rmanently on all, except a few
fanatics, when a voice was heard calling on the fugitives to rally round
a new banner and carry on the struggle by entirely new methods. The
voice came from a revolutionologist (if I may use such a term) of
remarkable talent, called M. Plekhanof, who had settled in Geneva with
a little circle of friends, calling themselves the "Labour Emancipation
Group." His views were expounded in a series of interesting
publications, the first of which was a brochure entitled "Socialism and
the Political Struggle," published in 1883.

According to M. Plekhanof and his group the revolutionary movement had
been conducted up to that moment on altogether wrong lines. All previous
revolutionary groups had acted on the assumption that the political
revolution and the economic reorganisation of society must be effected
simultaneously, and consequently they had rejected contemptuously all
proposals for reforms, however radical, of a merely political kind.
These had been considered, as I have mentioned in a previous chapter,
not only as worthless, but as positively prejudicial to the interests
of the working classes, because so-called political liberties and
parliamentary government would be sure to consolidate the domination of
the bourgeoisie. That such has generally been the immediate effect of
parliamentary institutions is undeniable, but it did not follow that the
creation of such institutions should be opposed. On the contrary, they
ought to be welcomed, not merely because, as some revolutionists had
already pointed out, propaganda and agitation could be more easily
carried on under a constitutional regime, but because constitutionalism
is certainly the most convenient, and perhaps the only, road by which
the socialistic ideal can ultimately be attained. This is a dark saying,
but it will become clearer when I have explained, according to the new
apostles, a second error into which their predecessors had fallen.

That second error was the assumption that all true friends of the
people, whether Conservatives, Liberals, or revolutionaries, ought to
oppose to the utmost the development of capitalism. In the light of Karl
Marx's discoveries in economic science every one must recognise this to
be an egregious mistake. That great authority, it was said, had proved
that the development of capitalism was irresistible, and his conclusions
had been confirmed by the recent history of Russia, for all the economic
pro