do thisgladly. Our comrade Lee, through being long associated with theSocial-Democratic Federation as its Secretary, and his editorship of"Justice" during the last five years, has gained a knowledge ofInternational Socialist movements in their many phases which rendershis pamphlet both authoritative and reliable. 

I hope the pamphlet will have a wide circulation in all the largeindustrial centres, because I feel convinced that the majority of therank and file of the wage-earners do not and cannot know what it isthat our Bolshevists are striving for. They have not the faintest ideain what direction some of them are being led. The Bolshevists incertain industrial centres want to impose their own authority on therank and file of the workers, using catch-words for that purpose. Ifthey succeed in this direction they will set to work to undermine thetrade union movement of this country, and upset, instead of making useof, the means we at present possess for improving our economicconditions. 

Our minds go back to the Leeds "Convention, " held in June, 1917. Thedelegates at that Conference declared that they were in favour ofWorkmen's and Soldiers' Councils being formed in all the largeindustrial centres of the country. Nothing whatever came of it. Butthe W. S. C. S then controlling the revolutionary undercurrent in Russiawere totally different from the Bolshevist tyranny of to-day, and manyof the delegates who formed the W. S. C. S in various parts of Russiaafter the Revolution have been imprisoned or shot because they opposedthe domination of Lenin and Trotzky. 

Last Tuesday I saw two friends whom I met in Petrograd in April, 1917, and both of them absolutely confirm the statements made in the Pressabout the hundreds of men and women who have been shot without anytrial or confirmation of the charges brought against them. 

An article which appears in the "Nineteenth Century" of January, written by Mr. Pierson, who was imprisoned in the Fortress of St. Peter and St. Paul last October, after being arrested at the BritishEmbassy in Petrograd at the same time that Captain Cromie was shot, also confirms the brutalities that are taking place constantly inPetrograd and other parts of Russia. 

A letter in the "Daily Express, " written by Colonel John Ward, M. P. , shows the terrible hell which Bolshevism is making, and the methodsthat are being pursued by the followers of Lenin and Trotzky. If theSoldiers' and Workmen's Councils had done their duty in the latterpart of April, 1917, after Lenin made his two hours' speech in theDuma on April 17, they would have sent him back whence he came, because it is a well-known fact that he was allowed to pass throughGermany with thirty other companions in a first-class saloon. I amquite convinced that it was not the Russian people who were paying hisexpenses during the time he was carrying on his pernicious propagandawork in various parts of Russia. The downfall of the Soldiers' andWorkmen's Councils has been the consequence of their giving Lenin andhis thirty companions full freedom to spread their anarchical creedand the wiping out of duly elected Assemblies. 

The leading men of the Bolshevik movement in this country are out forthe overthrow of things as they are by physical force as soon as theyfeel confident that they have a good number of the rank and file ofthe wage-earners behind them. I want to warn the wage-earners--men andwomen of my own class--against being associated with such people, because I know that their tactics cannot remedy the economic andindustrial injustices under which the industrial workers aresuffering. They can be rectified by Social-Democratic education, scientific organisation in the trade union movement, and by usingpolitical powers to that end. 

The methods adopted by the unauthorised shop stewards movement in thedifferent parts of the country must be rigorously suppressed, andproperly appointed shop stewards and works committees in all factoriesand workshops must be elected instead. By that method industrial andeconomic improvements can be brought about with the greatest benefitand the least harm to all. 

The pamphlet gives a very clear statement about what is taking placein connection with the Bolshevist movement. That is the reason why Itrust that it will have a wide circulation in all the large industrialcentres of the country. 

 WILL THORNE. 

 February 13, 1919. 

"BOLSHEVISM":

A Curse and a Danger to the Workers. 

Russia has given most countries of the world a new word. "Bolshevism"is to-day known universally, though its meaning is not by any means souniversal. In Russia it has a very definite and often strikingmeaning, as many anti-Bolsheviks have known and are learning to theircost. Elsewhere it has a wider, if looser, significance, and isfrequently employed to express or describe a number of things to whichone objects. Our own Press, for instance, flings "Bolshevik" and"Bolshevism" at everybody and everything that it denounces, or againstwhom and which it seeks to raise prejudice. In this respect it hasoften overreached itself, for it is causing some to accept the RussianBolsheviks at their own estimation, because they know that many of thethings styled "Bolshevist" are not as bad as they are made out to be. 

