Page:Lars Henning Söderhjelm - The Red Insurrection in Finland in 1918 - tr. Annie Ingebord Fausbøll (1920).djvu/169

 Russian Nihilism, and Terrorism all run into one, in their agitation as well as in their acts. In such circumstances they could not, of course, find any consistent or ideally secure way through political life. They tried for a time to keep within the bounds of a parliamentary party, but failed to do so, and did not thrive within them, although the possibilities of success were greater in Finland's parliament than in any other. They took up arms and resorted to revolution. But even then, when they thought they were following the revolutionary roads marked out by the Russians, they could not act consistently. The revolution was absurd in itself without an economic revolution, but the economic revolution was not feasible. So there they were, power being the only goal they were able to perceive. And when defeat loomed threateningly, they were equally at a loss. They stirred up their own bands against a superior foe, and they themselves fled.

Was then the war of the White a war against the Social Democrats? No, for the Red did not represent the Social Democrats. Was the civil war a class war? Yes, and no. Yes, because the Red Guard was in a manner a class army. No, because the White did not fight the Labour Class as such. The Red Guard was to a certain extent the cuckoo's brood in the nest of the Labour Party. It grew strong within the organisations, attracted all the bad elements, and also swallowed up the better ones. It was the bearer of the Russo-revolutionary traditions of the years 1905–6. It had become intoxicated with the March revolution of 1917. It therefore easily slipped into Bolshevism. When later on it became the determining factor within the Party, it got the additional power over its members—then close upon 200,000 organised working-men. It sacrificed them as unscrupulously as all others. Thus the Labour