fluence of the representatives of the socialist parties, who awoke the 
appetite of the masses. That appropriation of land and property is sacred, — 
that the rulers, hierarchy and discipline are vicious, — and consequently 
that disobedience is lawful, and revenge (meaning destruction of the 
bearers of the idea of State and culture) is sacred. — all this suddenly 
became incontrovertible truths. 
The new, the provisional Government itself partly sharing similar 
opinions, in one swoop dismissed the old administration appointing new 
people instead, without authority, experience or organisative connections. 
Under similar circumstances any State would have probably collapsed; 
but perhaps in some other country elements would have turned up among 
people and society capable of an immediate restoration of the State's 
cohesion (as was the case in Germany though, of course, under incom- 
parably more favourable conditions). They had not turned up in Russia, 
which fact amply proved the invaluable importance even of such imperfect 
forms of State life as pre-revolutionary Russia possessed. 
Nevertheless the falling to pieces of the social tissue proceeded slower 
than could be expected; though rapidly yet gradually did the loosening 
of the bonds of the State and the disorganisation of society advance; this 
is the period approximately corresponding with the 8 months during which 
the provisional Government was in office. 
The Government and its organs neither could nor wished to use force, 
and therefore hardly tried doing so; consequently nothing was left but 
persuasion. It was a shocking sight to witness how the greatest part of 
State work had been reduced to persuasion, — whether to go to the 
front and fight, or to go to the factories and work, or to go to the offices 
and write. Million-headed crowds were exposed to persuasion; State admini- 
stration, as well as economic management of the country turned into 
perpetual conferences. 
But, of course, it was only the State-compulsion that ceased to act; 
individual violence alone prospered. Everyone did whatever he pleased, 
fearing neither police nor trial, nor loss of position, nor anybody else's 
disapproval; fearing only some one else's thwarting violence, — took the 
coats off passers-by in the streets, or left the front, or appropriated landed 
estates or houses. There existed people who were proud of this ampleness 
of “freedom” unmatched by any other country. 
Individual people, especially of the criminal type, with a sufficient 
amount of initiative, were also able to do a few things; but naturally 
for important undertakings (such as appropriation of land, harassing factory 
owners, refusal to obey military orders) the multitude was wanted. Thus 
multitude and leader — or meeting and committee — became the ruling 
293