Page:The Czechoslovak Review, vol4, 1920.pdf/186

It is not an accident that not merely the champions of the principle of nationality, but also leaders of modern socialism appeal to humanity. Both principles strengthened each other. National oppression in the days of absolutism was due to the same aristocratic domination and avarice, as economic and social oppression. A nation that is oppressed politically is also oppressed commercially and socially. Therefo the ideal of a republic was common to the leaders of national and social movements. I myself look upon the republican form of state as a great achievement and a political ideal. It is something invaluable that we have achieved a republic. Not that I am ignorant of the faults and dangers of republic and democracy; but nevertheless I decided consciously for republic. When I left Prague in December 1914, the general sentiment under the influence of Russian successes favored the Russian dynasty. I opposed it, but abroad I honestly interpreted the feelings at home. I want to state here that I never negotiated with anyone about any dynasty and that nobody ever put any such demand to us. As the war went on and the political situation developed, I informed the Allied governments as early as the spring of 1916 that republican conviction was getting the upper hand in our nation. I believe that we are ripe for a republic. That does not mean that we need have no care for it; on the contrary we must defend it and build it up with much deliberation and care.

Not merely our national program of humanity, but the whole situation of Europe and humanity imposes upon us radical social reforms. That is the first and principal task for our internal national and state life. Here we must avoid two dangers, one from the left, one from the right. There are some who imagine that social reforms, or rather social revolution, may be carried through in a very brief time, in fact in a couple of months. That is what Lenin thought at the opening of his rule, but he found out that he was mistaken and now estimates the time necessary for the accomplishment of social revolution to be thirty years. I do not believe that. Social revolution is already here and we are in it; but it will be an evolutionary revolution, and it is a great mistake to imagine that social revolution may be effected by the subjugation of the so-called bourgeoisie. Violence here too would fail of its purpose, violence would only make slaves, and a slave never and nowhere works willingly and efficiently. Proletarians would in vain compel the bourgeois to work, if they themselves are unable to control the work. Lenin’s revolution in Russia is instructive on this point. This is a very serious matter, and whoever even partially appreciates what the question at issue is must agree that what we call capitalism cannot be removed altogether or at once; surely capitalistic technique, its efficiency, its inventiveness, its enterprise cannot be spared. Lenin now next to Marx recommends the American Taylor, and Taylor is almost the classical mouthpiece of capitalistic method.

The problem of socialism or rather socialization is complicated by this that in the present economic situation we cannot get along without wholesale production. Even if we democratize a factory, we must keep wholesale production going, and on top of that we face the necessity of producing for export, so that we cannot get along without commerce and banks. Our best socialist theoreticians and practicians are no longer in error here. Marx says that hunger is not in the socialist program; nor is there in it that peculiar nervous dissatisfaction caused by the war. In the economic and social sphere, as in others, there cannot be at once a radical break, but as in all matters there may be gradual development. As long as the workingmen cannot control and guide all production and its organization, we must not think of radical economic changes. Besides, among us, as elsewhere, socialization is conceived too narrowly as expropriation by the state. People forget that state ownership might prove to be merely another form of capitalism-state, bureaucratic capitalism.

On the other hand it is necessary that the bourgeoisie should pay attention to problems, presented by the development of socialism, not merely because it must, but because it should actively co-operate with workingmen by reason of its own social convictions. It is natural that the problem of socialization brings us to Russia, the more so, as we have always been Russophiles. Truly we may learn much from the Russian example. But love of Russia must not blind our eyes and make us forget to criticize. If a part of our bourgeoisie is charged with looking on old Russia in a romantic manner, the same reproach may be cast at the deft, namely that it accepts uncritically the Russian revolution and bolshevism.

President Tomášek referred to our future relations to Russia. Chicherin’s note offers our government a basis for the solution of the difficult, but grateful political and economic problem. I am personally pleased to see that Chicherin speaks of our army and our Russian policy in a more conciliatory tone than formerly. Minister Beneš will have an occasion to prove by production of documents that we have acted toward Russia in all its phases with perfect loyalty. As to the introduction of practical economic relations the main consideration will be means of communication; that is the chief problem of Russia and its commerce, as Zinoviev recently admitted. We must indulge in no illusions in this respect.

I attribute it to war and the consequent anarchy that just as elsewhere, among us also many dream of some miraculous revolution. I also took part in a revolution, I led it, but this