"THE THING CALLED BOLSHEVISM."

 Under this heading the "World's Work" (New York) for January publishes the following article:—

A year ago only one apparent force was opposing the Anglo-Saxon ideal of a democratic world. This was autocracy as embodied in the Central Empires. It was generally believed that the military defeat of Germany and her Allies would remove the last obstructions to the reorganisation of Europe on democratic lines. Hardly has that task been accomplished, however when a new peril appears. The world does not yet completely understand that the thing now generally known as Bolshevism is really merely another name for autocracy. The simple fact that, the leaders have long records as revolutionists, and that the rank and file is composed largely of the working classes, obscures this all important truth. Yet Lenine is as great an enemy of democracy as the Czar whom his followers murdered, and Trotsky is as great a danger to liberty as Hindenburg and Ludendorff. One tyranny has disappeared with the collapse of Kaiserism, but another, even more terrible and more unscrupulous, has reared its head. The fact that the enemies of Nicholas Lenine already refer to him as Nicholas III.—the recently murdered Czar was Nicholas II.— shows that, the intimate relation between the new autocracy and the old is bitterly appreciated.

This word Bolshevism, which has suddenly spread all over the world, is not so new as most newspaper readers believe. It has been part of the speech of the Russian Empire for 15 years. Its history is briefly told. It had its beginnings in 1898, when a certain segment of the revolutionary forces in Russia split off and organised the Social Democratic party. This party differed little in its teachings and its programme from the Socialist parties of Germany, France, and other countries. It was based frankly upon the principles of Marxian Socialism, and the usual tenets of Socialism, the nationalisation of land, industry, transportation, and the like, formed the basis of the new Russia which it aspired to rear on the ruins of the Russian autocracy. The Marxian phrase which these reformers constantly rolled under their tongues, "the dictatorship of the proletariat," sufficiently indicates the non-democratic character of their programme. By the "proletariat"—the Latin word literally means "child-producer"—was meant the poorest element among the city working classes, the men who have no property and no available capital except their hands. The Social Democratic doctrine proposed that these classes, in view of their theory that they were the sole creators of wealth, should exclusively control all political power. Only these men and women should vote, these alone should have the right to hold office, to serve in the army and navy or should be recognised as actual members of the State. The proposed programme did not even admit the peasantry, at least in the early stages of reorganisation—this in face of the fact that 86 per cent, of the Russian people are tillers of the soil. That the whole movement was a class movement, that it proposed to exclude all professional classes, all "bourgeoisie," all employers, everybody except those who worked with their hands, was the fact upon which, the leaders insisted.

In 1903, at the second congress of the Social Democratic party, the organisation split into two parties. The differences at first turned merely upon questions of party tactics, but, as time went on and the breach became wider, differences of policy became pronounced. These two factions were, called the "Menshiviki" and the "Bolsheviki." In Russian these words mean nothing more startling than the "Minority" and the "Majority." As time went on, however, these words gradually took a new meaning. The fact that the "Menshiviki" advocated a more moderate programme and that the "Bolsheviki" grew more and more extreme in their political ideas had the effect of giving these terms the significance which now generally attaches to them. A "Menshivik" is now a moderate revolutionist, a "Bolshevik" is a "whole hogger," who is determined to obtain the earthly Paradise instantaneously.

