Part 10 (1/2)

In all critical moments the ma.s.ses intervene ”spontaneously”-in other words, obeying only their own from political experience, and their as yet of.cially unrecognised leaders. a.s.similating this or that premise from the talk of agitators, the ma.s.ses on their own volition translate its conclusions alto the language of action. The Bolsheviks, as a party, were not yet leading the campaign for the eight-hour day. The Bolsheviks did not summon the ma.s.ses to the April demonstration. The Bolsheviks will not call the armed ma.s.ses into the street at the beginning of July. Only in October will the party .nally, fall in step and march out at the head of the ma.s.ses, not for a demonstration but for a revolution.

CHAPTER 18.

THE FIRST COALITION.

All of.cial theories, declarations and advertis.e.m.e.nts to the contrary notwithstanding, the power belonged to the Provisional government on paper only. The revolution, paying no attention to the resistance of the so-called democracy, was striding along, lifting up new ma.s.ses of the people, strengthening the workers. The Soviets, and to a limited extent even arming the local commissars of the government and the ”social committees” created under them, in which representatives of bourgeois organisations usually predominated, were quite naturally and without effort crowded out by the soviets. In certain cases, when these agents of the central power tried to resist, sharp con.icts arose. The commissars accused the local soviets of refusing to recognise the central government. The bourgeois press began to cry out that Cronstadt, Schlusselburg or Czaritsyn had seceded from Russia and become independent republics. The local soviets protested against this nonsense. The ministers got excited. The governmental socialists hastened to these places, persuading, threatening, justifying themselves before the bourgeoisie. But all this did not change the correlation of forces. The fatefulness of the processes undermining the two power system could be seen in the fact that these processes were developing, although at different tempos, all over the country. From organs for controlling the government the soviets were becoming organs of administration. They would not accommodate themselves to any theory of the division of powers, but kept interfering in the administration of the army, in economic con.icts, questions of food and transport, even in the courts of justice. The soviets under pressure from the workers decreed the eight-hour day, removed reactionary executives, ousted the more intolerable commissars of the Provisional Government, conducted searches and arrests, suppressed hostile newspapers. Under the in.uence of continually increasing food dif.culties and a goods famine, the provincial soviets undertook to .x prices, forbid export from the provinces and requisition provisions. Nevertheless at the head of the soviets everywhere stood the Social Revolutionaries and Menshevik who rejected with indignation 255.

the Bolshevik slogan, ”Power to the Soviets!”

Especially instructive in this connection is the activity of the soviet in Ti.is, the very heart of the Menshevik Gironde which gave the February revolution such leaders as Tseretelli and Cheidze, and sheltered them afterwards when they had hopelessly squandered them-selves in Petrograd. The Ti.is Soviet, led by Jordania-afterwards head of independent Georgia-found itself compelled at every step to trample on the principles of the Menshevik Party in control of it, and act as sovereign power. This soviet con.scated a private printing establishment for its own uses, made arrests, took charge of investigations and trials for po-litical offences, established a bread ration, and .xed the prices of food and the necessaries of life That contrast between of.cial doctrine and real life, manifest from the very .rst day, only continued to grow throughout March and April.

In Petrograd a certain decorum at least was observed-although not always, as we have seen. The April days, however had unequivocally lifted the curtain on the impotence of the (Provisional Government, showing that it had no serious support whatever in the capital. In the last ten days of April the government was .ickering and going out. ”Kerensky stated with, anguish that the government was already non-existent, that it did not work but merely discussed its condition” (Stankevich). You might say in general about this government, that up to the days of October in hard moments it was always undergoing a crisis, and in the intervals between crises it was merely existing. Continually ”discussing its condition,” it found no time for business.

From the crisis created by the April rehearsal of future events, three outcomes were theoretically possible. The power might have gone over wholly to the bourgeoisie; that could have been achieved only through civil war; Miliukov made the attempt, but failed. The power should have gone over wholly to the soviets; this could have been accomplished without any civil war whatever, merely by raising of hands-merely by wis.h.i.+ng it. But the Compromisers did not want to wish it, and the ma.s.ses still preserved their faith in the Compromisers, although it was badly cracked. Thus both of the fundamental clays out-the bourgeois and the proletarian-were closed. There remained a third possibility, the confused, weak-hearted, cowardly half-road of compromise. The name of that road was Coalition.

