Even if the Russian anarcho-syndicalists, anarchists and industrialists as well as all other revolutionists have every reason ii the world to work on the unions until the whole system answei the demands of communism, we must not for a moment forget th( progress implied in the fact that the workers have come so fc as to organize the work through their own organizations a/i thereby the whole of industry. The progress lies in the victory o) the idea, and even if the idea has not yet been completely realized, we have not the right, as friends of progress, to reject the firsl imperfect beginnings. In comparison to the idea of czarism, th( offensive taken by the labor organizations, the unions, as productive organizations, is quite a big step forward, the importance of which we cannot to-day sufficiently appreciate. To set the real value on this is reserved for future generations. In the same manner that we look at the French revolution at the end of the 18tl century as a gigantic step forward, in spite of the despotism o1 Napoleon, which was not surpassed by the despotism of Louij XVI., for the fruits of the revolution, the abolition of serfdom, could not be undone, just so we greet the Russian revolution, spite of the rule of the bolsheviks. For, after all, the bolshevil are not for the Russian revolution what Napoleon was for th< French revolution; but they are, if we want to accept the comparison, the Russian Jacobins, with a strong admixture of proletarian elements. But the spirit of progress lives in the realization of the idea, that the workers can, through their own organizations, themselves form a society which is based on labor. As revolutionaries and champions of freedom we approve of the Russian revolution, approve of the idea that the labor unions have to be the guides of economic life, and will guarantee that these ideas shall be realized with ever greater perfection. Thus shall our ideal, a society based upon labor, attain its realization.
Nationalization or Socialization?
The difference betiveen nationalization and socialization is often very fine, especially where it is a question of industrial undertakings. When referring to the land it is simpler. In Russia we can on the whole speak of a socialization of the soil. Its distinguishing marks are that the land belongs to the peasants personally, but that they have not the legal right to sell it. That this happens here and there, in spite of it, only shows that new forms of economic life cannot be introduced through decrees alone. Leases and rents have ceased to exist, and the only thing that remains are taxes, principally in kind. Part of the former large estates have passed over into state ownership, and in the case of these one might speak of nationalization rather than socialization. What applies to these state lands also applies to the nationalized ("statified") industrial undertakings. The state monopolized the mines, the means of transportation, the larger part of the big factories, commerce and business houses. While formerly these undertakings belonged to a great number of small industrial knights, and partly also to a small number of big "captains of industry (comparable to Stinnes in Germany), all of it belongs today to one owner, the state. But here we have before us something more than a simple nationalization. In Germany we had already under the Wilhelm regime nationalized railroads and postal service. Even in America the railroads were to a great extent nationalized during the war. But this kind of nationalization differs from the Russian kind in this respect that private per* sons have economic interest in the same. The state issues notes and debt obligations and the owners of these obligations or bonds enjoy an income without work by collecting interest, etc. The state has here, so to speak, taken over the role of a capitalist stock company. The same is often the case with municipalization. In the latter case the municipal authorities of the cities play this role.