"GREEN" SOCIALISM 921 weighed heavily upon this hitherto dumb, driven class of humanity, the peasantry. Private property which is the product of private labor must be respected, but no one must, for instance, possess more land than he is capable of working. Education must be made really, and not merely theoretically, accessible to the masses, for only through education can they achieve complete emancipation. The peasants, seeing that their conditions have not improved but have remained essentially the same for countless generations, that their fate has always been that of an exploited class, must take control of public affairs themselves, must themselves organize society, and must no longer allow the bourgeois parties to direct the state, "a handful of lawyers and capitalists, assisted by journalists without faith, patriotism, morality or pity for the masses," a "tiny group of oppressors who, by their superior intelligence and organization, "have up to the present fooled the rural population of millions and exploited them at their pleasure, that is to say in the way most suitable to their own private interests." This peasant movement aims at the elevation of the agricultural masses who, in many countries, form four fifths of the population and who, even in industrial states, form a considerable fraction of it. It is a democratic movement, as it affirms that its programme must be carried through by peaceful means, by the ballot and the machinery of parliaments. It is not opposed to industries or professions as it needs their products and services. But industries and professions should be developed, their functions regulated, with a view to the interests of the agricultural classes, the immense majority. These Bulgarians regard the conduct of the Russian Bolsheviks as not only stupid and criminal in their destruction of the very things of which humanity has need, but as determined by the supposed interests of a small class, the industrial proletariat, whereas the real proletariat in Russia, and in most of eastern and central Europe, is the agricultural. The emphasis of the Socialists, beginning even with Karl Marx, had been put upon the wrong problem, industry, not upon agriculture. The principal task of the government should be to assure the prosperity of agriculture, as it will never cease to employ the largest number of workers. Stambulisky and his followers, whose views have thus been summarized, were, it will be readily seen, launched upon a most formidable and difficult task, but one of undeniable interest. Moreover they did not consider their movement merely local, limited to Bulgaria, but they aspired to make it international, as the interests of the peasants everywhere are fundamentally the same. This idea of an International Union of Peasants was definitely expressed for the first time at a Congress of the Bulgarian Peasant Union held in February, 1921, which adopted resolutions from which the following extracts are taken: "The Congress of the Bulgarian Peasant Union invites the peasants of all nations to organize in the name of their common interests and to take political power into their hands when they are in a majority. Peasants thus organized have need of a powerful International Peasant Union. And this Union will play a great rôle in the rebuilding of humanity. The Union will have to struggle for the complete emancipation of the peasants against the menacing wave of reaction, against the anarchic power of the Communists, which would destroy all that the war spared, and fill the world with new wars of which the result will not be social equality but the most abject misery. We send our fraternal and enthusiastic greetings to all peasant associations. Let us soon begin the building of the splendid edifice of the new era. The International Union of the peasant masses of all countries will be founded, and listen to the peasant word which has too long kept silence. This Union is a great event of the new era and the importance of understanding and relationship between peasants will have a vast significance in international relations. We wait for this with joyful heart, and nurse the hope that the Union will much improve the hard fate of the peasants of the world." 1 Such was the ideal of the party then in control in Bulgaria, obviously an ideal difficult of attainment and of somewhat hazy outlines. Whether "Green" Socialism, "Green" Internationalism were merely ephemeral catch words or whether they represented germinal ideas of social justice and radical changes destined to shape the future of Bulgaria and of other countries in which similar economic conditions prevail, was not clear. It was evident that for their realization leadership of a high order, great executive and technical ability, and an exceptional intelligence on the part of the community would be required. Passing from theory to practice it was certain that a striking change had come over Bulgaria since the war. Although the large majority of Bulgarians were small proprietors, and the agrarian problem was not acute as in other countries, still 264. 