At the end of the April days the socialists had no thought of a coalition. In general those people never foresaw anything. By the resolution of April 21 the Executive Committee had of.cially converted the double sovereignty from a fact into a const.i.tutional principle. But here again the owl of wisdom made her .ight too late: this juridical consecration of the March form of double sovereignty-the kings and the prophets-was carried out just at the moment when this form had already been exploded by the action of the ma.s.ses. The socialists tried to close their eyes to this. Miliukov relates that when the question of a coalition was raised from the government side, Tseretelli said: ”What good will it do you if we enter your cabinet? We will be compelled, in case you are stubborn, to withdraw from the ministry with a loud bang.” Tseretelli was trying to frighten the liberals with his future ”bang.” As always in the fundamentals of their policies, the Mensheviks were appealing to the interests of the bourgeoisie themselves. But the water was up to their necks. Kerensky frightened the Executive Committee: ”The government is at present in an impossibly dif.cult situation: the rumours of its resignation are no political by-play.” At the same time there was pressure from the bourgeois circles. The Moscow city duma pa.s.sed a resolution in favour of coalition. On April 26, when the ground was suf.ciently prepared, the Provisional Government announced in a special appeal the necessity of bringing in to the governmental work ”those active creative forces of the country which have not yet partic.i.p.ated in it.” The question was thus presented point-blank.

The feeling against coalition was nevertheless pretty strong. At the end of April the following soviets declared themselves against the partic.i.p.ation of socialists in the govern-ment: Moscow, Ti.is, Odessa, Ekaterinburg, Nizhni-Novgorod, Tver, and others. Their motives were very clearly expressed by one of the Menshevik leaders in Moscow: If the socialists enter the government, there will be n.o.body to lead the movement of the ma.s.ses ” in a de.nite channel.” But it was dif.cult to convey this idea to the workers and soldiers against whom it was, directed. The ma.s.ses, in so far as they were not yet for the Bolshe-viks, stood solid for the entrance of socialists into the government. If it is a good thing to have Kerensky as a minister, then so much the better six Kerenskys. The ma.s.ses did not know that this was called coalition with the bourgeoisie, and that the bourgeoisie wanted to use these socialists as a cover for their activities against the people. A coalition looked different from the barracks and from the Mariinsky Palace. The ma.s.ses wanted to use the socialists to crowd out the bourgeoisie from the government. Thus two forces tending in opposite directions united for a moment in one.

In Petrograd a series of military units, among them an armoured car division friendly to the Bolsheviks, declared in favour of coalition government. The provinces voted for the coalition by an overwhelming majority. The coalition tendency prevailed among the Social Revolutionaries; they only feared to go into the government without the Mensheviks. And .nally, the army was in favour of coalition. One of its delegates later -at the June congress of the soviets expressed not at all badly the att.i.tude of the front toward the question of power: ” We thought that the groan which arose from the army when it learned that the socialists would not enter the ministry to work with people whom they did not trust, while the whole army was compelled to go on dying with people whom it did not trust, must have been heard in Petrograd.”

The war was the deciding factor in this question, as in others. 'The socialists had at .rst intended to sit out the war, as also the sovereignty, and wait. But the war would not wait.

The Allies would not wait. The front did not want to wait any longer. Right in the middle of the governmental crisis came delegates from the front and put up to their leaders in the Executive Committee the question: Are we going to .ght or not? Which meant: Do you a.s.sume the responsibility for the, war or not ? There was no dodging that question. The Entente was posing the same question in the language of a half-threat.

The April offensive on the west European front cost the Allies heavily and gave no re-sults. A wavering was felt in the French army under the in.uence of the Russian revolution and of the failure of its own offensive from which so much had been hoped. The army, in the words of Marshal Petain, ” was bending in our hands.” To stop this threatening pro-cess the French Government had need of a Russian offensive-and until that at least a .rm promise of one. Aside from the material relief to be gained, it was necessary as quickly as possible to s.n.a.t.c.h the halo of peace from the Russian revolution, poison the hope in the hearts of the French soldiers, compromise the revolution by a.s.sociating it with the crimes of the Entente, trample the banner of the Russian workers' and soldiers' insurrection in the blood and mud of the imperialist slaughter.

In order to attain this high aim, all possible levers were brought into play. Among these levers not the last place was occupied by the patriotic socialists of the Entente. The most experienced of them were sent into revolutionary Russia. They arrived armed to the teeth with obsequious consciences and boneless talk. ”The foreign social-patriots,” writes Sukhanov, ”were received with open arms in the Mariinsky Palace, Branting, Cachin, O'Grady, De Brouckere, and others felt at home there and formed a united front with our ministers against the Soviet.” It must be conceded that even the Compromisers' Soviet was often ill at case with those gentlemen.

