Another delightful feature of his lecture is the frankness with which Quesada explains that he does not include socialism in his curriculum, because he believes in it, but because he is of the opinion "that this stubborn contrarimindedness of the majority of our intellectuals cannot and must not continue in the matter of the burning antagonism between capital and labor, and of this disintegrating class struggle, with its Marxian gospel, which makes palpable progress in this country and threatens to convert into a fearful problem what may, perhaps, be but a more or less. normal episode in the development of Argentina, if properly handled in time" (P. 5). Because the bourgeois intellectuals were so indifferent in this matter, the intellectual leadership fell into the hands of "professional agitators," so that the working people actually listened to speakers of their own class instead of following the advice of a capitalist professor with a large library of capitalist publications on the labor question. The poor Argentine government finally could not help itself in any other way than by using soldiers to suppress the unruly working people. That the socialists would precipitate such troubles was anticipated by Quesada. And now he can say to the capitalist politicians: "I told you so."

Even the International Socialist Review of Chicago, "which condenses the news of the world's labor movement, explained with much elation the Argentine plan of waiting for the harvest season, in which the crops of the country are exported, in order declare great strikes in the transport industries, in the ports, in the great export firms, and thus to paralyze the national life and call forth as much as possible measures of violent repression on the part of the government whereby the mass of the working people sink their differences, close their ranks, become bolder, strengthen their organizations and become a veritable power within the state, with its apostles and martyrs." (P. 5) This refers to a communication sent by the Executive Committee of the Argentine Socialist Party to the International Socialist Bureau and published by the International Socialist Review.

This is where the shoe pinches! The working people get together, because the socialists, and particularly the Marxian socialists, educate them on one side and the capitalist government drives them together by force on the other. And therefore bourgeois professors, who are interested in keeping the workers divided by government concessions, in order that the small capitalist may thrive in perpetuity, if that were possible, must teach bourgeois students to know what Marx really made the working people understand, so that enlightened bourgeois politicians, instead of working into the hands of the socialists by force, may take the wind out of their sails by prudent concessions to the

rebellious workers, "like the statesmen of England." But England is now becoming a rather poor illustration for the success of this policy.

In other words, Quesada is an Argentine Schaeffle or Sombart, who wants to familiarize bourgeois students with Marxism, in order that they may get together and find effective means of combatting it. This explains Quesada's partiality to Seligman in the United States, Marshall in England, Schmoller in Germany, Gide in France, all of them universitv "socialists," who do their best to build a straw Marx and demolish him with ponderous and dignified reflections about things he never said. Few of this class of "socialists" will disagree with Quesada when he claims that "the greater part of the bona fide socialist propaganda is distinguished by the characteristic mark that it is based upon a half assimilated science, which is dangerous, because it comes to results which are opposed to the true conclusions of the science of truth; and its own constant invocation of the Marxian doctrine, in spite of the schism between Bernsteinian and Kautskyan Marxians, ignores the fundamental rectifications, which have been made in almost all lines of argumentation of the famous agitator by the present copious investigations just enumerated. His sociological thesis of the economic interpretation of history and of the class struggle, of the boasted Communist Manifesto, his characterization of the proletariat, have undergone profound modifications through the evolution of the past half century. His renowned economic theory of value and his terrible fallacy of surplus value have not withstood the statistical investigations and the scientific analyses. Marx himself had a clear presentiment of this, when he decided not to put the finishing touches on his classic work "Capital," and to leave to Engels the task of reconciling the irreconcilable and to Kautsky the duty of saving the remainder of his much retouched surplus value." (P. 39).

Here the "greatest honesty and conscientiousness" do not prevent our bourgeois professor from repeating the silly slander, which Achille Loria had voiced many years before him and which Engels repudiated in his preface to the third volume of "Capital" by showing that Marx had completed the bulk of the second and third volumes before he published the first volume of his work.

Marx had "a clear presentiment" of Quesada and his friends. in other countries, when he wrote in his "Communist Manifesto": "The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society

minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.......... A second and more practical, but less systematic form of this socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect. affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government. Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech: Free trade, for the benefit of the working class; protective duties, for the benefit of the working class; prison reform, for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism. It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois, for the benefit of the working class."

The evolution of the last fifty years, so far from refuting the fundamental claims of Marx, has rather attracted a greater and greater number of organized working people to their support. The "true conclusions of the science of truth" are nothing but the frightened realization of the bourgeois that it is all up with him if the working class adopts the Marxian theories. This proves, not that Marx was wrong, but that the bourgeois "science of truth" is a "terrible fallacy" for the working class. And we need no better proof for the vitality and increasing strength of Marxian theories than the fact that even in so new a country as Argentina the bourgeois socialist has to systematize his policies and send his Quesada out to plough the sea of social life with his pencil and sweep back the tide of social evolution with his fake Labor Department, blaming Marx unjustly for attributing to Ricardo the idea of eternal social laws and doing all in his power to make small capitalism eternal: Or, if Quesada believes in social evolution and does not think that capitalism will last for ever, what does he think will come after it? His answer to this question will certainly be interesting. Whatever it may be, we feel sure that he will not give the same answer as Marx and the socialists of Argentina.

