DEMOCRACY AND REVOLUTION - by Bertrand Russell
(Professor Bertrand Russell of Cambridge Univer
sity (England) UT one of the two or three most ce
lebrated philosophers in the world to-day. He is a
Fellow of Trinity College. Cambridge, where ho
teaches mathematics and mathematical logic. His out
spoken opposition to the war caused his removal from
his position, md his imprisonment for six months
i.nder the Defense of the Kealm Act. But the univer
sity bas recently been compelled, by an organized
demand 'from soldier students returning from the
,var, to reinstate him and expunge from the-Univer-itj
Tecord the minutes of his dismissal.
To many who .lave thought of Bertrand Russell.
aide form 'his scientific achievements, as merely a
Hberal pacifist by temperament, this article will come
a surprise. His conclusions in regard tp the tactics
which communist-, must pursue in order to be vigor
ous mus; commard their approval, tho we cannot
vrce that en in England the revolution will lie
rcomplished without the accompanying historic strife,
bourgeois "liberalism" is here shown to be an utterly
futile wcapor for workingclass emancipation. Thruout
this splendid article Professor Russe." vigorously jp
1 olds the Communist position.
Before discussing my nominal subject, T propose
to make a brief survey of the world from the point
of view of the possibilities of freedom. The ultimate
possibilities of freedom are greater than ever before,
but the dangers also are great, and the immediate
future, is very difficult.
The war has afforded a test as to what w.w
strong and what WM weak in Lhc nominal belief of
men. Much thai was traditional would probably have
Mood a good deal longer, but for the harsh realities
which the war forced upon people's notice. Much also
was swept away that belonged to what may be called
.rbanity, much that depended upon not. getting down
to bed-rock, or stirring up the primitive passions. Thj
world since the war is more stark, less easy-going,
more bruti.l. The division of old and young is greater
than in normal times, for the old suceeded in ideali.v
ng the war, and in order to do so were compelled to
depart even further than usual from reality, whereas
tho young have had reality ground into them as
never before. The result of this is that politics is no
longer co amiable as formerly, and that although
leading politician! may indulge in tho old humbug, it
as lost its grip, and the motives for which men
Atte are very realistic.
Not only the Liberal Party, but Liberal ideals
also,' have suffered eclipse as the result of the war.
Their failure was made manifest by President Wil
son's collapse. Liberal ideals, in so far as they svero
genuine, depended upon a certain degree of for
bearance as between man and man, a certain unwilling
ness to push things to extremes. Religions toleration,
democracy, fice speeeb, free press and free trade,
were all of them ideals implying that the differences
between different groups were not irreconciablc. I am
one of those who, as a result of the war, have passed
ever from Liberalism to Socialism, not because I
uave ceased to admire many of the Liberal ideate,
tut because T see little scope for them, except after
a complete transformation of the economic structure;
of society.
The war has resulted in a confrontation of phi
locracy and lr.bor, capitalism and socialism. Socialism
has appeared at last as a force roughly equal in
strength to capitalism. In Russia, it is in power, and
elsewhere there is a possibility of its acquiring power.
What have the-6e two opposing creeds to offerf
Capitalism, so long as it fought against feudalism,
was associated with certain Liberal ideas: freedom,
democracy and peace. Jt wns associated also with
increased production. The lingering remnants of
feudalism have been swept away by tho war: the
three Emperors who dominated Eastern Europe are
gone. Tn the remaining monarchies, in Milton's words,
"tho kings sit still with aweful eye." Hut every step
in the victory of capitalism over tho past has mado
it more hostile to the future, and less liberal. In
America, T am told, there is now a prison at the
fcot of the Statue of Liberty.
The greater part of the civilized world remains
subject to a reign of terror. The Bolshevik reign of
terror has- of fourse beei used to make our flesh
creep, but it differs from - the others solely in its
purpose. I do not allude merely to tho White Terror
in places like Hungary, where the Bolshevik regime
has bwn crushed; similar methods in a less drastic
form have become all but universal. In France, by
tho acquittal of tho murderer of .Inures, the courts
have given it to be understood that the assasination
of a Socialist is not illegal. In America any one pro
fessing Socialist opinions is liable to imprisonment
or deportation, and Socialists duly elected are not
permitted to sit in the New York Legislature. In
Ireland any person who believes in the rights of
small nations, in self-determination, or in nny other
of the objects for which the war was fought, is
liable to imprisonment, without trial. Of India it
is not necessary to speak, since the facts have be
come too notorious. Throughout the world we arc
fneed by a clash of naked force. Socialism, in alliance
with oppressed Nationalism, is opposed ruthlessly by
Capitalism, strengthened by victorious Nationalism.