The Allied socialists made the rounds of the fronts. ”General Alexeiev,” wrote Van-dervelde, ”did everything in his power in order that our efforts should be applied to the same end as were those undertaken a little earlier by delegations of sailors from the Black Sea, by Kerensky, Albert Thomas-that is to complete what he called the moral preparation of the offensive.” The President of the Second International and the former chief of staff of Nicholas the Second thus found a common language in their struggle for the glorious ideals of democracy. Renaudel, one of the leaders of French socialism, was able to cry out with relief: ”Now we can talk without blus.h.i.+ng of the war of justice.” It was three years before humanity learned that those people had something to blush about.

On the 1st of May the Executive Committee, having pa.s.sed through all the stages of vacillation known to nature, decided by a majority of 41 votes against 18, with 3 abstaining, to enter into a coalition government. Only the Bolsheviks and a small group of Menshevik-Internationalists voted against it.

It is not without interest that the victim of this closer rapprochement was the recognised leader of the bourgeoisie, Miliukov. ”I did not go out, they put me out,” said Miliukov later, Guchkov had withdrawn already on April 30, refusing to sign the ”Declaration of the Rights of the Soldier.” How dark it was in those days in the hearts of the liberals is evident from the fact that the Central Committee of the Kadet Party decided, in order to save the Coalition, not to insist upon Miliukov's remaining in the government. ”The party betrayed its leader,” writes the right Kadet, Isgoyev. The party, however, had no great choice. The same Isgoyev remarks quite correctly At the end of April the Kadet Party was smashed to pieces; morally it had received a blow from which it would never recover.”

But on the question of Miliukov the Entente was to have the last word. England was entirely willing that the Dardanelles patriot should be replaced by a more temperate ”demo-crat.” Henderson, who was in Petrograd with authorisation to replace Buchanan as ambas-sador in case of need, learning of the state of affairs, deemed this change unnecessary. As a fact, Buchanan was exactly in the right place, for he was a resolute opponent of annex-ations in so far as they did not coincide with the appet.i.tes of Great Britain. ”If Russia has no need of Constantinople,” he whispered tenderly to Tereshchenko, ”the sooner she announces this, the better.” France at .rst supported Miliukov, but here Thomas played his role, coming out. after Buchanan and the Soviet leaders against Miliukov. Thus that politi-cian, hated by the ma.s.ses, was abandoned by the Allies, by the democrats, and lastly by his own party.

Miliukov really did not deserve such cruel punishment-at least not from these hands. But the Coalition demanded a puri.cation sacri.ce. They pictured Miliukov to the ma.s.ses as that evil spirit who had been darkening the universal triumphant recession towards demo-cratic peace. In cutting off Miliukov, the Coalition puri.ed itself at one stroke from the sins of imperialism. The staff of the Coalition Government, and its programme, were approved by the Petrograd Soviet on May 5. The Bolsheviks mustered 100 votes against it. ”The meeting warmly greeted the orator-ministers,” Miliukov ironically tells of this meeting. ”It greeted with the same stormy applause, however, 'the old leader of the .rst revolution' Trotsky, who had arrived the day before from America, and who sharply condemned the entrance of socialists into the ministry, a.s.serting that the 'double sovereignty' is not de-stroyed, but 'merely transferred into the ministry,' and that the real single power which will 'save' Russia will arrive only when 'the next step is taken, the transfer of power into the hands of the workers' and soldiers' deputies'; then will begin 'a new epoch, an epoch of blood and iron, but not in a struggle of nation against nation, but of the suffering and op-pressed cla.s.s against the ruling cla.s.ses.'” Such is Miliukov's rendering. In his conclusion Trotsky formulated three rules for the policy of the ma.s.ses ”three revolutionary articles of faith: do not trust the bourgeoisie; control the leaders; rely only on your own force.” Speaking of this speech, Sukhanov remarks: ” He evidently did not expect any sympathy for his words.” And in truth the orator left the hall amid far less applause than had greeted his entrance. Sukhanov, very sensitive to what is going on in the couloirs of the intel-ligentsia, adds: ”Although Trotsky did not belong to the Bolshevik Party, rumours were already going around to the effect that he was worse than Lenin.”