The leader of the "Menshiviki" was George Plekhanof, a Russian nobleman, who had led revolutionary movements for 30 years, a scholar of great erudition and culture, a writer of many pamphlets, and a man who had devoted all his energies  to the emancipation of the working classes. The leader of the "Bolsheviki"—in 1903 as now—was Nicholas Lenine, also a man of noble birth, a forceful writer, and an eloquent speaker, and a man who, whatever the world may think of him now, had shown his devotion to the cause by suffering terribly for it, in Russian prisons and in Siberia. Plekhanof, though regarded in Russia as the greatest exponent of the Marxian doctrine, has always advocated a rational and even opportunist policy. He taught that all Socialists should take part in public affairs, and participate at elections, throwing their influence on the side of the forces that stood for liberalism. He regarded the Czarist regime as the one great evil thing that must be destroyed first of all, and he, therefore, supported any influences that would help to strike it down. Lenine, on the other hand, refused to compromise and adopt a middle policy; in his eyes the capitalist class, the "bourgeoisie," was just as evil as the Czardom, and he had no use for a revolution that threw out one and supplanted it with the other. The constructive policy of the "Menshivik" and the annihilating policy of the ''Bolshevik"' were well brought out by the revolution of 1905. The failures and dishonesty of the Russian aristocracy in the Japanese war produced a state of public opinion that might easily have forced the abdication of the Czar at that time. Had all the revolutionary forces joined hands, Russia would have attained a liberal government—perhaps a constitutional monarchy, possibly a democratic republic. Plekhanof and the "Menshiviki" advocated such co-operation, and the establishment of a constitutional system as one step toward the realisation of the socialistic state. But Lenine and the "Bolsheviki" destroyed the revolution of 1905. just as they afterward, destroyed that of 1917. They ridiculed the movement as ''bourgeois,'' and refused to take part in the elections to the Duma. Thus the Russian autocracy triumphed, in 1905, simply because its enemies were divided, and the one man who did most to wreck the democratic movement at that time was none other than the same marplot—Nicholas Lenine—who, after the Constitutionalists triumphed in 1917, stole back to Russia by way of Germany, collected his Bolsheviki in Petrograd and Moscow, and once more proceeded to destroy the popular movement.

In their attitudes toward the war Plekhanof and Lenine showed these same qualities. From the beginning Plekhanof supported the Allied cause, because he saw that the real issue was democracy versus autocracy, and because he believed that the destruction of the Central Empires was an essential preliminary to establishing the socialistic regime. Lenine and the Bolsheviki, however, from the first denounced it as a "bourgeois war," merely a struggle between the capitalist class in the two sets of countries. Whoever won, he asserted, the proletariat were destined to lose and come out of the conflict greater slaves than ever before. The abrupt ending of the war, in his view, no matter what the terms of peace, would benefit the working classes in all countries. As soon as the Czardom was overthrown, therefore, Lenine and his followers began to agitate against the forces of the revolution, forces which, in their estimation, were "bourgeois," "capitalistic," and, therefore, just as evil, if not more evil, than the autocracy. After several months' constant agitation and plotting they attained success, not because the mass of the Russian people sympathised with their ideas, but because the Russia of 1917 presented an unusually fertile field for their activities. The Russian workmen and the peasants wanted three things, and they cared little how they got them—peace, bread, and land. The liberal government, under Milukoff, had not given them any one of these three things; the Social Revolutionists, under Kerensky, had also failed in bringing peace and prosperity, and thus the opportunity was ripe for a new political faction which had adopted for its war cry "peace, bread, and land." Lenine, Trotzky, and their crowd played ceaselessly upon these three strings. In early November, 1917, the military forces stationed at Moscow and Petrograd went Bolshevist, enraptured by this promise of peace, bread, and land, and that ensured the triumph of the Bolsheviks. There was bloody fighting for a few days, but when it was over Kerensky had fled, and the extreme wing of the Social Democratic party found itself seated on the throne.

Russia Votes Against the Bolsheviki.

Thus the laborite autocracy, like that of the Czar, rested upon militarism. It also, like that of the Czar, rested upon deception. The true inwardness of Bolshevism is understood only when its attitude toward the Constitutional Assembly is completely comprehended. A Constitutional Assembly had for decades represented the fondest hope of the Russian revolutionists. A demand for such a gathering, which should be elected by universal secret ballot, and which, when finally assembled, should draw up a constitution for the Russian Republic, had long been the cardinal point in the platform of all parties. The Bolshevists, like all the other parties and factions, had for years declared that only the Constitutional Assembly could save Russia. Their bitterest attacks on Kerensky had centred on his delay in calling such an assembly, and their first act, they said, would be to hold elections, based on "universal, secret, direct, and equal suffrage" for delegates to this convention. The Kerensky government had already set in motion the preliminaries of this convention when the Bolsheviki drove them from power, and the elections began soon after the Lenine and Trotzky had seized the government. As the returns came in, however, they definitely proved one thing—the Russian people were not Bolshevist. That "expression of the real will of the Russian people," which Lenine and Trotzky, had been vociferously demanding for several years was registering itself strongly against the usurpers. When the votes were counted, it appeared that two-thirds of the delegates were Social Revolutionists, and only one-third Bolsheviki or Social Revolutionists who usually acted with them. In other words, the nation, freely expressing itself at the polls, had repudiated its saviours. This assembly met, held a single day's session, and then was dispersed by Bolshevist bayonets. The Bolsheviki sup pressed the convention by violence, precisely as the Czar had suppressed the first Duma, and for precisely the same reason—they could not control it. As a matter of fact, they had no use for a Constitutional Convention, representative of all Russia. They had their own type of government, "the dictatorship of the proletariat," and this they now proceeded to foist upon the Russian people.

