under foreign dominations to which they are opposed; who will assert with complete confidence that the Great War will prove to have been indeed the war which ended war?

No, at the signing of peace only one of all the achievements of the Great War could be said to be immutably secure, and that achievement was the overthrow of the Tsardom in Russia. Despite the condition of flux which obtained in Russia during the years following the Revolution, despite the civil war or rather the civil wars into which the Revolution plunged the territory which once had been the Tsar's, despite the bitterness of the controversy long raging among all sections of opinion as to the truth about the Russian situation, despite the natural and the unnatural ignorance of the western world as to the real conditions in Russia, despite official propaganda and subsidized censorship, despite the anti-Revolutionary character of most of the challengers to the Bolshevist regime, despite the undemocratic and class-selfish nature of that regime itself, despite the economic prostration of most of Russia and despite the continued misery and impotence of the Russian people, never again will a hereditary Tsar rule with uncontrolled power the land which knew the Romanoffs.

The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which may be said to mark the beginning of modern scientific Socialism as a program, appeared in 1848. The organization of the Social Democratic Party of Germany was accomplished by Ferdinand Lassalle in 1863 and the International Workingmen's Association, the international Socialist and Labor organization, was organized in 1864. Considering that by the middle of the nineteenth century and in the following years there was less freedom and greater exploitation in Russia than in any other of the great Powers, it was inevitable that by that time the revolutionary feeling in Russia should begin to show traces of an effective organization. By 1870, revolt against the oppression of the Russian government had crystallized into a definite movement, a movement which, according to modern nomenclature, would be considered anarchistic rather than socialistic.

The revolutionary movement in Russia was influenced greatly by the teachings of the anarchist leader Bakunin, the opponent of Karl

Marx, and in the years around 1875 became a movement of terrorism. (It was not until 1879 that Marxian Socialism got a strong foothold in Russia, under the leadership of Plechanof.) With hundreds of the highest type of men and women imprisoned, exiled and executed for participation in the movement to bring freedom to Russia, their comrades had determined upon a policy of reprisal. Bombs were thrown, officials were shot and in every possible way the Government was defied. The Government retaliated by increasing the severity of its punishments, by broadening the scope and the powers of its secret police, by introducing spies into the ranks of the revolutionists; and in the decades immediately preceding the Revolution of 1917 Russia was practically in the throes of a civil war for freedom. However, despite the boundless courage of the terrorists and their unswerving devotion to their ideals, it became increasingly evident that the policy of terrorism was failing and that more thorough, if less spectacular, methods of overthrowing the Russian monarchy would have to be adopted. Accordingly, by the end of the nineteenth century, although the terrorists continued their activities, there arose from the earlier inchoate movements for freedom several definite movements aiming at freedom by the non-terrorist methods of political and industrial solidarity.

The bogs of Socialist theorizing are both vast and treacherous, and it would hardly profit here to analyze the creeds of the various Socialist factions in Russia with great minuteness. They were divided into two great bodies, the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Social Democratic Party. The points of difference between them were due chiefly to the character of Socialism as expounded by Karl Marx. Marx had surveyed society as a scientist surveys a problem in mechanics and the Socialism deduced by Marx was a system of society which was inevitably destined to come rather than a system which ought to come. The Socialist state as analyzed by Marx was merely the next stage of human development which would succeed the stage of private ownership of big business as irrevocably as the factory system of the nineteenth century had succeeded the household economy of the eighteenth century.

But Marx, who had been exiled from Germany, had spent most of his mature years in England, the greatest industrial nation of the time;

and Marx's premises were based chiefly upon the presence of a highlyorganized industrial state like England. So that when the revolutionists of Russia confronted the Socialism of Marx, they came up squarely against the fact that Russia was predominantly an agricultural country. Russia had not yet reached the stage of capitalism which, Marx had taught, would be the predecessor of the Socialist system. The factory workers of St. Petersburg and Moscow could become enthusiatic about the Marxian Socialism as the peasants and their well-wishers could not. Marx had devoted some attention in his great work, "Capital," to the problem of agriculture, but his theses did not appeal strongly to those who saw that the prime need of the peasants was to wrest the ownership of the land from the nobility and to exploit the soil of Russia themselves. Accordingly, the town revolutionists rallied around Marxian or determinist Socialism while the agricultural revolutionists rallied around non-Marxian or evolutionary (revisionist) Socialism. The revisionist Socialist party was the Socialist Revolutionary Party; the orthodox Marxian party was the Social Democratic Party.

