THE RACIAL LIMITATION 



OF BOLSHEVISM 



An Analysis of European History Shows That Nordic Countries Have Been 

 Extremely Free from Periods of Anarchy 



Frederick Adams Woods 

 Lecturer on Biology, Massachusetts Institute oj Technology 



IS THE Anglo-Saxon temper by nature 

 averse to Bolshevism? Let us hope 

 so. Do the facts of history help us to 

 sustain such a belief? By and 

 large, it would seem that they do. Bol- 

 shevism, while it is not anarchy in 

 theory, leads to anarchy and to that 

 extent is comparable with anarchistic 

 periods in the past. These are all well 

 known and recorded in our histories, and 

 it is certainly not without interest and 

 probably not without profitable sugges- 

 tion to examine medieval and modern 

 European history from a broad point of 

 view and see if there is any notable pre- 

 disposition towards or against anarchy 

 that can be identified with racial 

 differences. Race is, of course, neither 

 identical with language nor with nation- 

 ality. Yet anthropologists all recognize, 

 as distinct from the Slavic, and from the 

 Latin or Mediterranean, an Anglo- 

 Teutonic or Nordic race. Scandinavia, 

 northern Germany, Denmark, Holland, 

 and Great Britain are to be considered 

 as the present chief abiding places of 

 this Nordic race — tall, blonde, dolicho- 

 cephalic, enterprising, and masterful, 

 with capacity for organization and 

 practical thought. 



These statements need not involve 

 such controverted matters as the rela- 

 tive superiority of different races or 

 questions of migration and mixture. At 

 least the Russian peasant is different 

 racially from the Dane or the English- 

 man of the same social class, and our 

 question is whether the history of the 

 chief Nordic countries is different from 

 the history of Russia, the leading 

 Slavic country in the amount of anar- 

 chistic tendency revealed. 



No material has been collected for a 

 wide comparison including all the vSlavic 

 nations, but, as far as Russia is con- 

 cerned, it would seem that long periods 

 of anarchy are nothing new, as the 

 following instances prove. These are 

 all taken directly from condensed esti- 

 mates which were compiled for "The 

 Influence of Monarchs,"^ and are pub- 

 lished in the appendix to that work to 

 show the varying material conditions of 

 fourteen European countries. They 

 were not made with any idea of a study 

 in proportionate anarchism. 



In Russia, beginning with the minor- 

 ity of Ivan IV, 1538, there were 

 nine years of intrigues, uprisings, and 

 disorders. The Tartars harried the 

 empire, and the state treasury was 

 plundered. Treasons and conspiracies 

 marked the brief period, April 13 to 

 June 1, 1605. In 1606, for four years 

 until 1610, general confusion again 

 reigned. Russia was invaded by the 

 Poles, and the Tartars plundered the 

 border. In 1610 an interregnum com- 

 menced, with anarchy for two years, fol- 

 lowed by the expulsion of the Poles. 

 Civil disorder, however, continued until 

 1613. The public treasury was again 

 plundered, as in the previous century. 

 Again during the minority of Ivan and 

 his brother, Peter the Great, 1682 to 

 1689, occurred another period of con- 

 fusion and massacres. Russia during 

 the eighteenth century was chiefly 

 under the domination of Peter the Great 

 and Catherine the Great and there 

 were no notable periods of anarchy. 



The above is not presented as a pro- 

 found and accurate historical investiga- 

 tion into Russian anarchism. These 



1 Woods, Frederick Adams: "The Influence of Monarchs," New York, 1913, pp. 359-366. 

 188 



