the Soviets. They are willing to trade with cannibals, to use an expression of Lloyd George. But labor cannot affiliate or associate with cannibals—or with tyrants who rule over labor by the Red Terror and the firing squad.
Whether an anti-labor despotism rules over one of the greatest peoples of the earth may be a matter of indifference to the masters of the British Empire as long as that despotism is willing to meet the Empire half way—and to sign away the title to the territories and natural wealth of the nation. It cannot be a matter of indifference to labor.
Labor's interest in putting forth the truth about the Soviets is in part altruistic. Labor's regard for the welfare of the Russian workers is deep and genuine. But it also knows that if an anti-labor despotism may be made to work in one country—however inefficiently—it will encourage the enemies of labor to try the same methods elsewhere. Moreover, if the Soviets are given a certain permanence and success as "moderates" by the aid of certain governments and financiers they will certainly continue to represent this success to the labor of the world as having come to them from their own efforts as "ultra-revolutionists."
The outward success of the Soviets—with capitalist backing—would cost the capitalists themselves dearly in the end. But labor would pay, and pay heavily from the beginning.
The Soviets may or may not reach a common understanding of real practical importance with cynical imperialists and capitalistic adventurers. There is no possible common ground between Bolshevism and organized labor. Nor will the proposed economic alliance between
