this war as there are countries. According to their claims the proletariat is arrayed around the globe against the forces of property. It happens that in Tashkent the Bolsheviks held as prisoner a representative of the "established order." It happens that in California the representatives of the established order have put in prison a Bolshevik. What seems to us preposterous, namely an exchange of such prisoners, seems to them simple and logical, and it is logical if we once grant the premises.

The Bolsheviks suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press with an iron hand. This is inconsistent with their protestations, when they were a minority in opposition, but an inconsistency quite common to all revolutions. There is, however, no inconsistency with their theory. Once granted the major premise, that an expression of belief in a system of private property, or an advocacy of private initiative in industry, constitutes a seditious utterance against the Bolshevik state, and the ruthless suppression of all utterances favoring the American type of democracy becomes an intelligible part of their whole fierce logic.

A clear recognition of these facts clarifies our ideas as to what position we may or should take towards Bolshevism. Plainly there can be no half-way position. The Bolsheviks themselves have adopted the slogan that he who is not with them is against them. Every conscientious man must face this challenge for himself and choose accordingly. One must be prepared either to throw in one's lot, at all sacrifice, with the red revolution, or to exert all one's efforts to oppose it. This will be a hard saying to many. There are those who have a morbid dread of finding themselves on the conservative side. They have always taken great pride in being in the vanguard of the "forward" movement. Their greatest fear is that they will be classed as reactionaries; this feeling is quite intelligible and in some cases arises from noble sentiments of sympathy. But the time has come when many of them must recognize that the so-called forward movement has been such a rapid movement that a position in the front guard means nothing less than allegiance to the cause of red revolution by force of arms. If they are not prepared to go this far, they must be reconciled to hear themselves classed as conservatives and reactionaries. No one should be afraid to have epithets hurled against him by the enemy.

It may be objected that such a position leaves no room at all for an enlightened liberalism between revolutionary radicalism and tory reactionism. This, however, is not the fact. To make the choice, once for all, to devote oneself to fighting the Bolshevik régime, and the spread of its doctrines, does not mean that one is driven into the camp of those who oppose any change in the existing order and block every agitation for reform. There is nothing in this choice to make the words agitation and agitator offensive. The question is only as to what the agitation is for.

There is, indeed, grave danger that the forces of the enemy will be increased by the stupid tactics of those who cannot see the difference between the main issue and the minor issues. The main issue is quite simple. A Bolshevik is a man who believes in the overthrow of the institution of private property by force of arms. The definition is so clear-cut that there is no occasion to misuse the word. Unfortunately, the really reactionary person cannot refrain from calling everyone a Bolshevik who is less reactionary than himself, whether he is a laborer striking for higher wages, a trade unionist demanding recognition of the union, or an editor denouncing mob violence against radical meetings. Such indiscriminate denunciation by the reactionaries obviously does an immense amount of harm to the very cause which the reactionary desires to champion. It is equally obvious that it is perfectly useless to tell him so. All agitation for change will continue to be denounced, but such agitation will always exist. The duty of every fairminded man is to refuse to have his mind clouded either by the unintelligent opponent of Bolshevism, who includes under that name everything radical, or by the equally unintelligent, but more soft-hearted, sympathizer who tries to make the Bolshevik out as something quite different from what he is or from what he claims to be.

One thing is clear. The Bolsheviks by their own avowal have outlawed themselves. They despise democracy as we understand the term. They demand no amelioration of conditions. They do not ask for justice. They avow their contempt for "due processes of law." Very well, then, the gauntlet being thrown down, we cannot refuse to see it.

The first result is that any appeal in behalf of recognizing their "rights" loses all meaning. The word "right" has a legal significance, and they assert themselves outside and above ex

isting law. The question is not one of “rights” or of “justice," which have no meaning apart from definite conceptions of law and the social order which the Bolsheviks discard. It becomes merely a question of policy-a difficult question, which cannot be discussed here.

The main thing now is to recognize

that the Bolsheviks of Russia have no “rights" in the matter of maintaining their form of government. The argument that we must recognize the right of the Russians to settle their own form of government does not hold in this case at all. It is not only because the present government is government by terrorism, and the very phrase "the rights of terrorism" is selfcontradictory nonsense. The fundamental fact is that by its very essence Bolshevism is a world movement. It is an attack on all governments. The Bolsheviks did not merely rebel against the governments of Nicholas or Kerensky. They declared war against the basic legal institutions of all civilized states. They aim to overthrow these institutions everywhere. They do this in some cases by subsidies; in some cases by the spread of their agents; in some cases by resort to arms. The question then as to whether, or in what measure, intervention by arms is desirable or wise is merely a question of sound tactical judgment. It is not a question of anybody's "rights."