In Russia "Bolshevik" means majority, and "Menshevik" minority. Theirreal significance was purely an internal one for the RussianSocial-Democratic Party. It is important to make this point clear, fornow and again we come across British supporters of and sympathiserswith the Russian Bolsheviks who take the name as a proof that theGovernment of Lenin and Trotzky actually represents the majority ofthe Russian people! Nothing is more contrary to the fact. TheBolshevist "coup de rue" of November, 1917, was as complete ausurpation of power as that of Louis Napoleon in 1851. True it was ausurpation by professed Socialists, supposedly in the interests of theRussian working class, but it was no less a usurpation and an attackon democracy which only success in the interests of the Russianworking class could possibly justify. The forcible dissolution of theConstituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks two months afterwards, becausethe elections did not go in their favour, compelled them to take theroad to complete domination, and they are now unable to retrace theirsteps, even if, as is reported, the more honest of them wish to do so. 

Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Social Revolutionaries. 

The terms "Bolshevik" and "Menshevik" (majority and minority) arosefrom the division in the Russian Social-Democracy which had shownitself at the Congress held in London in 1903. The difference isgenerally assumed to be one of tactics--of a readiness to co-operatewith other parties for certain definite objects under certain specialconditions ("Menshevik"), or of complete antagonism and opposition toall other parties every time and all the time ("Bolshevik"). But thedifference lies deeper than that. "Bolshevism" is, in effect, theRussian form of "impossibilism. " From this the thorough-goingSocial-Democrats of all countries have to suffer at times. Bydivorcing the application of Socialist principles and measures fromthe actual life of the day, and arguing and discussing "in vacuo, "impossibilism drives many, who see the utter sterility of its results, into the opposite direction, that of opportunism for the momentwithout much thought for the future. 

Until their "coup de rue" of November, 1917, the Russian Bolsheviksregarded themselves as the extreme Left of the Russian Social-DemocraticParty. But latterly they have dropped the name Social-Democrat--so muchthe better for Social-Democracy--and have adopted that of the "RussianCommunist Party"--so much the worse for Communism, for towardsCommunism the Social-Democratic Commonwealths of the future are boundto tend. "Bolshevism" to-day, where it is honest, is in the main arevival of the Anarchism of Bakunine, together with a policy of armedinsurrection, and a seizure of political power which shall install the"dictatorship of the proletariat. " That is the dividing line betweenthe Bolsheviks and their Social-Democratic opponents, the Mensheviks, and their far more numerous and powerful antagonists, the SocialRevolutionaries, who obtained an overwhelming majority in theConstituent Assembly which the Bolsheviks dissolved by force. TheSocial Revolutionaries seek the emancipation of the peasants andworkers by democratic means--the only safe and sure way--though theywere quite ready to use force for the overthrow of Tsardom, happilyeffected in March, 1917. Unhappily, though, Bolshevik terrorism, withits complete inability to carry out its promises of "peace and bread"for the Russian people, and certain European financial interests aretogether rehabilitating reaction in Russia, and the people and thepeasants may be driven to put up with some new autocratic régime in thehope that it may shield them from the present terrorism and secure themsomething to eat. 

Bolshevist Intolerance. 

Innumerable instances could be given of the bitter intolerance of thehonest Bolshevik fanatics towards all sections of the InternationalSocialist movement with which they have not agreed. Paul Axelrod, oneof the founders of Russian Social-Democracy, in a pamphlet published atZürich in 1915, entitled "The Crisis and the Duties of InternationalSocial-Democracy, " reproaches Lenin with seeking to carry into theinternal struggles of the Socialist Parties in Europe "specificallyRussian methods" which aim directly at creating troubles and divisions, and branding without any distinction "nearly all the known andrespected bodies of International Social-Democracy as traitors anddeserters stranded in the bourgeois camp, treating these comrades, whose international conscience and sentiments are above all suspicion, as National Liberals, chauvinists, philistines, traitors, etc. " Is thisthe way in which to raise the enthusiasm of the workers for the causeof Socialism? Is this the manner in which the spirit of self-sacrificecan be roused in the masses? It savours far too much of the oldimplacable bitterness of the Terrorists--reasonable and natural enoughin their secret conspiracies, where a fellow-conspirator might be apolice agent--but utterly out of place and mischievous when introducedinto open propaganda and organisation. 

