WHAT NEXT?
Man must hope. He must believe that his fight is a winning fight or
he must give up in despair. That is why the Americans place credence
in every despatch from Russia which seems to indicate that the
disorganized fighting forces are being whipped into form again. That
is why any hint that Kerensky had not succeeded in restoring order in
the empire was for some time received with incredulity by the reading
public. But why refuse to face the facts? We must face them some time.
In late September I read in one of the newspapers a headline which
stated that the so-called democratic congress then in session in
Petrograd had voted to sustain Kerensky’s demand for a coalition
ministry. The headlines were wrong. What the dispatch really stated
was that the congress had voted not to form any coalition with the
bourgeois element, or with members of the Constitutional Democratic
party. That is, the congress would not support a ministry that had any
non-socialist members in it. “All the power to the Soviets” was retired
as too conservative a slogan. It was “all the power to the Bolsheviki”
then, for that is precisely what the vote in that so-called Democratic
Congress meant.
Since June, 1917, no fewer than six congresses or conventions have
been held in Russia with the object of finding a way out of the chaos
with which the country is threatened. Every one of them was hailed
beforehand as the one which was going to be a revelation of the
intentions and desires of the people. The most important of these was
the all-Russia congress of Soviets held last July, and before that
the preliminary convention to prepare for the constituent assembly.
The one was to decide once and for all whether or not the moderate or
the extreme element in the Soviets was to rule, and the other was to
quiet both elements by showing that the government intended to prepare
a liberal and a democratic constitution for them to debate, amend and
adopt when the time came. Lastly, there was the great Moscow congress
of last August. I don’t remember what the stated object of that
congress was, but it does not matter much. The real object was to find
out which was the stronger man, Kerensky or Korniloff. Kerensky won
by a narrow margin, a very narrow margin. And then they held another
convention, and Kerensky lost.
What will happen next in that distracted country? Into what new morass
are the people being led? Frankly, I do not know. I do not know anybody
who does. The only analogous situation in modern history is that of the
Poland of the eighteenth century. Poland had a government quite as bad
as that of the Russian Soviets, or Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’
Delegates. Instead of being an all-socialist affair Poland’s parliament
was made up entirely of noblemen. These men were so proud, so “free”
in the New Russia sense of the word that they wouldn’t yield on any
question even to a majority vote. A single dissenting voice in their
parliament was enough to kill any measure. The people of Poland had no
more to say about government than the middle class and the rich have
in the Russia of to-day. And when a European war on a limited scale
broke out, and Frederick the Great started the era of frightfulness
which William the last thought he could bring to a triumphant
conclusion, the three great eastern powers of Europe--Russia, Prussia
and Austria--sliced up Poland and handed each of the three monarchs
a piece. Maria Theresa, who ruled the Austria of that day, wanted it
printed in the records that she wept when she took her piece, but she
took it just the same, and Poland has wept ever since.
This could happen to Russia. She could be dismembered and handed
around. But this is not likely to happen. The Allies would never be
so foolish or so cruel as to permit it to happen. Russia could fall
apart and become an aggregation of small separate states, but each one
of those would still have its Soviets, and consequently a government
without stability or permanence. Finland and the Ukraine are two
Russian states which are trying to bring about this end, and they may
succeed, but a dissected Russia would furnish such good material for
future wars that the Allies can hardly afford to consent to it.
Civil war is a fine possibility in Russia just now, except that there
seems to be no one at hand to organize the two forces. The strongest
probability is more guerilla warfare, more street fighting, more
motor trucks loaded with machine guns rushing up and down Petrograd,
more battle, murder and sudden death, and then the reaction. Just
what form the reaction will take nobody knows. But the mad Bolsheviki
know that it is coming, and though they almost court it they also
fear it. They call this inevitable reaction the counter revolution,
and they excuse all their vagaries, their obstinacy, their pig-headed
resistance to a coalition with non-socialists on the ground that
they are fighting the counter revolution. I have heard Americans in
Russia, college professors, business men, correspondents, even members
of American commissions, say: “Don’t blame these people too much for
their radicalism. They are afraid they will lose all they gained by the
revolution. They fear the return of autocracy.”