It does not follow that because the Bolsheviks have resorted to force, that force is the best weapon to employ against them. But it also does not follow that it is not the best weapon. It is frequently said that one cannot fight ideas with bayonetsor as Talleyrand said "one can do everything with bayonets except sit on them permanently." This is a profound truth, no doubt. But when ideas and bayonets join forces it may be that they must be opposed by other bayonets as well as other ideas. How best to fight destructive ideas is a problem that cannot be solved by any one formula. The situation has to be faced and solved differently, in different places, and at different times. It requires the wisest statesmanship. Unfortunately, up to now the statesmanship of the world has been absorbed in international questions of another character. A pathetic lack of statesmanship has been shown regarding the Russian and Bolshevik problem. The policy actually pursued appears to have been the worst possible, judging from results. Whether there has been too much intervention, or too little, can be vigorously disputed by men of equal judgment, who are agreed on the object to be achieved. There is also to be

considered the effect of a policy of force not only on the territory when it is applied, but on the countries applying it.

The same problem of policy arises regarding the attitude towards avowed Bolsheviks at home. This also will be hotly debated. Shall it be a policy of suppression or of pitiless publicity? Shall we punish with rigor, or attempt to convince by education? All these questions are questions of policy only. There always remains the danger, however, that in these disputes we shall forget what the new war is about; what the issues are, and who is on our side and who against us. To call one another names, to denounce one another's motives, is to weaken ourselves in the face of a common enemy. We become angry with one another when we should co-operate to the utmost. The trade unions of the country may prove the best fighting troops. They can do more to stem the tide of Bolshevism than any number of Defense Societies.

There is the utmost need that all different groups fighting for the same cause should show due consideration for differences in judgment, and should pay due tribute to loyalty of motive in all cases. At the same time we should clarify our minds as to where the real issue lies, and we should know at what point sympathy must cease. Let every thoughtful man of liberal views search his heart as to whether or not he is giving sympathy to the self-declared forces of destruction. On this point there must be no wavering or doubt. He who is not against Bolshevism is with Bolshevism. The time has come for each to answer the question, "Under which king, Bezonian? speak or die."

RUSSIA'S STRUGGLING FORCES1

During the first days of the Russian revolution you found all classes of Russian society among the persons celebrating liberty. The great landlord, Jutschkoff, and the reactionary, Pruiskevisch, compelled the Tsar to sign his abdication, and brought this document, with the zeal of real revolutionists, to the people. The great landlords, the military men, the whole civil service, were on hand during these first days. They all swore loyalty to the revolution, and proffered their services

1 By K. J. Ledoc. From an article in the Living Age. 302:261-6. August 2, 1919. (Mr. Ledoc discusses Bolshevism from a Socialist's point of view.)

to the nation. Many dreamers thought that Russia would present an example of a new world order, that the aristocratic bourgeoisie would work hand in hand with the proletariat for the common welfare of mankind. But matters took a different turn. When a mighty storm raises a river so that it overflows its banks and rushes headlong toward the sea, it carries with it in its violent course, stones, sand, and other objects, which would never move from their places of their own momentum. Stones cannot swim. The moment the storm has stopped and the flood subsides these things sink to the bottom and become an obstacle in the channel of the river. The river cannot flow unobstructed until they have been removed, and they will never swim again.

We see the same thing in Russia in the case of the army classes, the landlords, the bureaucracy, and their dependents. The storm of the revolution swept them off their feet, and they greeted the red flag with rejoicing. But they never conceived that a revolution meant a new social order. In their ignorance they thought that those days in March, 1917, had merely changed the color of the coat of paint upon the edifice of government and that its inner structure would be unaffected. But the proletariat in factory and workshop and in field and farm, which had labored and sacrificed and bled a quarter of a century for the revolution, saw nothing in the overthrow of the Romanoff dynasty unless something more was accomplished, and urged on by the momentum of the moment, it continued its revolutionary efforts. That was too much for the landlords, the bureaucrats, and the army officers. They saw that the proletariat really wanted to socialize the country, and they comprehended that militarism and democracy cannot be reconciled in a democratic nation. Therefore, they cast the god of Liberty into the fire and returned to their overthrown gods of absolutism.

The revolt of Korniloff in September, 1917, started the thing. The landlords, the army officers, and all other hangerson were the active element in the counter-revolution. Their battle-cry was: 'Restoration of the monarchy and a complete abolition of all the liberties attained by the revolution.' In the same way that they fought to restore the Tsar they also fought for the return of the land to its former owners. They did not recognize the right of the Russian people to selfadministration. They would have nothing to do with freedom