Under these circumstances, freedom throughout
tho capitalist world is not to bo thought of. Hut how
about democracy f nomocracy was supposed to be one
of the inspiring ideas for which wo fought in the
war. We are n.iw told by the Bolsheviks that dem-
From the
oeraey. as we have hitherto understood it, is a
bourgeois trick. We are told, on tho other hand, "by
the capitalists, that it is anti-democratic to attempt
by means of direct action to prevent a reactionary
Parliament from flouting the will of the majority.
Let us try to understand what democracy in a capital
ist community consists of. We have to begin with the
Judiciary and the Civil Service, both allies of tho
Plutocracy. We have the fact that Members of Par
liament, and still more, Ministers, through their so
cial status and income, are brought into natural con
nection with the possessing classes. We have the fact
that capitalistic influences are more concentrated,
ewift and secret than labor influences, and the fact
that the psychology of power tends to make its pos
sessors more sympathetic with the diroctors oi tha
capitalist industrial machine than with t.iose who,
for the time being, .obstruct its smooth working. The
constitutional power of the democracy is limited to
the expression of a choice about once in five years,
a choice often between candidates none of whom are
really expressive of the political opinions of the con
stituency, for, owing to the expense of elections, only
great and rich organizations, or very wealthy indivi
duals can fight with any hope of succoss. In the whole
process of forming opinion before the exercise of the
vote, capitalism has enormous preponderance. Begin
ning in the schools, where the education is designed
to produce acquiescence in the status quo, and con
tinuing in the press, which, with very rare exceptions,
is a capitalist venture ran in the interests of capital
ism, tho mind of the child is warped, and the mind
of the adult is iilled with falsehoods, so that only
perrons of exceptional energy and independence of
thought can hope to arrive at anything approaching
a true view of the issues to be decided at an election.
Tho early Benthamite advocates of democracy imag
ined that it was easy for a man to ascertain his in
terest, and th-'.t he would certainly vote in accordance
with it. Thus the result of democracy would be a just
representation of all interests in proportion to their
numerical strength. Admirable theory! But if they
had studied, for c.ainple. the Jezuits and their in
ilnence, they might have seen its falsehood. The
average man's opinions arc made for him like tho .
house he lives in. lie can choose among a few varieties,
but the varieties aro rigidly limited by fore A quite out
side his control. They are limitations, it is true, to what
(tn bo done in the way of manufacturing opinion. If
the opinions inculcated lead to the death in un
successful war of u large proportion of the men,
tnd to the siarvafion 'of the women and children, it
may happen, after a certain number of years, tha
lie usual mctiiods of generating opinion will fail. In
that case, revolution results. But the hardships re
quired before this climax is reached are appaling.
What is called the rule of the majority in a bourgeois
riemocrary is, therefore, in reality, tho rule of those
vho control the methods of manufacturing opinion,
especially in the schools and the press. It is absurd
to give a sort of fetish worship to such a system,
or to condenn all uses of the weapon of direct action
because of the supposed sacrosanct authority of a
Government elected years ago on quite other issues.
Tho Bolsheviks are right in maintaining that bourg
eois democracy is a trick by which tho victims aro
induced to pror.our.ce their own condemnation in or- '
der to minimize the force required for carrying it out
At the outbreak cf the late war,-capitalism pre
tended that feudalism, as represented by the Kaiser,
nas what had caused' the disaster. Feudalism is
gone, but capitalism has shown itself incapable of
making any real peace. Quite apart from the hostility
to communist Russia, the trade rivalries inherent in
capitalism have necessitated n harsh treatment of
Germany and Austria, which makes any stable peace
impossible. Every thoughtful person n.ust realise that
the continuance of the capitalist system is inctm
pitible with the continuance of civilization. It is as
clear as noonday that, if this system survives, the
late war must be succeeded by other wars, which will
he even more destructive in proportion as they are
more scientific. A few more of such conflicts must
put an end to everything that has mnde the European
inces of importance to the world.
finally, capitalism has begun to fail ns a technic
r.l method of production. The well-founded and un
iversal belief in the importance of production no
longer, as in tho past, strengthens the hold of the
capitalist system. The old incentives to work have
broken down, for the bees have begun to think that
it is not worth while to make honey for their owners.