To this jaundiced outlook of the prominent Bolsheviks is addedignorance of administration. Nearly all of them are refugees who havespent many years of their lives outside of Russia. They have evolvedtheories of Socialist policy from their inner consciousness without anopportunity of putting them to practical tests--until now, when theworld is in the throes of a war crisis. And they attempt to applytheir theories of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a vastnation made up of various races in different stages of civilisation, only just entering upon full capitalist development, where theproletariat, the wage workers, constitute fewer than 20, 000, 000 out ofa total population of 180, 000, 000! And yet there are supporters of theBolsheviks in Britain who profess to be Marxists--more Marxist thanMarx, in fact--and who can countenance such a logical outrage on the"materialist conception of history"!

Offensive and Defensive Wars. 

Nothing better illustrates the unreality of some of Lenin's theoriesthan his attitude on national self-defence. In 1915 he and Zinovieff, another well-known Bolshevik, published a pamphlet on "Socialism andthe War. " One chapter dealt with "A War of Defence and a War ofAttack. " It contains this passage:--"If to-morrow, for example, Morocco were to go to war against France, the Indies against England, and China against Russia, they would be wars of defence, just wars, independently of any question of which began the war. " Being "wars ofdefence, just wars, " the people would obviously be justified in takingpart in them from Lenin's point of view. Now let us see where thelogic of this contention will land us. Morocco, possibly because whatcapitalism is there is foreign, may justly wage war against France;but if France fights a war of defence against an aggressive attack byGermany, she is engaged in an "imperialist war. " Similarly, if Indiarises against Britain, the people will be fighting a just war; but ifBritain supports France and Belgium against German imperialism, she iscarrying on an "imperialist war. " Hence it follows that, if theCentral Powers had won the war, and Belgium had been subjugated byGermany, Belgium would have been fully justified in fighting torecover her independence; but in defending that independence which shewould have a right to recover, if deprived of it, she was taking partin an "imperialist war "! Such is Leninist logic when brought down toactual facts. 

In short, Lenin, like Bakunine, loves ideas more than men. This may besaid of all the honest Bolshevist fanatics. There are others--many ofthem. And even the genuine fanatics appear to have reached a stage ofmental "impossibilism" where the end not only justifies the means, butany means must necessarily help to achieve the end. We know theBolsheviks were conveyed to Russia in April, 1917, via Germany insealed carriages with the consent of the German authorities. The SwissBolshevik, Platten, arranged the affair with the German Government. That the German Government expected that the Bolshevist mission toRussia would be of advantage to Germany cannot be questioned;otherwise the Bolshevist refugees would not have been allowed to go toPetrograd through Germany. The Bolsheviks themselves knew that theiractions in the Russian Revolution would help Imperialist Germany, forthe "Berner Tagwacht" announced, after they had left Switzerland, thatthey were "perfectly well aware that the German Government is onlypermitting the transit of those persons because it believes that theirpresence in Russia will strengthen the anti-war tendencies there. " Itis the same with whatever money was supplied by Germany to theBolsheviks. It would all help to establish the "dictatorship of theproletariat. "

It is necessary to refer also to Leo Trotzky. Some who are convincedof Lenin's honesty of purpose do not hold the same view of Trotzky. Lenin is the implacable theorist in whose nostrils compromise of anysort stinks. Trotzky is not of that character. He is much moreadaptable. And he has changed opinions on war issues more than onceduring the war. In the autumn of 1914 or the beginning of 1915, Trotzky wrote a brilliant pamphlet, "Der Krieg und die Internationale"("The War and the International"). In that pamphlet he boldly declaredthat the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a necessity. While ridiculing defensive wars, he nevertheless wrote: "The moreobstinate the resistance of France--and now, truly, it is her duty toprotect her territory and her independence against the Germanattack--the more surely does she hold, and will hold, the German armyon the Western front. " Again: "The victory of Germany over France--avery regrettable strategic necessity in the opinion of GermanSocial-Democracy--would signify first of all not merely the defeat ofthe permanent army under a democratic republican régime, but thevictory of the feudal and monarchical constitution over thedemocratic and republican constitution. " Thus wrote Trotzky whilestill a Social-Democrat, before he became a Bolshevist dictator. How, then, can he denounce France for fighting an "imperialist war, " orBritain for helping her to prevent a "victory of the feudal andmonarchical constitution over the democratic and republicanconstitution"?

