fundamental arrangement of society is the same there as in
other countries, so that the position of the Trade Unions
there must be the same, and, as in other countries they must
be still engaged in augmenting the dinners of their members
at the expense of the dinners of the capitalists which, in the
long run (if that were possible) they would abolish. If, on
the other hand, one believes that social revolution has
actually occurred, to speak of Trades Unions continuing the
struggle in which they conquered something like three years

ago, is to urge them to a sterile fanaticism which has been
neatly described by Professor Santayana as a redoubling of
your effort when you have forgotten your aim.


It 's probably true that the "aim" of the Trades Unions
was more clearly defined in Russia than elsewhere. In
England during the greater part of their history the Trades
Unions have not been in conscious opposition to the State.
In Russia this position was forced on the Trades Unions
almost before they had time to get to work. They were
born, so to speak, with red flags in their hands. They grew
up under circumstances of extreme difficulty and
persecution. From 1905 on they were in decided opposition
to the existing system, and were revolutionary rather than
merely mitigatory organizations.


Before 1905 they were little more than associations for
mutual help, very weak, spending most of their energies in