between appearance and essence; this finds its expression in the fictitious 
sessions, tho subordination of the elector to the elected the unlimited control 
of the leaders, etc. Even here the power is always on the brink of disaster 
and can never weaken its grasp, can never allow the evolution to self- 
government or even the evolution to open oligarchy. Immobilised violence 
and organic lie — here is the law of the communistic party in a nut-shell. 
The Soviet structure is fundamentally a regime of stationary violence, — 
if it falls, it falls as it is. Flexibility of regime means the capacity. of 
letting its next edition form within its own midst (thus English parliamen- 
tarism always contains the successor to the Government in power); otherwise 
there cannot be a painless change and there is even a lack of intermediary 
forms based on compromise. The rigidness of the Soviet regime and its 
absolute dependence upon the party, fills men with fear of the chaos which 
would bring the destruction of this single and compact organisation. The 
Soviet regime, having destroyed all organisations except its own, leaves the 
only choice between itself and civil war. By its existence it ruins, degrades, 
weakens Russia; its only possible end is a new revolution. Its essence must 
result in a revolution, and will define it. And cursed for the revolution 
in which it was born, it must also be cursed for the possible revolution in 
which it will die. The alternative is as follows: An incessant oppression that 
weakens the organism of the country and leads to its decay, — or an acute 
upheaval which accords a chance to the victory of sound principles. There 
is no choice between a defective order and the chaos of the disorder, but 
only between two kinds of chaos: the organic destruction — and the 
explosion which tends to interrupt this process. 
Bolshevism itself admits that it is contrary to democracy. It would 
admit too that it rejects the whole basis of a modern “bourgeois” society; 
it rejects the idea of a lawful state, of man having personal rights, of 
justice and personal guarantees; it goes further, it rejects the principles of 
‘praebourgeois’” States, i. e.. the strict limitation and organisation of 
functions. 
The old regime in Russia was partly akin to modern statesmanship; and 
partly developed in that direction. Thus the Soviet regime compared to 
‘Tzarist” Russia, shows clearly a political and governmental “reaction” on 
principle. It would be quite a mistake to see in it some sort of progress, or 
to affirm that it 1s “no worse than Tzarism’, or even to consider that it 
only continues and exaggerates the negative tendencies of the said “Tzarism’. 
In reality the Soviet regime rejects the principles of all modern States, and 
so rejects those to which the old regime was coming near. 
It is correct to note a certain analogy between communism and fascism, 
but this comparison should not go too far. Both deny political freedom, but 
et 
A