ERNEST UNTERMANN.

Bloody Russia.

The Russian revolution has reached the stage of books, and they are pouring forth at a most astonishing rate. Three lie upon my desk that have just come from the presses. (*) All are bound in most brilliant red. Two of them have the word "red" in their tittle. All reek with blood. In fact the general impression gained by the combined reading of the three is of wading in blood. One closes either of them with a sense of sickening relief. Blood, blood, blood flows on every page. The French Revolution has long stood as synonymous with bloodshed. But it was a most gentle affair compared with the struggle which is now going on in Russia. Some day the world will come to realize this. A reading of these volumes will help to that end.

John Foster Fraser's work, "Red Russia" is manifestly the work of a newspaper reporter. It is much such a book as would be produced if the managing editor of the more enterprizing metropolitan dailies should hand out as an assignment to the star reporter some morning, "the Russian Revolution," and should add the further instructions, "Take a staff photographer with you, fill it full of local color and plenty of interviews, and cut out all editorializing."

His ignorance of the philosophies back of the contending forces is rather refreshing, especially if the reader knows something of these himself so as not to be misled. It prevents the "editorializing" which fills up the majority of similar books.

Like a good reporter he selected the most striking point of the story for a theme and plays it up from the start. That theme is the cheapness of human life, and it stands out on every page. "The blessed, though rather namby-pamby thing called 'compromise' is not understood in Russia," he tells us. Each side. appeals constantly to force. Both sides recognize this fact and. make no complaint about tactics. "Killing is not murder" has become a national political maxim. Here is the way this lawabiding stolid British journalist sizes up the situation. "The throwing of bombs by the revolutionaries, and the meaningless sabreing of the mob by the Cossacks, though repulsive to and beyond the comprehension of people of Western temperament,

Red Russia, by John Foster Fraser. John Lane Co., Cloth, 288 pp., $1.50. The Red Reign, The True Story of an Adventurous Year in Russia, by Kelogg Durland. The Century Co., Cloth, 533 pp., $2.00.

The Revolution in the Baltic Provinces of Russia, by an Active Member of the Lettish Social Democratic Workers' Party. Independent Labor Party, London, Cloth, 98 pp., 1 Shilling 6 Pence.

are perfectly in accordance with the aim of the rival parties within the Empire **Not one-tenth of the atrocities perpetrated in Russia ever reaches the English papers. I am fairly sure the public at home are shocked and horror stricken at the telegraphic information sent. The Russians themselves are not shocked; stories of atrocious deeds excite them no more than incidents in a novel; the report of an assassination by bomb is regarded very much as an astute and successful move in chess."

Of conditions in Warsaw, he says, "Life is one long thrill. There is no telling when a bomb will be thrown or a revolver crack, or Cossacks come swinging along whacking all with their swords, or when you may be arrested, or when a policeman, with the instant conviction there is something suspicious about your appearance, may smash in your face with the butt end of his pistol, and a soldier crack your ribs with a blow from his gun."

All agree that the Jews are the most active revolutionists, and all agree that the pogroms, or Jewish massacres are organized by the government. In this work the new organization of "The Black Hundred" plays a prominent part. Fraser describes this organization by the following comparison with a well known English political organization: "If suddenly the Primrose League ceased to be illumined by the graceful presence of dame presidents and was flooded with the riff-raff of the populace, who got money from somewhere, spent their days. drinking at Soho cafes, went forth at night and killed foreigners and smashed Radicals into senseless pulp, while the police stood on one side and grinned -you would again get near a parallel with the Russian Black Hundred."

His idea of the peasant is superficial (as indeed of everything else) but striking. "All peasants are revolutionaries. All want a Duma. But they only want a Duma because they believe it will decide they shall have more land than at present."

Everywhere it is the same story. Blood and yet more blood, varied occasionally by famine, and Black Hundred and Pogroms, all but different ways of taking life. In the Caucasus the revolutionary fight is complicated by race battles, equally bloody, and fostered by the government to prevent any union of revolutionists.

When we turn to the work of Kellogg Durland we are confronted with a wholly different presentation of the subject. The author is one of a group of brilliant young American writers including Wm. English Walling, Ernest Poole, Leroy Scott, Arthur Bullard, and some others who with more or less Socialist sympathies, have combined the work of student, socialist, writer and traveler in Russia during the last three years. These men are well equipped for the task before them. They know the