All this, however, according to the leaders of the Third International, is only a small beginning of the struggle, which must become world-wide before it achieves victory.  In their reply to the Independent Labour Party they say: 

It is probable that upon the throwing off of the chains of the capitalist Governments, the revolutionary proletariat of Europe will meet the resistance of Anglo-Saxon capital in the persons of British and American capitalists who will attempt to blockade it.  It is then possible that the revolutionary proletariat of Europe will rise in union with the peoples of the East and commence a revolutionary struggle, the scene of which will be the entire world, to deal a final blow to British and American capitalism (The Times, July 30, 1920).

The war here prophesied, if it ever takes place, will be one compared to which the late war will come to seem a mere affair of outposts.  Those who realize the destructiveness of the late war, the devastation and impoverishment, the lowering of the level of civilization throughout vast areas, the general increase of hatred and savagery, the letting loose of bestial instincts which had been curbed during peace—­those who realize all this will hesitate to incur inconceivably greater horrors, even if they believe firmly that Communism in itself is much to be desired.  An economic system cannot be considered apart from the population which is to carry it out; and the population resulting from such a world-war as Moscow calmly contemplates would be savage, bloodthirsty and ruthless to an extent that must make any system a mere engine of oppression and cruelty.

This brings us to our third question:  Is the system which Communists regard as their goal likely to result from the adoption of their methods?  This is really the most vital question of the three.

Advocacy of Communism by those who believe in Bolshevik methods rests upon the assumption that there is no slavery except economic slavery, and that when all goods are held in common there must be perfect liberty.  I fear this is a delusion.

There must be administration, there must be officials who control distribution.  These men, in a Communist State, are the repositories of power.  So long as they control the army, they are able, as in Russia at this moment, to wield despotic power even if they are a small minority.  The fact that there is Communism—­to a certain extent—­does not mean that there is liberty.  If the Communism were more complete, it would not necessarily mean more freedom; there would still be certain officials in control of the food supply, and these officials could govern as they pleased so long as they retained the support of the soldiers.  This is not mere theory:  it is the patent lesson of the present condition of Russia.  The Bolshevik theory is that a small minority are to seize power, and are to hold it until Communism is accepted practically universally,