Republic Exclusively of Workers.

Having denied to the duly-elected representatives of the Russian people the right to frame their constitution, the Lenine and Trotzky oligarchy now proceeded to frame their own. The constitution of the "All-Russian Socialistic Federal Republic of Soviets"—such is the mouth-filling name of this new state—probably represents the quintessence of Bolshevist wisdom. The new republic makes no pretence of being a republic of all the Russian citizenry; it is professedly a class affair, and it deliberately excludes a large part of the former denizens of the Empire. The constitution specifically describes the Russian Republic as "a free, socialistic community of all the working people of Russia"—that is, only the working people are entitled to membership in this new state.  "All the authority," it says, "belongs to all the working inhabitants of the country"—thus all professional and educated classes, as well as all employers, are definitely excluded. The qualification for voters rubs in the same idea once more.  The electoral franchise is confined to these classes: "workmen and employes of all kinds, engaged in industry, trades agriculture, &c, peasants and Cossack peasants, who do not engage hired labor for the sake of profit, and soldiers of the Soviet army and navy." Thus even a peasant who hires a man to work for him cannot participate in this new government "the little bourgeoisie," which is the name applied to employing peasants of this type, has long been an object of detestation to men of the Lenine and Trotzky school. Besides specifying the people who can vote this constitution makes the thing doubly sure by giving a long list of persons who cannot vote, "even though they should be long to one of the classes already named." Any man who employs any worker is excluded. Those who live on "unearned income, men as interest from capital, interest from enterprises, income from property, and the like," and all "private traders, trade, and commercial agents" are forever deprived of the ballot. All "monks and clergy" are also kept outside the breastworks One is surprised to find that this constitution, like the autocratic regime, provides for universal compulsory military service, but here again only the "laboring classes" can become members of the Soviet army and navy. This army, consistently enough, is not organised for the defence of Russia; its only reason for existence is "to ensure authority, for the working classes and to remove every possibility for the re-establishment of the authority of exploiters"—that is, it is an army of the working class against the capitalists. And the same paragraph of the constitution that provides for "a Socialistic Red army of workmen and peasants" also provides for "the complete disarmament of the propertied classes."

"Compulsory Labor Service."

However, this policy of granting the franchise exclusively to workers has one saving grace, for the constitution introduces not only compulsory military service but compulsory "labor service." It is evidently the expectation that eventually the exploiting and "bourgeois" classes will disappear, and that every man, when this ideal state is realised, will earn his living by the sweat of his face. The clause excluding traders, merchants, and employers from the franchise is intended to apply to Russian society only in its present imperfect shape: when the Bolshevist organisation is complete there will be no such "parasites" as teachers, professors, editors, bankers, manufacturers, traders, and employers, only laborers, and thus everybody will vote because everybody will have this qualification. This does not mean, as one might at first think, that human society is to revert once more to the standards of the Garden of Eden, or to maintain the level of organisation that exists in an Eskimo village. Because there are to be no bankers, and no manufacturers, and no railroad presidents does not mean that there are to be no banks, no factories, and no railroads. All these activities are to exist, the Bolsheviki believe, and exist in a more flourishing state than ever before, only they are to be "nationalised" and "socialised." This Soviet Constitution, with one sweep of the pen, abolishes the "private holding of land," and declares that "all land is declared national property, and is given without compensation to the laboring people on the basis of equal use." Similarly "all forests, minerals, and waterways of a general state significance, as well as all live and immovable stock, model' farms, and agricultural institutions are declared national property." In order to "ensure the authority of the working people over the exploiters" all "mills, mines, railways, and other means of production and transportation are transferred to the possession of the Workmen's and Peasants' Republic." "As a first blow to international banking and financial capital" the constitution repudiates all foreign loans made by the Czar's Government, and in order "to liberate the working masses from the yoke of capital," all banks are transferred to the possession of the Workmen's and Peasants' Republic."