I can say with all confidence that whatever may happen in Russia, there
is not even the remotest chance of any counter revolution, in the sense
meant by the extremists, nor is there the slightest risk of a return of
autocracy. The autocracy collapsed like a house of cards, and the real
surprise there was in it for the Duma members who deposed Nicholas was
that the thing was so easy. I can imagine Miliukov, Rodzianko and the
others getting together afterward and saying: “Why on earth didn’t we
do this in August, 1914?”
Nobody wants the Czar back unless it is the Romanoff family, and
doubtless each one of the grand dukes believes that if any one came
back it ought to be himself. The only possibility of a return of
monarchy in Russia would result from desperation on the part of the
men who will finally restore order there. The situation may be so bad,
when the time comes to do that, that they may decide on a limited
constitutional monarchy as the best form of government for people who
are not yet ready for self-government. A figurehead king, something
visible to the people and symbolizing government, but a king with
responsible ministers who really rule, is a possibility for Russia. The
inevitable reaction, especially if it is long postponed, may take that
form. I have heard many Russians say so. Some said it with sorrow, some
with satisfaction, but there are plenty of educated and liberal-minded
people in Russia who would welcome it. If it comes, I predict that the
capital of Russia will be moved back to Moscow. The constitutional
monarch, if they have one, may be that brother of the late Czar who is
known in Russia as Michael Alexandrovitch, who as one of the ablest and
most enlightened of the Romanoff family. He is the man who was chosen
by the first provisional government to succeed the Czar when the latter
was deposed, and the governments which have followed have all treated
him with rather especial consideration. Last June he asked permission
to leave turbulent Petrograd and spend the summer in his villa on one
of the Finnish lakes. This permission was granted, and Michael has
lived in Finland in comparative peace and comfort ever since. The
government has not treated any other Romanoff as well.
Most of the grand dukes and grand duchesses are virtually prisoners on
their estates. The Empress Dowager is confined to her estate in the
Crimea, and the government would not even allow her to leave it to bid
her exiled son good-by. But Michael Alexandrovitch must have convinced
the government that he is trustworthy, and he seems to be regarded as
a man who could be brought out of his shadowy background and set up
for the people to call a king, if the worst comes to the worst and
they have to have a king. This is the most severe form the reaction
could permanently take in Russia, as far as I can judge. Of course a
military dictatorship may precede this, but the dictatorship would be a
temporary thing, a war measure to crush the Bolsheviki and bring order
out of chaos. Nobody in Russia, as far as I know and believe, wants a
counter revolution in the sense suggested by the Bolsheviki. But the
counter revolution, as a bogie to be held over the heads of the timid
dreamers and of those half-hearted ones who shrink from bloodshed, is
so useful that the Bolshevik leaders worked it hard all summer and in
the latest developments they were still at it.
The experience of the French people after their revolution is often
cited by the timorous in Russia. It is true that the Bourbons came
back, but the people of France did not call them back. They were
put back by the allied monarchs of Europe, aghast at the spread of
republicanism in the eastern hemisphere. Following the revolution and
the two score years of Napoleonic wars, these rulers got together,
signed a secret agreement that the peace of Europe depended on France
remaining a monarchy, and in 1814 they put Louis XVIII on the throne.
By virtue of giving the French a liberal constitution he kept the
throne until his death, ten years later. The allied monarchs saw to
it that his brother, Charles X, succeeded him, but the allies could
not prevent the French from turning him out of the country within six
years. Nor could they stay the revolution of 1848 which banished Louis
Philippe, the last Bourbon.