At the present moment, as a result of the war the
world needs ipoedv production in a quite unprecedent
ed degree, but if speedy production is to be possible
new incentives must be found, and can only be found
through solf-government in industry. It is this tha.
has given, tn Great Britain, such extraordinary and
sudden strength to the guild idea. We have nil been
watchirg the experiment of the building trade in
Manchester, where, after the wholu capitalist machin
ery had failed hopelessly to deal with the housing
problem, it is being found that guild methods afford
a complete solution, equally perfect from the point of
view of the producer and of tho consumer. Largely
because of this technicnl breakdown of capitalism
the advent of socialistic methods of production is now
immeasurably easier than at nny previous time. What-
Liberator
ever the workers choose to demand in the way of
eeonomic justice, they can secure. Nothing stands
in. their way except the moderation of their owu
demands.
Thus capitalism has lost all the merits by which,
in the pan. it sought to commend itself to the aver
age man. Through trusts and an Intimate union with
t.ie State, capitalism has succeeded in destroying al:
most all vestiges of freedom. Through control of edu
cation and the press, it has made democracy a farce.
Through national rivalries, it has made peace impos
sible except by tts overthrow. And by arousing the
discontent of the workers it has become inefficient
as a method of production. The first three of these
failures are reasons for desiring its overthrow. The
fourth, fortunately, is also a reason for expecting ft.
Capitalism has failed to secure freedon., genuine
democracy, stable peace, or the increased production
that the world needs, and there is no reason to think
Hi e t its failure in these respects is in any way tern
porary. On the contrary, it is likely to grow more and
more marked through the discontent which it arouses.
What has Socialism to offer in these respects!
The most important of all tho new facts that
have emerged from the war is the existence of a
Great Power which has adopted socialism in practice.
Socialism, hitherto, has been a mere theory, something
which practical men could despise as impossible and
visionary. The Bolsheviks, whatever we may think of
their merits and demerits, have at any rale prove!
that socialism is compatible with a vigorous and suc
cessful State. Faced by the united hostility of Europo
and by civil war within their own borders, coming
into power at a time of unexampled chaos and star
ntion, deprived by the blockade of all outside help,
they have, nevertheless, beaten back their enemies,
reconquered the greater part of the old Russian Em
pire, survived the worst period of the famine without
being overthrown by internal revolution, and set to
work to regenerate production with amazing vigor.
There has been nothing, comparable since the France
of tho Revolution, and for my part I cannot but
think that what tho Bolsheviks are doing is of even
greater importance for the future of tho world than
what was accomplished in France by the Jacobins,
because their operations are on a wider scale, and
their theory is more fundamentally novel. I believe
taut Soci::l:sls throughout tho wcrld should support
'o Bolsheviks and co-operate with them. And I
think that Guildsmen, in particular, ought to pay
great attention to Bolshevik methods of organization,
not only because of their power and prestige, but
because cf their partial adoption of an industrial
instead of a geographical basis for tho Soviets. But
i do not mesn to suggest that we, in this country,
where conditions are exceedingly different from troso
in Russia, should blindly follow in the footssteps of
the Bolsheviks. With other Guildsmen, I reeognizo
the importance of organization by trades, but at the
same time believe that the territorial Parliament
still hns useful functions to perform, and therefore
1 am not persuaded that, for us, the complete sup
pression of Parliament as opposed to Soviet forms
is desirable. And I am strongly of opinion that what
ever in the way of socialism is feasible in this coun
try can be accomplished without armed revolution,
olavish imitation of the Bolsheviks is not what I
wish to advocate. I am inclined to think that their
methods were probably the only ones by which success
could have been achieved in Russia, but it by no
means follows that they are the only or the best
mothodj for us. Our circumstances, however, are pe
culiar, and through out the Continent there is far
more similarity to Russian conditions, and far more
likelihood of similar methods be.ng needed, if social
ism is to acquire power. And in view of the success
of Bolshevism in beating back its enemies, the spread
of soci-.ilism throughout the Continent has become a
by no means remote possibility.
Bolshevism has temporarily flouted two ideals,
which most, of us have hitherto strongly believed in;
J mean, democracy and liberty. Are we on this ac
count to view it askance f 1 think not.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is professedly
;i transitional condition, a war-time measure, just
ified w'lilo the remnants of the old bourgeois cliH
scf were still struggling to promote counter-revolution.