In the last year all kinds of picturesque stories have come out of Russia, describing the topsy-turvy state of society that prevails in her economic system. We have heard of workmen taking over the management of railways, banks, and manufacturing plants, of peasants chasing landlords out of their properties and taking possession themselves- of looting, arson, and even murder. These acts represent merely an attempt to reduce this Soviet Constitution to a working basis. The fact that the utmost -disorder had resulted, that the whole financial and industrial system has been reduced to chaos, does not disturb the Bolshevist statesmen. Their present work, they assert, is necessarily destructive. They are engaged in a social war—is not the essence of war destruction? Germany started out to destroy the democracy of other countries, in order to erect upon its ruins a "higher type" of civilisation.. Similarly Lenine and Trotzky are destroying the old social and industrial order, that" they may rear the Bolshevist state on its wreck, Just as the Germans, in pursuit of the larger good, destroyed cathedrals, levelled cities to the ground, made the whole of Northern France a mass of shell craters, and murdered non-combatant women and children, so Lenine and Trotsky burn the manor houses of the landlord class, appropriate their territories, destroy railroads, industrial plants, and sabotage the  whole financial system. The Prussian oligarchy and the Bolshevist follow almost identically the same method. Neither draws its authority from the people; the Kaiser asserted a divine right to subdue the world and the Bolshevik similarly claims a kind of mental illumination which convinces him that he is a chosen vessel, that he alone has the truth, that it is his business to convert the people to his doctrines even against the people's own desire—witness the way in which he suppressed, with shot and shell, the Constitutional Convention which the Russian people had freely elected. The general estimate figures that only 3 per cent. of the Russian people are Bolsheviki. The peasants, who make up 86 per cent. of the population, are deadly opposed to them. The Bolshevist attempt to deliver the land to the peasants failed lamentably, because this agrarian problem at present is almost insoluble, and that is sufficient reason why the practical peasant should turn against his deliverers.

Bolshevism a German Product.

What are the chances that this state organisation will spread to Germany, perhaps to other countries? Is Bolshevism something peculiarly Russian, or do its seeds exist in all countries? In origin, of course, it is Germanic. The "dictatorship of the proletariat," or the absolute control of political power by the working classes, is simply German Socialism. The hatred of the "bourgeoisie." which most regard now as peculiarly Russian, is also part of the Marxian theory.

Yet Bolshevism, as it is raging now in Russia, is really not socialism, or anything else remotely resembling reason. The Bolshevist constitution does present a certain conception of the state, grotesque as it may seem; yet that is not the system that prevails in Russia to-day. How sincere the leaders of the Bolshevist movement are is doubtful ; that they have taken German money is now an established fact ; if they lead at all, however, it is merely as generals of a huge army of saboteurs, most of them crazed with hunger, and filled with intense hatred for the classes that they hold responsible for all the miseries of the country. The two things that make Bolshevism are starvation and military defeat. Any country that has suffered these calamities is facing the danger of this form of social explosion. Germany is experiencing both at the present time; that is why the situation there is dangerous. Probably Germany could survive her terrible military reverses without relapsing into chaos; it is doubtful whether she could survive a long period of starvation. The German character is naturally brutal and cruel, it has a great fondness for scapegoats, and a hungry stomach will arouse the fiercest instincts of the mob. It is not likely that the much advertised "education" of the German masses will protect the nation. The German masses are educated in the sense that they can read and write, but they are not intelligent; if they had been, would they have submitted to the Hohenzollern Empire for nearly 50 years? Another dangerous element is the fact that the "proletariat" is a far larger body in Germany than in Russia.

Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931), Tuesday 15 April 1919, page 6