Times have changed since the French revolution. Kings have lost most
of their power and almost all of their popularity. They cannot get
together and, under the direction of a Metternich, agree that the peace
of Europe demands that Russia remain an autocracy. They could not do
this even if the old combination, Russia, Prussia, Austria, England
and France, had not been violently disrupted. No country in Europe is
interested in restoring the Romanoff dynasty, unless it be the country
of the Hohenzollerns, and that country is not going to have much to say
about the world’s business for the next few years.
There may be no counter-revolution in Russia, but there will ultimately
be a return to sanity and order. There will be a constitutional
convention, not too soon, it is to be hoped, and in that convention the
voice of the leaders of the moderate parties will be heard. Trotsky
may be a delegate, but so will Prof. Paul Miliukoff, the leader of the
Constitutional Democrats, or Cadets, as they are colloquially known.
All through the riot and turmoil of the summer Prof. Miliukoff and
his colleagues worked steadily to keep the party alive, to keep it
constantly in the foreground as the liberal-conservative force which
might at least share in shaping the new constitution.
There are plenty of wise, sane statesmen, plenty of good citizens in
Russia. They are not very conspicuous just now, and for good reason.
A fine old French abbé who was asked what he did during the Reign of
Terror, replied simply, “I lived.” Avoiding assassination is a career
in itself just now in Russia. Many of the wealthy classes and the
estate owners spent the summer in Finland. Some went to England or
the United States. The peasants in many parts of the empire, falling
in joyfully with the Kerensky plan of dividing up the land, began
the process by sacking and burning the homes of the estate owners,
destroying their fields, orchards and vineyards, and cutting and
burning their forests. These acts, in conjunction with riots and
excesses in the towns have encouraged the intellectual classes to leave
the country and to take no part in politics.
Despite everything that has happened, despite these excesses, there is
no question that the Russian people in revolt have contributed greatly
to the world’s democracy. They will make still greater contributions,
I believe. They have a long road to travel before they establish their
new civilization. The Russians are not as developed as the English, the
French or the Americans. In some respects they are no further developed
than the English of the reign of Henry the Eighth. They ride in street
cars, but the street cars were made in Germany. They use the telephone,
and go up stairs in a lift, but the telephone and the lift came from
Sweden. They have only recently learned to use modern tools with skill
or to farm scientifically. But they are learning very fast. They are
learning to coöperate in their farming faster than almost any other
people in Europe, which to my mind is the most hopeful sign of all.
For I am just as much of a socialist as when I went to Russia in May,
1917, and just as little of an anarchist. I believe that the next
economic development will be socialism, that is coöperation, common
ownership of the principal means of production, and the administration
of all departments of government for the collective good of all the
people. I believe that the world is for the many, not the few. But
Russia has demonstrated that there is no advantage to be gained by
taking all power out of the hands of one class and placing it in the
hands of another. Too much power rests now in the hands of a small
class. But that class never abused its power more ruthlessly than the
Russian Tavarishi did in the 1917 revolution.
The lesson of Russia to America is patient, intelligent, clear-sighted
preparation for the next economic development. Beginning with the
youngest children, we must contrive for all children a system of
education which will create in the coming generation a thinking working
class, one which will accept responsibility as well as demand power,
and into whose hands we can safely confide authority and destiny.
_Printed in the U. S. A._
The following pages contain advertisements of a few of the
Macmillan books on kindred subjects
Russia in 1916
BY STEPHEN GRAHAM
_Frontispiece, 12mo, $1.25_
“Impressionistic pen-pictures which aptly reflect the mood of
present-day Russia.... He speaks with sympathy and admiration.”--_New
York Evening Post._
“Authentic, instructive, and interesting. He is both scholarly and
practical. He has a storehouse of information in a mind well qualified
to analyze it.... In this vitally interesting volume he gives us a
marvelously clear and keen sketch of that country as it is to-day with
its people, noble and peasant.”--_Philadelphia Press._
“A keen, penetrating, sympathetic study of Russian conditions and
tendencies during the war, by a man who knows Russia well and who has
exceptional ability for making his own observations and impressions
known to others.”--_New York Tribune._
“If all the countries at war had such an interpreter as Mr. Graham,
we should be able to look more deeply into the hearts of their
peoples.”--_Boston Transcript._
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
Russia and the World
BY STEPHEN GRAHAM
_Illustrated, cloth, 8vo, $2.25_
For more than seven years Stephen Graham has been a close student of
things Russian. Compelled by an intense sympathy with the country and
its people, he forsook his native England and went to Russia when he
was twenty-three to study at first hand the life and customs of that
country. This was the beginning of an attachment which grew stronger
with the years and out of which have come several of the most important
contributions made to English literature bearing on the Russia of
modern times.