Lvnin, following Marx, regards the State as in es
sence the domination of one class in the community.
As soon as communism has abolished the distinction
of clashes, the Slate is to wither away. When thore
is no '.onger any class excl the proletariat, the
'dictatorship of the proletariat will ipso facto cease,
and the State, f in the sense in which Lenin uses the
world, will disappear. Arc we to object to this pro
, cess on tho ground that it may involve for a time
the seizure of power by a minority! And arc wo to
object on the same ground to direct action for po
litical ends, in our own country! Lenin's defence of
bis action is broadly that the opposition to com
munisra is essentially tcmpcrary, and thn, when once
communism has bocn established, it will command
universal support. An argument of tlis sort can
only be judged by the outcome. Tf the outcome
chows, as it seems to have dono in Russia, that tho
opposition was largely ignornnt, and that experienca
of the new regime lends people to support it, it may
be said the forcible transition has been justified. The
arguments in favor of democracy and liberty, it may
be said, are arguments applicable to normal times,
not to cataclysms and world revolutions. In these
terrific epochs, a man must be prepared to back his
own faith; whether ho is right or wrong in doing so,
enly the issue can show. I think there is something
a trifle podartic in applying to the circumstances of
Russia the sort of arguments and principles which aro
valid for ourselves in ordinary periods. Russia could
only be saved by a strong will, and it is doubtful
whether a strong will could have saved it without
dictatorship in some form. I do not thinJ, however,
that these considerations would apply to ourselves
even if we were much nearer than we are to the
establishment of complete socialism. England, ever
since 1688, l.as l.ad a love of moderation. Methods
such as those of the Bolsheviks would alienate or
dinary people. Nor is the, opposition of the reaction
aries sufficiently ruthless to justify such methods.
The moderation of our Labor Party is often ox
asperating, but at any rate it is matched by th
moderation of their opponents. This was clearly il
lustrated at the time of the railway strike. Marx,
the great exponent of the doctrine of class war,
Eserted that, in England, Socialism 'might come by
peaceful means. Let us hope that in this, as in so
:nnch else, he was a true prophet. But on tho Con
tinent, as tho example of Russia has shown us, such
a hope is probably chimerical. I believe, though of
course to prophosey is so uncertain as to be littld
" more than a pastime, that in view of tho suecosses
of Russian communism in resisting the united t host
ility of the capitalist Great Powers, tho victory of
Socialism in Germany, France and Iitaly, within tho
next ten yenrs or so, is quite within the bounds of
possibility. There is much reason to fear, however,
that it will not be effeetedin these countries with
out the same accompaniments of war and terroris,n
that we have seen in Russia, though perhaps in a
much fain'er form. I do not believe Jhat, if it were
victorious in such a contest, it would confine its
-'ictory to tlose nations in which a majority was in
favor of Socialism, particularly if its help wcro in
vited by Socialist insurrections. Poland, for example,
would very likely fall again under Russian domina
tim as in the days of Czardom. Nationalism and
eligion would keep the Poles, for a time, he.siilo
to Socialism, whether it were international, or teo",t
the form of a revived Russian Imperialism. It would
bo necessary to suprcss by force the Polish desires for
inlepen lenee and for the persecution of tho Jews, and
doubtless it would be sought by means of a rigid
control of education to indoctrinate the rising gem r
ation with a more Marxian outlook. Similar troubles
would ?riso throughout the Balkans. The regime of
International Socialism for at least a generation
would have to be, in many regions, a regime of
trmed force, bucked by rigid control of the press and
t'ic schools. There is no reason to supposo that, when
tne time- came, the Bolsheviks would shrink from
siich a course, however littlo imperialism there may
be in their present purposes. Their outlook on tho
world, like that of the early Mohammedans, is at
once realistic and fanatical. Believing, as they do
in the Marxian formula of inevitable economic de
velopment, they feel their ultimate victory fatalist
ically assured. What they regard as of most import
ance is, that tho guns should bo in the hands of the
clsss-conscious proletariat. This onco secured, they
.'eel convinced that propaganda can bring to their
tide the p-.rt of the proletariat which is still mis'ed
by "bmrgenis catch-words " such as Religion and
Patriotism. It is highly pr.'.bable that they are just
ified in 'this view, and that if they could govern Eu
rope for a generation, opposition to them at the end
of that time would not come from the dying forces
of tho past, but from whatever new movements might
arise, for embodying such Socialist ideals as the Bol
sheviks might in the meantime have forgotten.
