ern Europe). Such
were the causes which had established a favorable scope for Bolshevik
propaganda; to introduce their domination they knew how to make use of the
shortcomings of the people and the defects of Russian life.
In fine, what is Bolshevism in its essence? _It is an experiment, that is
either criminal or that proceeds from a terrible thoughtlessness, tried,
without their consent, on the living body of the Russian people_. Thus some
attempt to apply their theories, others wish to measure the height of their
personal influence, while still others (and they are found in every
movement) seek to profit by the circumstances.
Bolshevism is a phenomenon brought about by force; it is not a natural
consequence of the progress of the Russian Revolution. Taken all in all,
Bolshevism is not Socialism. The Bolshevist _coup d'etat_ was accomplished
contrary to the wish of the majority of the people, who were preparing for
the Constituent Assembly.
_It was accomplished with the help of armed force, and it is because of
this that the Bolshevist regime holds out._
_It has against it the whole conscious portion of the peasant and working
population and all the Intellectuals._
_It has crushed and trampled under foot the liberty that was won by the
Russian people._
The Bolsheviki pretend to act in the name of the people. Why, then, have
they dissolved the Constituent Assembly elected by the people?
They pretend to have the majority of the people with them. Why, then, this
governmental terror that is being used in a manner more cruel even than in
the time of Czarism?
They say that, to fight against the bourgeoisie, the use of violence is
necessary. But their principal thrusts are directed not against the
bourgeoisie, but against the Socialist parties that do not agree with them.
And they dare give this caricature the name of Dictatorship of the
Proletariat!
Socialism must necessarily be founded on democratic principles. If not, "it
cuts off the branch of the tree on which it rests," according to the
expression of Kautsky.
Socialism needs constructive elements. It does not limit itself to the
destruction of ancient forms of existence; it creates new ones. But
Bolshevism has only destructive elements. It does nothing but destroy,
always destroy, with a blind hatred, a savage fanaticism.
What has it established? Its "decrees" are only verbal solutions without
sense, skeletons of ideas, or simply a revolutionary
|