The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat. "

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" appeals to Trotzky, because hehas become virtually the dictator of the proletariat and everythingelse in Russia within the power of the "Red Guards" and his Chinesebattalions. These Chinese battalions, recruited from Chinese labourersemployed behind the military lines while Russia was in the war, may beresponsible for some of the "executions" which have taken place. TheBolshevist emissary, Maxim Litvinoff, pooh-poohs all stories ofmassacres. It is generally the dregs of the Chinese population who arerecruited for labour gangs abroad; and if "removals" of"counter-revolutionaries" can be accomplished by Chinese battalions, the Bolsheviks can then aver that they have not had a hand in it!Since the acceptance of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty because Russia couldfight no longer, Trotzky has not only talked of raising Bolshevikarmies, but has succeeded in raising them and officering them byofficers of the old Tsarist régime. What Trotzky would not do againstthe German armies he is quite prepared to do against those portions ofRussia that have taken advantage of the self-determination granted bythe Bolshevist Administration. Perhaps the peculiar Bolshevistphilosophy regarding wars of defence is also to apply to neighbouringStates if they do not happen to be strong militarily. You must notprevent the "self-determination" of any portion of an existing State, but you may attack it when "self-determined, " in the interests of the"international Social Revolution" and the "dictatorship of theproletariat. " That sort of action, when undertaken by an autocracy, isusually described as an act of imperialist aggression in order todivert attention from internal difficulties; and Bolshevism in Russiais an autocracy--a dictatorship not of the proletariat, but over theproletariat. It cannot possibly be anything else. 

The Russian Revolution of March, 1917, was in many respects similar tothe French Revolution of 1789. It brought the downfall of absolutemonarchy. It was not so bourgeois in character as the FrenchRevolution, because there was a definite proletarian class in Russia, though small in comparison with its immense population, and capitalistproduction was established. But the Russian Revolution had thisdisadvantage compared with the French Revolution--there waspractically no class able to take over the administration in theinterests of the Revolution as with the French; and if that was sowhen certain bourgeois elements were with the Revolution, how muchless of administrative knowledge would there be in a BolshevistGovernment over millions of ignorant workers and peasants accustomedonly to a despotic régime, whose "Commissaries" are mainly refugees, most of whom have lost all real touch with Russian internal affairs?

Bolshevist Inquisition. 

There is not the slightest need to accept the capitalist Press of thisor any other country as authoritative on the present condition ofthings in Russia. Consult the Bolshevist organs themselves, particularly the "Izvestya" and "Pravda. " They give quite enoughevidence to prove what terrorism prevails, how all freedom of thePress, speech and public meeting is ruthlessly suppressed. Thefollowing is from "Pravda" of October 8 last:--

 "The absence of the necessary restraint makes one feel appalled at the 'instruction' issued by the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission to 'All Provincial Extraordinary Commissions, ' which says: 'The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission is perfectly independent in its work, carrying out house searches, arrests, executions, of which it _afterwards_ reports to the Council of the People's Commissaries and to the Central Executive Council. ' Further, the Provincial and District Extraordinary Commissions 'are independent in their activities, and when called upon by the local Executive Council present a report of their work. ' In so far as house searches and arrests are concerned, a report made _afterwards_ may result in putting right irregularities committed owing to lack of restraint. The same cannot be said of executions. .. . It can also be seen from the 'instruction' that personal safety is to a certain extent guaranteed only to members of the Government, of the Central Council and of the local Executive Committees. With the exception of these few persons, all members of the local Committees of the [Bolshevist] Party, of the Control Committees, and of the Executive Committee of the Party may be shot at any time by the decision of any Extraordinary Commission of a small district town if they happen to be on its territory, and a report of that made _afterwards_. "

"Vorwärts, " quoting from "Pravda, " says that the Bolshevist organreports that 13, 764 persons have been executed within the last threemonths. 

