But even in connection with your political demands we must deplore that they provide no guarantees whatever for a speedy and thorough solution. We find, among other things, that such old democratic demands as a republic and a single legislative chamber, which have long since been accepted by the bourgeois circles of the country, have not seemed to you to be capable of immediate realization.

Instead, you point out that "binding assurances " should be given in advance by the state powers, regarding the removal of all disabilities in voting (but you seem to have forgotten the age restriction), while the question of a one-chamber system or of a republic should be decided either by a Riksdag constituted under the new election laws, or by a new popular election in accordance with those laws.

We believe, however, that Sweden's workers have learnt through long and bitter experience how much "assurances " and "promises" from the ruling classes are worth, and they would, in our opinion, be guilty of a serious mistake politically, if not of a crime against themselves and their future, if they should permit an opportunity for action to slip by, that might solve these questions at a single stroke.

As far as the only social demand in your program is concerned that of the eight-hour day we note that even its realization has been postponed without so much as a suggestion of a provisional solution. Particularly this omission must cause great discouragement among the entire Swedish working class.

To accept the minimum program you set up, as suggested by you in your communication, as a basis for our co-operation, would be impossible for use, for the reasons above-named. The program, which limits itself entirely to a bourgeois-democratic action, seems to be adapted rather for a continued co-operation with the liberal party than for a common basis for the entire Swedish working class, which would have been more natural.

Nevertheless, we hope, in spite of the form of your communication, that you may again consider whether there is no possibility for a common action between us, along lines that may lead more clearly and speedily to the democratic and social transformation that is desired by both the S. D. parties.

Should you find that a continued discussion is advisable, we suggest that it is desirable for both parties to appoint special representatives for the continuance of the negotiations.

The question as to the resources of power which the working

class must, in those demands which it advances, mobilize in their support even if they should be of the limited nature proposed by you would in such meetings require detailed examination. We suggest the desirability of an early answer to this communication.

Stockholm, Nov. 16, 1918.

For the S. D. P. L.,

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

IV. The Old Party Answers One Question When You Ask Them Another

To the S. D. P. L.:

In answer to your last communication we beg leave to say: To our plain question whether "you can without reserve accept the principles of democracy" you have replied that "our party has never been for a minority dictatorship," and that the question of a dictatorship of the proletariat " is not a burning one in our country at present." These are subterfuges that would be more in place in the notes of the old diplomacy than in a declaration of a party which, in accordance with its loudly proclaimed principles, should place a certain value upon straightforwardness. We must, therefore, again emphasize that the necessary prerequisite for a co-operation on our part is the unconditional renunciation of Bolshevism by your party. The Social Democratic Party's executive feels that it has the support of an overwhelming opinion among the Swedish working class, in declaring that it will not enter into any co-operation with Bolsheviks.

You have answered our question with regard to your attitude on our program of action, by saying that it is impossible for you "to accept it as a basis for co-operation as it stands." We herewith point out that this minimum program was adopted after a careful scrutiny by the political and craft leaders, with the specific purpose of bringing about the strongest possible rally of all the democratic forces in our country around it. Your Sunday resolution is a blow in the face to this unity thought and asks, on the contrary, a split in the front of democracy.

We, therefore, point out that in both the points we have drawn the answers made by your executive have been either evasive or negative.

up

Stockholm, Nov. 18, 1918.

For the Executive Committee of the S. D. P.,

HJ. BRANTING.

GUST. MOLLER.

V. Final Reply From the Left: You Prefer Unity With the Liberal Party to Unity Within the Working Class

To the S. D. P. Executive:

At a meeting held yesterday, of the S. D. P. L. Committee and the Y. P. S. L. Committee, as well as the Riksdag members and the representatives in Stockholm, as well as other representatives, it was unanimously decided to send the following communication to the S. D. P. executive concerning the question of unity in the workers' movement:

As a prerequisite for your co-operation you demand in your last communication of November 18th that the S. D. P. L. "should unreservedly renounce Bolshevism." The answer of the S. D. P. L. is a categorical negative, if by this means you seek to secure the party's moral or practical support for the policy of intervention and isolation inaugurated by Entente capitalism against Soviet Russia. The latter is a brutal denial both of the right of national self-determination as well as of the solidarity of the international proletariat, and, if it should prove successful, would be equivalent to a triumph for Russian and European reaction. Our party, furthermore, declines to set itself up in judgment over the fighting methods used by the November Revolution in Russia, which are the result partly of the counterrevolution and its methods, and partly of the general conditions of the country.

As regards our goal and tactics in the people's struggle that has begun in Sweden, the S. D. P. L. refers you to its former declaration, that the party has never declared itself in favor of a minority dictatorship, and that it takes its stand on the broadest democratic foundation. Any other interpretation of our answer we must definitely reject.

Our party offered its co-operation on the basis of a pure socialistic-democratic program, calculated to gather the entire working class in a common front. The S. D. Workers' Party passed a program of action that was chiefly bourgeois-democratic in character, which, on the one hand, postponed to an indefinite future certain important democratic constitutional demands, and, on the other hand, overlooked entirely the weighty economic and social demands of the working class. As you refuse any radicalizing of your program of action in the direction of the program of action of the S. D. P. L., it must be admitted that the executive

of your party prefers a unity with the liberal party to a unity within the working class. Under these circumstances, the S. D. P. L. is obliged to note with regret that its attempt to create a united S. D. front on a socialistic platform has for the time met with failure. But the party simultaneously expresses its confident hope and certainty that the workers of Sweden, under the pressure of the world's revolutionary events, will succeed in forcing a socialistic unity of action, which is necessary if the present situation is to be the introduction to a completely democratic and socialistic Sweden.

CHAPTER VIII

Socialism and Labor in Switzerland

The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was really started in Switzerland, whence the two famous trainloads headed by Lenin started for Petrograd, passing across Germany with the consent, if not at the instigation, of the German government. Late in 1916 Lenin acknowledged the importance of Switzerland as his center of action up to the present, when he outlined the policy he expected to follow, first in Russia and then in the whole world. He says:

"Before our departure we wish

to state our views on the task of the Russian Revolution. We feel all the more bound to do this since it is through the medium of the Swiss workers . . also thanks to their countries' varieties of languages, that we have been enabled to address ourselves to the German, French and Italian workers . . We are not pacifists. We are the opponents of imperialistic wars which are conducted by capitalists, on account of their share in the imperialistic booty. We declare it absurd to suppose that the revolutionary proletariat will renounce revolutionary wars, which appear to be necessary in the interest of Socialism. The Russian Proletariat is not in a position alone to accomplish the social revolution, but it can give the present Russian Revolution an impetus which would bring about the best conditions for such a revolution, and, in a sense, be its beginning. It can make easier the conditions under which its principal and most faithful ally, the European and American proletariat, would enter upon the decisive struggle.

"The future of German Socialism is represented not by the traitors, Scheidemann, Legien, David and Company, nor by the vacillating, characterless figures of Haase, Kautsky and Company, held fast in the routine of the times of peace. The future of German Socialism belongs to that tendency which produced Karl Liebknecht, formed the Spartacus group, and found its expression in the Bremen 'workers' policy.'

At the beginning of 1916 he expressed his plan as follows, in a pamphlet on conditions in France, in which he said: