19
society only two kinds of relations between classes can exist. The one a state of oppression, maintained by violence (arms, laws, tribunals, etc.), in which the struggle for the liberation of the oppressed classes is confined ta the use of relatively pacific means (whether they be underground er open, anarchic, parliamentary or professional); whilst the other is a state of open struggle between the classes, the Revolution, in which a violent conflict decides which of the two classes will in future be the oppressor and which the oppressed.
When the Finnish bourgeoisie provoked the workers to an open struggle for class supremacy, the workers' party ought to have chosen some clear and definite position; one of these two: either to take up the challenge and engage in a revolutionary struggle for working-class power, or to submit with a struggle to the bourgeoisie, recognising its own weakness and betraying the cause of its class. The Finnish working class party did not decide for one or for the other course. It, did its duty by going into battle, it drew up its forces for the struggle, but it was for a defensive struggle, not for a definite revolutionary fight. It is true that we talked much of revolution, and we actually took part. in a struggle which was by nature revolutionary, but it was with closed eyes that we did so, without being conscious of the meaning of this social revolution. We talked at the same time of democracy and a democratic State, which meant, if anything, that revolution was perforce the very thing to be avoided. Thus the standard of revolution was in reality raised—so that revolution might be avoided.
In our situation that was an enormous mistake. Not that we have understood this, we ought also to recognise it openly, even if we did not do so at the opportune moment. We did not grasp the fact that when the revolution broke out, the workers threw democracy violently aside, blotted it out as a hindrance and a point of no value in their programme. If the workers of Finland had not accepted the challenge thrown down by the bourgeoisie, but had meekly allowed themselves to be beaten, imprisoned and slaughtered, certainly a protecting democratic programme would have been in its place. But on that day in January when the worker raised his hand against his mortal enemy, that hand tore away the democratic rags and tatters which separated them. After that day, to keep up the pretence of