As regards the internal economic situation in Russia under Bolshevistrule, a Russian workman, whose experience has not been confined toPetrograd and Moscow, makes the following statement in the"Social-Demokraten" of Stockholm:--

 "The output of the factories has decreased by 80 per cent. , notwithstanding that the Revolutionary Committees stimulate production with the revolver. The condition of the railways is worse than ever. All the industrial workmen are against the Bolsheviks, and the same is the case with the peasants. The so-called 'Committees of the Poor' are drawn from the small number of peasants who sought employment in the factories during the war and have now returned to the country. The only supporters of the Bolsheviks, apart from the Letts and the Chinese, are those belonging to their own official caste. The European Press has rather understated than exaggerated the Red Terror. "

As regards food conditions, [1] the Bolshevist Administration seems tobe thorough and precise in the issue of food-cards of alldescriptions, according to the four categories into which thepopulation is divided. More food-cards, in fact, appear to have beenissued to the population of Moscow than the population itself, whichwas 1, 694, 971 last April. Restaurants, dining-rooms, etc. , are fullysupplied with supplementary food-cards. But what of supplies? Theyare, after all, the main thing. Translated into English money andweight, the prices last September were as follows: Potatoes, 7-1/2d. Alb. ; fresh cabbage, 7d. A lb. ; fish (supply diminishing), pickledherrings from 1s. 9d. To 3s. 3d. A lb. ; smoked herrings, from 2s. 4d. To 4s. Each; meat, 7s. 7d. A lb. ; pork, 12s. 8d. A lb. ; boiledsausage, 9s. 3d. A lb. ; smoked sausage, 11s. 10d. A lb. ; milk, ofwhich there was little, was 2s. 6d. A bottle; cream butter, 25s. 3d. Alb. ; lump sugar, 25s. 3d. A lb. In Petrograd meat was from 9s. 7d. Alb. ; veal, 11s. A lb. ; pork, 12s. 7d. A lb. ; mutton, 10s. 1d. A lb. Fish, supplies of which were limited, were about the same prices as atMoscow. The figures of municipal bread-baking in Petrograd for lastApril, May and June were 328, 128, 262, 075 and 185, 222 pudsrespectively. A pud is 36 lbs. This indicates a most seriousreduction. According to rations on the bread-cards, which are 3/8 lb. Per day, with the same amount for supplementary cards for workers'categories, and 1/8 lb. A day per child, the monthly supply forPetrograd should be 792, 000 puds. 

In October reports from Tambov, Viatka, Vladimir, Tula and Saratovindicate that, though supplies of all kinds of grain were fairly good, the disorganisation of transport was so great that the larger part ofthose supplies remained where they were. A number of delegates weresent to Saratov to obtain 30, 000 puds of breadstuffs for twenty-fiveworkmen's organisations in Moscow. They only succeeded in obtaining3, 000 puds, and they complained most bitterly of "bureaucracy" at thehands of the Saratov Provincial Food Committee, who kept them waitinga very long time and finally passed them on to a local Committee whodeclined to do anything. They demanded that pressure should be broughtto bear on the Provincial Committee to make them disgorge part oftheir large reserves for the starving centre. 

Russian Co-operative Societies. 

Recently reports and articles have been appearing in certain of theLabour and capitalist Press favourable to the Bolsheviks, notably the"Labour Leader, " concerning the co-operative movement in Russia. It isalleged that the growth of the co-operative movement there is evidencethat the Bolshevist Government is really and seriously building up anew Socialist society despite the grave difficulties within and theantagonism from without. It is true that the co-operative movement isgoing ahead in Russia, but it is not because of, but in spite of, Bolshevism. The co-operative movement in Russia is not the product ofthe Bolshevist Government; it existed and progressed under Tsardom. The help which the co-operative societies rendered to the Russianpeople during the war is beyond all dispute. The majority of theco-operators in the area under Bolshevist domination are forced towork with the Bolshevist Soviets in order to save their societies fromdissolution. The co-operative societies in Siberia, representing twomillion affiliated families, a population of about ten millions, havebeen the backbone of the opposition to the Bolshevist Government eastof the Urals. 