If we suppose that some such edvelopment is
likely on the assumption that Bolshevik successes
continue, ought we to seek to promote those succes
ses, or to shrink from promoting them because of the
bloodshed and teror that they might involve, and
the loss to civilization, at least temporarily, that the
conflict would ontall?
For ray part, I feel convinced that any vital
progress in the world depends upon the victory of In
ternational Socialism, and that it is worth while, if It
is necessary, to pay a great price for that victory.
I feel convinced also that there will bo no peace in
the world until International Socialism has conquered,
arid that to strengthen its forces, and to weaken
those of the opposition, is the quickest way to end
the conflict. I believe, in a world, that "each recruit
means quicker peace." When I speak of Socialism, I
do not mean a milk-and-water system, but a through
going, root and Branch transformation, such as Lenin
has attempted. And if its victory is essential to peace,
we must ecquiosce in the evils involved in conflict,
in so fa os conflict is forced upon us by capitalism.
) I do not know whether this is truo liberally
or only symbolically. (It is true litorally: ED.)
) A reference to the members of tho National
Guilds League of Great Britain. Ed.
The Communist Party Splits.
Tho left wing of he Sonnlist movement In this country, from Us in
ception, contained an element that claimed to be exclusive 100 per cent pure
tsamuuists, and that tho communist movement, to be protected from adult
oration, must lither remain under the unrestricted "control of tlyso 100 per
csntcrs rr must confine its personnel to these apostles.
The activities of that gTonp led to the split in the left wing movement,
which eventually led up to the formation of the two pnrties, the Communist
and the Communist Lnbor Parlies. The former would never have seen the
light of day hnd it not been for thn fact that the majority of tho left winj
couneil was dur.ried with the glittering arguments of the 100 per centers lid
did not herd the wnrning given i.gainst the rule or ruin tactics of that
element. These "Communists" hnd built up a machine for control within
the Hussion und ether langunge federations nnd insisted upon the continuation
of tho 3'itonomous federations because only through them could they hope to
completely dominate and control the Communist movement. So the question
of autonomous MMttlOM bNMM the bone of contention, though tho real
question wss: control or no control through those self-appointed apostle.
Those that were concerned more with the building up of a communist move
ment than with tho question of control, continued their lnbsr in spito of
all accusations of "menshoviki" or "centrists" hurled against them, In
spito of the further accusations that thoso who hnd organized tho Communist
Labor Party xiiad split tho American movement. ,
History has vindicated tho CommnniBt Labor Party. Those of the left
wing council that descried the loft wing to join tho 100 per centers found
to their sorrow, that they had muds u mistake. They found that under tho
cloak of tho argument, that strict continuation of power in the communist
movement was necessary, theie was hidden awny aonWpt for the workers,
for tho rank and file, who were suppoood to play the part of stago decorat
ions in the drama to bo enacted by tho coming revolution. They saw their
mistako and wire compelled to take the only means to rectify it; to split
awny from tho 100 per centers whom they now discovered to be moro impur.
than true, nnd to split the Co nmuniat Prt) .
Uccontly, during a four day's conference of the (eutrnl Executive Com
mitte'e of tho Communist Party, to which were invited the district orgnmcr
nnd the representatives of the federations, the split became nn established
fact. Tho voting power in the conlercnce WU confined to tho members of
tho C. S. C. The vote stood 5 to 4. The minority of 4 broke'awny, tOgtthtl
with all district organi.ors except oe, and with the reproentntivcs of the
Gorman, Ukrainian, South Slavic, Estonian and Polish Federations. Both
sides immediately sent out their on.iiiisnries to explain tho split to the
membership nnd it now remnino to be seen what stand the rank and file
will take.
It is to be hoped that this split will bring about a clean division be
tween those that aro concerned mainly with the formution of n strong com-,
nuinist movement, nnd those ttiut are. concerned with the questions of con
trol and carreers. A unity bctwoer. the former and the C. L. 1'. ought to bo
effected within n very short time nnd with the help of the united efforts
of all true communists, wo should now succeed in making Hie American
branch of tho Third International a worthy part of that great movement.
1
THE BRASS CHECK
X slory of the control of Americnn joiunmUsm
and the newspapers by tho capitalist class.
By Upton Sinclair.
50c postpaid
Address The Toiler.
4
l . - i