7///.S/ Russia 1C9 



chance of hurling itself against a well-regulated and 

 thoroughly organized force like the Prussian aristocratic 

 military party. Many people will be well advised ^o 

 watch the finale of this drama; they will learn much if 

 they do." 



Going home in the train after the dinner, and having a 

 somewhat lengthy journey, I opened the Round Table for 

 March,' and read what it had to say on the pros and cons 

 of Priissianism as compared with the practical (more 

 often impracticable) ideals of democracy in Russia, in 

 England, and in the United States. It would be well if 

 everyone opposed to Prussianism did the same. Those 

 Avho place so much trust in Majority Rule must remember 

 that this is what Russia has got, what has hurled her to 

 the ground, and made her lick the boots {pro tern.) of the 

 absolute opposite of all that liolshevism, in the best sense 

 of the term, stands for. And since this is so, and since 

 Minority Rule has done so much for Prussia, and in a 

 lesser degree for Federated Germany, trade unionism, and 

 especially a body like the A.S.E. (Amalgamated Society of 

 Engineers),-' and all that their ideals stand for, will do well 

 to remember the fate of Russia, even the fate of the Czar 

 of Russia, lest they, too, in striving for an unpractical 

 ideal, play into the hands of those whose views are so 

 diametrically opposed to their own. In making such a 

 remark, I am not saying that the A.S.E. or any other trade 

 union, here or elsewhere, is right or wrong. I simply 

 maintain that we, like Russia, may become as a house 

 divided against itself, and, if we do, nothing but disaster 

 can follow, and with that will come the final triumph of 

 Autocracy and Minority Rule. Those who cannot be relied 

 upon at all times to follow a rule, a standard, a guiding 

 central authority as the basis of its social scheme, must 



' No. 30, price 2S. 6d. Macmillan and Co., London, New York, 

 Toronto, Melbourne, Bombay, Calcutia, and Madras. I hope all your 

 readers in these centres will secure a copy. 



- Speaking on another point in which the (|uestion of a " comb out " is 

 not included. Sir Mric Geddes, in the House ot Commons on March 5, 

 said : " To reach an ultimate production of ships at the rate of 3,000,000 

 tons per annum is, I believe, and am advised, well within the present and 

 prospective capacity of our shipbuilding yards and engineering shops, but 

 I wish to make it perfectly clear that those results cannot be obtained 

 unless the maximum output is given in every shipyard and marine engine 

 shop by everyone concerned. If employers hesitate to play their part, or 

 if men anywhere " flown tools " or go slow for any reason, they will now 

 do so in the knowledge of the grievous extent to which their action 

 prejudices the vital interests of the comnuinity.'" 