The socialists appropriated six portfolios out of .fteen. They wanted to be in the mi-nority. Even after deciding openly to enter the government, they continued to play this game of give-away. Prince Lvov remained Premier; Kerensky became Minister of War and Marine; Chernov, Minister of Agriculture. Miliukov's place as Minister of Foreign Affairs was taken by Tereshchenko, a connoisseur of the ballet who had become the con.dential man at one and the same time of Kerensky and Buchanan. They all three agreed in thinking that Russia could get along exceptionally well without Constantinople. At the head of the Department of Justice stood an insigni.cant lawyer, Pereverzev, who subsequently acquired a pa.s.sing glory in connection with the July in-cident of the Bolsheviks. Tseretelli limited himself to the portfolio of Posts and Telegraphs in order to keep his time for the Executive Committee. Skobeleyv, becoming Minister of Labour, promised in the heat of the excitement to cut down the pro.ts of the capitalists one hundred per cent. That phrase soon acquired wings. For the sake of symmetry the Ministry of Trade and Industry was given to a great Moscow industrialist, Konovalov. He brought along with him certain notables from the Moscow Stock Exchange who received important government posts. After two weeks, by the way, Konovalov resigned as a protest against the ”anarchy” in public economy. Skobelev, even before two weeks, had renounced his attack on pro.ts, and was busying himself with the struggle against anarchy-quarrelling strikes, summoning the workers to self-restraint. The Declaration of the new government consisted, as is to be expected of all coalitions, of commonplaces. It referred to an active foreign policy in the cause of peace, a solution of the food question, and a getting ready to solve the land question. All this was mere talk. The single serious point-at least from the standpoint of intention-was the one about the preparation of the army ”for defensive and offensive activity to prevent the possible defeat of Russia and her Allies.” In this was essentially summed up the whole meaning of the Coalition, which was created as the last play of the Entente in Russia.

”The Coalition Government in Russia,” wrote Buchanan, is for us the last, and almost the only, hope for salvation of the military situation on that front.” Thus behind the plat-forms, speeches, compromises and votes of the liberal and democratic leaders of the Febru-ary revolution, stood an imperialist stage director in the person of the Entente. Being obliged hastily to enter the government in the name of the interests of the Entente front, which was hostile to the revolution, the socialists took upon themselves about a third of the power and the Whole war.

The new Minister of Foreign Affairs had to delay publis.h.i.+ng for two weeks the answers of the Allied governments to the declaration of March 27, in order to work out certain stylistic changes which would disguise their polemic against the Declaration of the Coali-tion Cabinet. That ”active foreign policy in the cause of peace ” expressed itself thereafter in Tereshchenko's zealously editing the texts of the diplomatic telegrams drawn up for him by old-rgime clerks. Crossing out ”claims he would write ”the demands of justice”; in place of ”safeguarding the interests” he would write ”for the good of the peoples.” Mil-iukov, with a slight grinding of teeth, said of his successor: ”The Allied diplomats knew that the 'democratic' terminology of his despatches was a reluctant concession to the de-mands of the moment, and treated it with indulgence.”

Thomas and the newly arrived Vandervelde did not sit with folded arms. They zealously interpreted the ”good of the peoples” in correspondence with the needs of the Entente, and manipulated with a fair success the simpletons of the Executive Committee. ”Skobelev and Chernov,” reported Vandervelde , ”are energetically protesting against all thoughts of premature peace.” No wonder Ribot, relying on such a.s.sistants, felt able to announce to the French Parliament on May 9, that he intended to make a satisfactory reply to Tereshchenko ”without giving up anything.”

No, the real masters of the situation were not intending to give up anything that was lying around loose. It was just in those days that Italy announced the independence of Albania, and immediately placed her under Italy's protectorate. That was not a bad object lesson. The Provisional Government had an idea of protesting-not so much in the name of democracy, as because of the destruction of ”equilibrium in the Balkans.” But impotence compelled it for the time to bite its tongue.

The only new thing in the foreign policy of the Coalition was its hasty rapproche-ment with America. This young friends.h.i.+p offered three not unimportant advantages: the United States was not so compromised with military depravities as France and England; the transatlantic republic opened before Russia broad prospects in the matter of loans and military supplies; .nally, the diplomacy of Wilson-a mixture of knavery with democratic piety-fell in admirably with the stylistic needs of the Provisional Government. In send-ing the Root mission to Russia, Wilson addressed the Provisional Government with one of his parish letters in which he declared: ”No people must be forced under sovereignty under which it does not wish to live.” The aims of the war were de.ned by the American President not too de.nitely, but beguilingly: ”..to secure the future peace of the world and the future welfare and happiness of its.” What could be better? Tereshehenko people and Tseretelli needed only that: fresh credits and the commonplaces of paci.sm. With the help of the .rst, and under cover of the second, they could make ready for the offensive which the Shylock on the Seine was demanding with a furious shaking of all his promissory notes.