Bolshevism in Russia is, in fact, a revival of the Anarchism ofBakunine, tinged with certain Marxist theories which the Bolshevikrefugees have gathered during their numerous sojourns abroad. It is aworship of the Revolution to which everything must be sacrificed. Inits adoration of the Goddess of Liberty it is willing-to crush thefreedom of human beings. The change from Tsardom to Bolshevism is, touse Trotzky's cynical phrase, "the turn of the wheel. "

The Bolshevist Government has now dominated the central portion ofEuropean Russia for more than a twelvemonth. It bases its demand forgeneral recognition on the fact that it has lasted a year withoutbeing overturned, and contends that that proves it has the support of"Soviet" Russia. The brief statement of internal conditions at Moscowand Petrograd made above suggests that the reports of terrible foodshortage in those great cities, which come from independent sources, are not entirely destitute of foundation. And yet the apologists ofthe Bolsheviks here assure us that in Russia at the present time wehave a "Socialist Republic of a very high order"!

These facts require to be made thoroughly well known among the workingclasses of these islands. The idea is being assiduously put about, more subterraneously than openly, that there is now established inRussia a genuine Socialist Republic, or, at all events, a real andconscious attempt on the part of the workers and peasants of Russia toestablish such a Republic. Given this idea, there is every reason fora popular agitation to prevent anything being done by the BritishGovernment and its allies to hamper that Socialist Republic in theearly stages of its development. Unfortunately, the utter incapacityof the recent and present Coalition to come to any definite policyregarding Russia, and the inclination of some of its members to backthe reactionists, while standing aloof from the real democratic forcesin Russia which support the Constituent Assembly, play completely intothe hands of the Bolsheviks of Russia and their sympathisers here. Whatever Bolshevist undercurrents there are in the present recklessstrike movements in Glasgow, Belfast and elsewhere are therefore duein great part to the Governments of Mr. Lloyd George. Nevertheless itbehoves the working class of these islands to take cognisance of thefacts concerning Russia, for they will enable them to realise clearlythe grave mischief that these "unauthorised" strikes are doing, moreto their own class and the country generally than to the capitalistsagainst whom the efforts of the majority of the strikers are directed. 

Bolshevism on the Clyde. 

The Clyde is the centre of Bolshevism in Britain, though the spirit ofit is in other parts also. But on the Clyde a number of verydetermined and exceedingly well meaning, but "heady, " Socialists ofthe S. L. P. "impossibilist" type have influenced by sheer persistence agood many others who do not understand whither they are being led. Here, again, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the dictationof the proletariat by these "impossibilists, " in order to bringcapitalist industry to its knees. For that purpose strikes are to bebrought about as frequently as possible on no matter what pretext, provided that pretext calls out enough "hands" to paralyse capitalistindustry. It may be increased wages one day, shorter hours the next, shop conditions the day after, anything that will cause men to "downtools. "

The idea, obviously, is to reduce industry to such a state of chaosthat it becomes absolutely unprofitable to the employers, and thus itwill be easier for the shop committees to take over the "control ofindustry" by Soviets from which all "bourgeois" and"counter-revolutionaries" shall be excluded. Meanwhile, when thestrikes have reached a certain point, the demand shall be made forGovernment intervention, which, if granted under vague threats ofterrible things to come, will redound to the power and credit of theBolshevist leaders; and if not, and disturbances take place, then theleaders will be arrested, the revolutionary fires will be lighted onthe Clyde, and will spread over the whole country; the leaders inquestion will be released from gaol by enthusiastic "revolutionary"crowds; and then will follow a glorified transformation scene as in apantomime, with the heroes bathed in gorgeous "revolutionary"lime-light effects. I should not write in this fashion did I not knowthat this idea has influenced a few of the most single-minded anddevoted Socialists on the Clyde, and we can only regret that suchreally noble spirits should have been unable to keep their heads inthe greatest crisis in the world's history. 

The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in Operation. 