From this distinction arose inevitably other points of difference between the two parties. The Socialist Revolutionary Party was anxious to cooperate with the liberal elements in the non-Socialist (bourgeois) parties; the Social Democrats were opposed to what they called compromising with the bourgeoisie and political trading. The Socialist Revolutionaries were anxious to effect a Socialist state step by step, by evolution; the Social Democrats' program called for the immediate fruition of the Socialist ideal, for a cataclysmic revolution. The immediate hopes of the Socialist Revolutionaries were centered upon Russia; even the immediate program of the Social Democrats called for the advent of the social revolution over the entire world. The Socialist Revolutionaries were hence counting upon accomplishing their program by the ballot, by political action; the Social Democrats' hope lay largely in industrial (direct) action. The ideal of the Socialist Revolutionaries was hence what we should call democratic; the ideal of the Social Democrats was a dictatorship of the working-classes (proletariate). On the other hand, the Socialist Revolutionaries were more closely allied to the terrorists and showed greater willingness to resort to terrorist methods than the Social Democrats.

Each of these parties was split within itself into three groups on the question of nationalism. One group in each party believed that nationalism was beneficial in itself. One group in each party believed that nationalism could bring forth certain fruits beneficial to internationalism. One group in each party believed that nationalism was wholly harmful and hence believed in unadulterated internationalism. But it would be far too confusing to continue this triplicate division in an account of the rôles played by each party in the Russian Revolution. For practical purposes each of the two great Socialist parties in Russia may be considered as divided into a conservative (Right) wingand a radical (Left) wing. The Socialist Revolutionary Party was organized in 1901; the leaders of its right wing were Kerenski, Madame Breshkovsky and Chernoff, and the leader of its left wing was Marie Spiridonova. The Social Democratic Party was organized in 1898. At its convention in 1903, it split into two camps on the question of the amount of centralization to be permitted both in its organization and in the Socialist state which it hoped to establish. The majority in this convention favored centralization and became known as Bolsheviki, from the Russian word meaning "more." The conservative wing of the Social Democratic Party then became known as Mensheviki, from the Russian word meaning "less." The outstanding leader of the Bolsheviki was Nikolai Lenin, who was later joined by Leon Trotski and Cheidze.

The non-Socialist reform element in Russia became organized in 1905 as the Constitutional Democratic Party, which was known, from the initial letters of its name, as the party of the "Cadets." Its leader was Miliukoff. The Cadets were often aided in their political endeavors by the Octobrists, or qualified supporters of a monarchist regime, under the leadership of Gutchkoff; and could count for support also upon the union of the Zemstovs or district assemblies, under the leadership of Prince Lvoff. The Cadets were tolerated within Russia and hence could build up a more effective organization than either of the great Socialist parties, many of whose leaders were in exile or in prison. It was therefore inevitable that after the Revolution of 1917 the Cadets should be able to take over the government of Russia at once. The Socialist Revolutionaries were tolerated by the govern

ment to a greater extent than were the Social Democrats, and hence had a more effective organization in Russia itself than the latter; it was therefore inevitable that when the government of the Cadets fell, the party of Kerenski should be in a better position to assume the reins of government than the party of Lenin.

Only in the light of this division of parties in Russia can the course of the Russian Revolution be understood.

As we have seen, in 1905 Russia had been swept by a revolution which for a time gave promise of being successful. Indeed, it is not too much to say that in 1905 Russia might have achieved freedom had it not been for assistance rendered the Russian government by the financial interests of France and Germany, with the connivance of the French and German governments. France and Russia had long been allies, and France and the French capitalists had long poured money into Russia to support the Tsar's government. Naturally, therefore, France was anxious that that government should not be succeeded by a group which possibly would cancel the debts contracted by the Tsarist regime and contracted largely in order to repress the movement for freedom, a group which also in all probability would not maintain the military obligations of the alliance against Germany. Similarly, the governmental system of Russia was more like that of Germany than was the governmental system of any of the other great Powers, except Japan. If the autocracy in control of Russia should go, the autocracy in control of Germany might likewise be endangered-even the docile German people might be taught by the example of their Russian brothers, and it was to the interest of the Imperial German Government that the Revolution of 1905 should fail.

The Revolution of 1905, like the Revolution of 1917, and like the German Revolution of 1918, throve on the military defeat of the Government against which it was directed. Japan declared war on Russia in February, 1904, and immediately began to win conclusive victories. By the middle of the year, Russia's military force was largely disorganized and demonstrations against the Government became general. By the end of the year, strikes had become serious, and with the con- ' tinued victories of the Japanese in the next year, the Russian Gov