On the 11th of May, Kerensky went to the front to open his agitation in favour of an offensive. ”A wave of enthusiasm is growing and spreading in the army,” reported the new War Minister to the Provisional Government, choking with the enthusiasm of his own speeches. On May 14, Kerensky issued a command to the army: ”You will go where your leaders conduct you,” and in order to adorn this well-known and not very attractive prospect for the soldier, he added: ”You will carry on the points of your bayonets-peace.” On May 22, the cautious General Alexeiev, a man of no parts in any case, was removed, and replaced in the position of commander-in-chief by the more .exible and enterprising Brussilov. The democrats with all their power were preparing the offensive-the grand catastrophe, that is, of the February revolution.

The Soviet was the organ of the workers and soldiers-and soldiers here means peasants. The Provisional Government was the organ of the bourgeoisie. The Contact Commission was the organ of compromise. The Coalition simpli.ed this mechanism by converting the Provisional Government itself into a contact commission. But the double sovereignty was not in the least done away with. Whether Tseretelli was a member of the Contact Commission or Minister of Posts-that did not decide anything. There were in the country two incompatible state organisations: the hierarchy of old and new of.cials appointed from above crowned by the Provisional Government, and the system of elective soviets reaching down to the most remote companies at the front. These two state systems rested upon different cla.s.ses which as yet were only getting ready to settle their historic accounts. In entering the Coalition, the Compromisers counted on a peaceful and gradual dissolution of the power of the soviet system. They imagined that the power of the soviets, concentrated in their persons, would now .ow over into the of.cial government. Kerensky categorically a.s.sured Buchanan, that ”the soviets will die a natural death . .” This hope soon became the of.cial doctrine of the Compromise leaders. According to their thought, the centre of gravity ought to be transferred to the new organs of self-government. The place of the Central Committee should be occupied by the Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly. The Coalition Government was in this way to become a bridge to the bourgeois parliamentary republic.

The trouble was that the revolution did not want to, and could not, travel along this road. The fate of the new city dumas had given unequivocal warning in this sense. These dumas had been elected upon the widest possible franchise basis. The soldiers voted equally with the civil population, women equally with men. Four parties took part in the strug-gle. Novoye Vremya, the old of.cial sheet of the czarist government, one of the most dishonest newspapers in the world and that is saying something-summoned the Rights, the nationalists, the Octobrists, to vote for the Kadets. But when the political impotence of the possessing cla.s.ses became fully evident, the majority of the bourgeois papers adopted the slogan: ”Vote for anybody you please, only not the Bolsheviks' In all the dumas and zemstvos the Kadets were right wing, the Bolsheviks a growing left minority. The majority, immense as usual, belonged to the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.

It would seem as if these new dumas, which differed from the soviets by a broader rep-resentation, ought to have enjoyed great authority. Moreover as socio-juridical inst.i.tutions, the dumas had the immense advantage of of.cial government support. The militia, the food supplies, the munic.i.p.al transport, popular education, all were of.cially in the hands of the duma. The soviet as a private ”inst.i.tution” had neither budget nor rights. And nevertheless the power remained with the soviets. The dumas turned out to be in the essence of the matter munic.i.p.al commissions of the soviets. This rivalry of the soviet system with formal democracy was the more striking in its outcome, in that it took place under the leaders.h.i.+p of those same parties, Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who, ruling in the dumas and the soviets alike, were profoundly convinced that the soviets ought to give way to the dumas, and themselves did their best to promote the process. The explanation of this re-markable phenomenon-about which there was, very little speculation in the whirlpool of the actual events is simple: munic.i.p.al governments, like any other inst.i.tutions of democ-racy, can function only on the basis of .rmly established social relations-that is, a de.nite property system. The essence of revolution, however, is that it calls in question this, the very basis of all bases. And its question can be answered only by an open revolutionary test of the correlation of forces. The soviets, in spite of the quality of their leaders.h.i.+p, were the .ghting organisations of the oppressed cla.s.ses who had consciously or half-consciously united to transform the bases of the social structure. The munic.i.p.al governments gave equal representation to all cla.s.ses of the population, reduced to the abstraction of citizens.h.i.+p, and behaved in the revolutionary situation very much like a diplomatic conference expressing itself in quali.ed and hypocritical language while the hostile camps represented by it are feverishly preparing for battle. In the everyday of the revolution the munic.i.p.al governments dragged out a half-.ct.i.tious existence. But at critical moments, when the interference of the ma.s.ses was de.ning the further direction of events, these governments simply exploded in the air, their const.i.tuent elements appearing on different sides of a barricade. It was suf-.cient to contrast the parallel roles of the soviets and the munic.i.p.al governments from May to October, in order to foresee the fate of the Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly.