The battle cry of the Russian Bolsheviks and their sympathisers andwould-be imitators elsewhere is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. "Let us consider what that means. Dictatorship means despotism, andwhether it is that of a Tsar or a Kaiser, an oligarchy or a Bolshevikadministration, it is despotism--nothing more and nothing less. Impatience with the slowness of the mass of the people is only to beexpected in all who see what human existence could be made on thisplanet, how enjoyable and pleasurable life might be made by light andpleasant labour for all, with the vast powers which man now possessesover Nature. I don't suppose there is a single Socialist who has spenttwenty years of his or her life in the cause of InternationalSocial-Democracy who has not at times wished that the SocialRevolution could be quickly brought about by some benevolentdespotism. That a similar train of thought should have entered theminds of Russian refugees, driven from a land where politicaldemocracy in any form appeared almost hopeless of achievement, is onlynatural, and equally natural that it should have been pursued to itsabstract logical conclusion, inasmuch as, unlike ourselves, they werenot working actually amongst the people day in and day out tounderstand how impossible of realisation such a wish must be. Impatience with the mass--however the Mass may be worshipped--is atthe bottom of the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat. " Theymust be emancipated in spite of themselves. Liberty and democracy cancome afterwards when the Socialist dictators have transformedcapitalist society into the Socialist State. During thattransformation the mass must obey the minority which has seized power;it must accept as right and just what that minority decrees; it mustabandon liberty of speech and the Press, or at least it must refusethose liberties to all who do not agree with the actions of theminority in power. And if the mass don't like it, well----! Are thesenot precisely the principles on which Lenin and Trotzky are strivingto create this "Socialist Republic of a very high order"? And are theynot revealed in the attempts of a small minority to impose their willon the majority during our own strike influenza? Often is itobservable that those who most vehemently denounce the slightestexercise of power in others have not the faintest objection to usingit ruthlessly themselves. Bolshevism, then, is another phase, andanything but a pleasant phase, of Utopian Socialism, whatever use ofthe name of Karl Marx be made in connection with its advocacy. 

The Blind Samson. 

The wage-earners constitute by far the largest section of thecommunity. Their votes, now more than ever, can do much to control theadministration of the country if they will take the trouble toexercise that control in the direction of securing the thoroughdemocratisation of the State, so that it may be made ready to organisethe industries of the nation for the common good. The paralysis ofindustry will hurt the capitalist employers unquestionably, but itwill certainly not benefit the workers. Blind Samson damaged thePhilistines when he pulled down their temple; but he did not come outunscathed--quite the contrary. The Social Revolution--i. E. , the changefrom capitalist production for profit to social production foruse--cannot be made with rose-water; but that is no reason why thereshould be blood-letting just for the fun of seeing if red corpusclesare present in sufficient quantity. 

Let them be what they may, the trade unions are the only form ofworking-class organisation to-day which can secure for the workers adecent standard of existence under capitalist conditions of industry. Anything which tends to weaken them and reduce their influence, whether in the interests of the employers or for the supposedadvancement of r-r-r-revolutionary proletarian principles, whateverthey may be, will be harmful to the workers. It is for the workersthemselves to see that their trade unions shall be the means ofsecuring something more than higher wages or even shorter hours oflabour. War conditions have shown what a will-o'-the-wisp are mereincreases of pay; and short hours of labour such as could easily bearranged under collective organisation of industry, with all theeconomies of effort which co-operation would effect, cannot be securedunder capitalism. That surely should be obvious to all who callthemselves Socialists and who have even a passing acquaintance witheconomics; otherwise, why the necessity of the Co-operativeCommonwealth? Socialist policy towards the trade unions should be, inshort, not their capture for political purposes, nor their upset forBolshevist phantasies, but one of educating the trade unionists. It isonly along that line that the Social-Democratic movement can make realand steady progress. 

The policy of the strike for anything and everything is not onlyanti-social; it is anti-Socialist. Writing on the strike outbreak of1911, [2] I said: "The mass strike is rarely effective, save in anegative fashion. It is successful mostly when used against someparticular object or for some definite purpose of the moment. It canbe used to break an objectionable agreement; it may prevent theputting into force of an unpopular law, or the passing of sometyrannical measure; it may check an attempt to suppress popularliberties, such as they are; and it may prove the best possible meansof preventing war between two countries, if action in that directionbe taken equally in both countries. But as _the_ means for theoverthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of theSocialist Republic it is useless. Those who rely upon the generalstrike as _the_ means for the realisation of Social-Democracy are likethe ancient Gauls, of whom it is said that they shook all States andfounded none. "

Sporadic and Lightning Strikes Anti-Social and Anti-Socialist. 

