passions of the rulers how this power is used. Success will come to
the State which discovers how to promote pugnacity to the extent
required for external war, but not to the extent which would lead to
domestic dissensions. There is no method by which it can be insured
that rulers shall desire the good of mankind, and therefore there is
no reason to suppose that the power to modify men's emotional nature
would cause progress.

If men desired to diminish rivalry, there is an obvious method. Habits
of power intensify the passion of rivalry; therefore a State in which
power is concentrated will, other things being equal, be more
bellicose than one in which power is diffused. For those who dislike
wars, this is an additional argument against all forms of
dictatorship. But dislike of war is far less common than we used to
suppose; and those who like war can use the same argument to support
dictatorship.




III

BOLSHEVIK CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY


The Bolshevik argument against Parliamentary democracy as a method of
achieving Socialism is a powerful one. My answer to it lies rather in
pointing out what I believe to be fallacies in the Bolshevik method,
from which I conclude that no swift method exists of establishing any
desirable form of Socialism. But let us first see what the Bolshevik