The Coalition Government was in no hurry to summon that const.i.tuent a.s.sembly. The liberals being, notwithstanding the democratic arithmetic, a majority in the government, were in no haste to become in the Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly a feeble right wing such as they were in the new dumas. The special conference on the convocation of a Const.i.tuent As-sembly began work only at the end of May-three months after the revolution. The liberal jurists divided every hair into sixteen parts, shook up in their alembics all the different kinds of democratic sediment, bickered endlessly about the elective rights of the army, whether or not it would be necessary to give votes to the deserters, numbering millions, and to the members of the czar's family, numbering tens. As to the date of the a.s.sembly, as little was said as possible. To raise this question was considered in the conference a breach of etiquette such as only Bolsheviks would commit.

Weeks pa.s.sed, but in spite of the hopes and prophecies of the Compromisers the soviets did not die out. At times, lulled and confused by their leaders, they did fall into semi-prostration, but the .rst signal of danger would bring them to their feet, and reveal to the eyes of all that they were the real masters of the situation. While attempting to sabotage the soviets, Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were obliged in every important incident to recognise their priority. This was expressed among other things by the fact that the best forces of both parties were concentrated in the soviets. To the munic.i.p.al governments and the zemstvos they appointed people of the second rank, technicians and administrators. The same thing was to be observed among the Bolsheviks. The Kadets alone, not having access to the soviets, concentrated their best forces in those inst.i.tutions of self-government. But that hopeless bourgeois minority was not able to convert them into a real support.

Thus n.o.body considered the munic.i.p.al governments their own inst.i.tutions. The sharp-ening antagonism between worker and boss, soldier and of.cer, peasant and landlord, could not be openly brought up for discussion in the munic.i.p.al bodies or zemstvos as was done in their own circles by the soviets on the one side, and by ”private” meetings of the State Duma and all kinds of conferences of the ”enfranchised” politicians on the other. One can talk over petty details with an enemy, but not matters of life and death.

If you accept the Marxian formula according to which a government is a committee of the ruling cla.s.s, then you must admit that the genuine ”committees” of the cla.s.ses strug-gling for power were to be found outside the Coalition Government. As regards the soviets, represented in the government as a minority, that was perfectly obvious. But it was no less true of the bourgeois majority. The liberals were totally unable to discuss in a serious and businesslike way in the presence of socialists the questions of most moment to the bour-geoisie. The crowding out of Miliukov, the acknowledged and indubitable leader of the bourgeoisie, around whom a staff of property owners had united, had a symbolic character, completely revealing the fact that the government was in every sense of the word eccentric. Life revolved around two axes, one of which was to the left and one to the right of the Mariinsky Palace.

Not daring to say what they thought in the staff of the government, the ministers lived in an atmosphere of conventions created by themselves. The double sovereignty concealed by a coalition became a school of two-mindedness, two-heartedness and every possible kind of duplicity. The Coalition Government in the course of the next six months lived through a whole series of crises, reconstructions and reshuf.ings, but its fundamental features, im-potence and hypocrisy, survived to the day of its death.

CHAPTER 19.

THE OFFENSIVE.

In the army as in the country there was a continual political regrouping of forces, the lower ranks moving to the left, the upper to the right. Just as the Executive Committee was becoming an instrument of the Entente for taming the revolution, the soldiers' committees, having arisen to represent the soldiers against the commanding staff, were being converted into a.s.sistants of the commanding staff against the soldiers.

The members.h.i.+p of these committees was variegated. There were not a few patriots who sincerely identi.ed the war with the revolution, courageously joined an offensive imposed from above, and laid down their heads in an alien cause. Beside them stood the heroes of the phrase, regimental and divisional Kerenskys. Finally, there were not a few petty cheats and chair-warmers who got into the committees to keep out of the trenches, always on a hunt for privileges. Every ma.s.s movement, especially in its .rst stages, inevitably raises up on its crest all these human varieties. But the compromise period was especially rich in such loud talkers and chameleons. People form programmes but programmes also form people. The school of ”contact” politics becomes in a revolution a school trickery and intrigue.