1 Quoted in L. Haden Guest, The Struggle for Power in Europe, pp. 262 RADICAL LEGISLATION 923 measures will be taken for the expropriation of Crown and Church lands and of all farms of over seventy-five acres and for their allotment to landless peasants. Bulgaria undertook seriously the duty of punishing its war criminals, those responsible for her entrance into the war and for acts contrary to the laws of war, and long terms of imprisonment and heavy fines were imposed, acts which hit particularly the bourgeoisie and which the latter regarded as arbitrary and oppressive. Advanced labor legislation was passed and the municipal ownership or operation of public utilities was furthered. Particular attention was paid to education, for which the Bulgarians had long been eager, ranking first among the Balkan peoples in the number of those who could read and write. The new Agrarian. Government aimed to give a more practical and less literary tone to public instruction and to this end sought to create larger facilities for training in agriculture, arts and crafts, and practical science. In these two directions socialization was attempted. Foreign trade was put under government control, the Government operating through the agency of consortiums. A consortium was created for the export of cereals and another for the import of medical supplies. The other measure of possibly far-reaching importance was the establishment of compulsory labor. A law was drafted in May 1920 providing for one year's service for all males of 21 years of age or older and of six months for all females on the completion of their sixteenth year. Bulgaria's neighbors suspected that a scheme of providing indirectly for the obligatory military service which was forbidden by the Treaty of Neuilly lurked in the clauses of this bill and their protests prompted the Great Powers to disallow this legislation. But compulsory labor was decreed for a period of ten days each year, for women as well as for men, for children as well as for adults. No one might gain exemption by the payment of money. The chief arguments for this obligatory service were the accumulation of work that had to be done, the inability of the state to pay for it, and the shortage of labor, all consequences of the war. It was impossible to say beforehand how this principle would work in actual practice. Early results seemed reasonably satisfactory. In March and April 1921 over 600,000 school children devoted a week to manual labor. Armed with brooms and shovels and forks and buckets they cleaned streets, scrubbed floors, made walks and gardens, built fences, planted trees. Had it not been for this compulsion the work done by these children and by their elders would have remained undone. The principle at the basis of this reform was that society might legitimately be called upon to give a certain amount of its time and strength for purposes that are social, that is, for the benefit of the community in general. But this experiment in peasant statecraft and social ordering was destined to a sudden end. At three o'clock in the morning of June 9, 1923, the Bulgarian Government was overthrown by a coup d'état. All the ministers, with the exception of the premier, who was absent from the capital, were arrested by army officers and a new set of ministers were installed in their places. Professor H. Zankoff, of the University of Sofia, became prime minister and was surrounded and supported by a coalition of all the parties except the agrarian and the communist. Stambulisky, head of the late government, was killed on June 14, as an incident of a fight between some of his adherents and the troops of the new government. This is the official statement, but it is by no means certain that he was not simply assassinated. Thus the peasantry of Bulgaria lost the ablest leader they had ever had. Power passed from the hands of those who had dominated the country since the war into the hands of those who were their bitter enemies, who had been and were apparently to continue to be their chief victims, the bourgeois. For the Stambulisky régime had ignored the bourgeois, except as tax-payers. If the latter, who had now seized control by the dark and desperate device of a coup d'état, should show a similar narrowness and intolerance, they might find that, after all, authority so gained is ephemeral. For a government, to be stable, must recognize that a nation is composed of many and various elements, a fact which victorious parties, the world over, are too little inclined to remember, often to their own ultimate undoing. CHAPTER XLVI SOVIET RUSSIA THE Bolshevists or Communists of Russia, having seized control of the state by violence in November 1917 and having by violence turned the Constituent Assembly, popularly elected, out of doors on its first day of meeting because they did not like its complexion, were obliged by the requirements of the situation and by the promptings of their creed forthwith to give the world their measure as architects and builders of a new and perfected political and social fabric, in which mankind, cruelly and shamefully maltreated by the past, should find not only a greater contentment than it had ever known before but should also see opening up before it wide and inviting avenues of fruitful progress, of full self-expression untrammeled by the confining, deforming, and deadening institutions of long ages of blindness and of barbarism. Humanity was at last to throw off its strait-jacket, escape from prison, and become free, free in body and in soul. For Bolshevism was to issue the edict of emancipation of the world, was to strike off not only political and economic fetters, but intellectual and spiritual shackles as well. Let us see how the Bolshevists have met the challenge of their opportunity, how they have actually applied the new evangel, what sort of architects and builders they have proved to be in practice, how large the measure of emancipation which they have achieved. And first let us see what they have accomplished in the well-worn field of politics and government, a fundamental matter, for, in the Bolshevist philosophy, politics and industry and culture are interwoven in a manner and with a closeness eclipsing, quite, all previous efforts in the direction of general integration. As the constitution of a country provides the necessary framework within which the national life moves and has its being, it is proper to examine at the outset the governmental conceptions and political technique of the self-appointed rulers of New Russia. The constitution of July, 1918, more or less amended and amplified in subsequent years, is their handiwork, the mirror of their |