What applied to the strike movement of 1911 applies with even greaterforce to the present strike ebullitions, in which the presence ofRussian Bolsheviks is to be noted. This is all in accordance with theBolshevist plan of "world revolution" for which roubles are beingplentifully furnished, mainly through agents in Sweden. The prevailingidea is to pull down bourgeois society, no matter what theconsequences. If conditions generally in the countries of Europe undercapitalism to-day were like what they were here a century ago, coupledwith an absolute monarchical tyranny such as that which existed untilrecently in Russia, then there might be something to be said for thedestruction of bourgeois society by any means that would bring itdown. Nothing under such conditions could be worse for the mass of thepeople. But with the destruction of the State in these islands wouldgo the trade unions built up by years of solid labour and sacrifice, the co-operative societies, just now beginning to take a wider outlookon things than mere "divi. " hunting, and the democratic politicalinstitutions of which the people can make far more use than they dowhen they choose to exercise their intelligence and bestir theirenergies. Then the increasingly complicated nature of production, distribution and exchange has also to be considered. A piece of gritwill often throw elaborate and delicate machinery out of gear, but wedo not regard it as a revolutionary agent on that account. The controlof a few engineering workshops by shop stewards, puffed out withvanity and a "little brief authority, " will not provide the foodnecessary to feed the people of these islands. We have, too, anindication of the spirit of liberty with which they are animated inthe massed picketing at Glasgow, not against blacklegs andnon-unionists, but against fellow trade unionists who refused to aid"unauthorised strikes. "

I have said that these "down tools" outbursts are anti-Socialist. Theyare anti-Socialist because they are anarchical. They may pull down, but they cannot build up. Socialism and Socialists have sufferedenough during the war because of the freaks and cranks that the wardiscovered among us, and the greater number of the same genus who nowprofess to be Socialists without understanding much, if anything, about the Socialist movement. We do not want further prejudice raisedagainst us by attempts to connect us with anarchical violence, hooliganism and looting. Nothing for the benefit of the people canpossibly come out of what is now going on. All it will do is to helpreaction, and make even the majority of the working class ready toacquiesce in a mild military dictatorship as a lesser evil thanBolshevist tyranny and violence. And there are some British Generalswho are popular, and who are not merely militarists!

There is no royal road to the Social Revolution. The steady andpatient work of Socialist propaganda and organisation together withthe pressing forward of thorough-going collectivist proposals for theownership and control of industry for the common good, and theimagination to take advantage of everything that will help forward thegreat change from capitalist production for profit to Socialistproduction for use--those are the lines we must follow. All theimaginary shortcuts of the impatient ones, which lead to anarchicaldeserts or reactionary morasses, serve only to retard realSocial-Democratic progress. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Comrade "R. , " who has written much for "Justice" on the foodquestion abroad, has supplied these particulars. --H. W. L. 

[2] "The Great Strike Movement of 1911, and Its Lessons. "

 +----------------------------------------------------------+ | For accurate and reliable information on International | | Labour and Socialist movements | | and happenings read. .. | | | | "JUSTICE. " | | | | The oldest Socialist Journal in Great Britain. | | | | =Published every Thursday, price Twopence. = | | | | Of all Newsagents, or direct from the Publishers, | | Twentieth Century Press (1912) Ltd. , 37-38 Clerkenwell | | Green, London. E. C. 1 Subscription rates: 13 weeks, | | 2/6; 26 weeks, 5/-; 52 weeks, 10/-; post free. | +----------------------------------------------------------+

Printed and Published by the Twentieth Century Press (1912), Ltd. , 37-38 Clerkenwell Green, London, E. C. 1. Trade Unions and otherorganisations supplied with quantities at special rates, to be had onapplication to the Manager. 

 * * * * *

 +-------------------------------------------------+ | Typographical errors corrected in text: | | | | Page 8: 'whch have taken place' replaced with | | 'which have taken place' | | | +-------------------------------------------------+

 * * * * *