At the outbreak of the present European war Mr. Graham was in Russia,
and his book opens, therefore, with a description of the way the news
of war was received on the Chinese frontier, one thousand miles from a
railway station, where he happened to be when the Tsar’s summons came.
Following this come other chapters on Russia and the War, considering
such subjects as, Is It a Last War?, Why Russia Is Fighting, The
Economic Isolation of Russia, An Aeroplane Hunt at Warsaw, Suffering
Poland: A Belgium of the East and The Soldier and the Cross.
But “Russia and the World” is not by any means wholly a war book. It
is a comprehensive survey of Russian problems. Inasmuch as the War is
at present one of her problems it receives its due consideration. It
has been, however, Mr. Graham’s intention to supply the very definite
need that there is for enlightenment in English and American circles
as to the Russian nation, what its people think and feel on great
world matters. On almost every country there are more books and more
concrete information than on his chosen land. In fact, “Russia and the
World” may be regarded as one of the very first to deal with it in any
adequate fashion.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
Through Russian Central Asia
BY STEPHEN GRAHAM
_Illustrated, 8vo, $2.25_
This book describes a journey by the author through Russian Central
Asia. Among the topics which the author touches upon are the Russian
pioneers, Mohammedanism and its characteristic expression, the colored
tribes, Russian rule, the expansion of the Russian empire and the
question of danger to India. The volume tells of much tramping, of
wayside experiences, of sights in the desert and nights under the Asian
stars or in the tents of the nomads.
“A delightful book.... Always and everywhere Stephen Graham has
the gift of transferring his knowledge of Russia to the reader’s
heart and brain.”--_Chicago Herald._
“Full of information and as charming as it is informing. It is
rich in the lure of the open road ... in the romance of old
cities, in the wilderness of the vast waste spaces.... In the
view it gives of a phase of Russian life entirely new to American
readers.”--_New York Times._
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
With the Russian Pilgrims to Jerusalem
BY STEPHEN GRAHAM
_Decorated cloth, illustrated, 8vo, $2.75_
The journey of the Russian peasants to Jerusalem has never been
described before in any language, not even in Russian. Yet it is the
most significant thing in the Russian life of to-day. In the story lies
a great national epic.
“Mr. Stephen Graham writes with full sympathy for the point of
view of the devout, simple-minded, credulous peasants whose
companion he became in the trip by boat from Constantinople to
Jaffa and thence on foot to the holy places.”--_The Nation._
“Apart from the value which must be attached to the authenticity
of the glimpses of Russian life that Mr. Graham gives in his
latest book, it also clearly ranks him as the best modern writer
of the saga of vagabondage.”--_N. Y. Times._
“Mr. Graham has written an intensely interesting book, one that is
a delightful mixture of description, impression, and delineation
of a peculiar but colorful character.”--_Book News Monthly._
“A book of intensely human interest.”--_The Continent._
“The book is beautifully produced, illustrated with thirty-eight
exceptionally fine snapshots, and is of commanding interest,
whether read as a mere piece of adventure or as revelation of an
almost unknown tract of religious belief.”--_Christian Advocate._
“The story is written with a graphic and eloquent pen.”--_The
Congregationalist._
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York